Right to Travel Part 100

[mrg]

scatology "...preoccupation with excrement..."

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

I'm not sure that one was Bork's....but I would agree that in the main, people who end up as convicts did whatever it was they were found guilty of under their own power.

Also, I spoke too broadly (and without more contemporary numbers in mind) in the use of the term "vast," but here are the ugly Federal numbers by year on drug infractions:

(S/US = Sentenced and Unsentenced in Custody)
(S = Sentenced)

Year Tot S/US Total S Drug O DrugO%
1970 21,266 20,686 3,384 16.3
1971 20,891 20,529 3,495 17
1972 22,090 20,729 3,523 16.9
1973 23,336 22,038 5,652 25.6
1974 23,690 21,769 6,203 28.4
1975 23,566 20,692 5,540 26.7
1976 27,033 24,135 6,425 26.6
1977 29,877 25,673 6,743 26.2
1978 27,674 23,501 5,981 25.4
1979 24,810 21,539 5,468 25.3
1980 24,252 19,023 4,749 24.9
1981 26,195 19,765 5,076 25.6
1982 28,133 20,938 5,518 26.3
1983 30,214 26,027 7,201 27.6
1984 32,317 27,622 8,152 29.5
1985 36,042 27,623 9,491 34.3
1986 37,542 30,104 11,344 37.7
1987 41,609 33,246 13,897 41.8
1988 41,342 33,758 15,087 44.7
1989 47,568 37,758 18,852 49.9
1990 54,613 46,575 24,297 52.2
1991 61,026 52,176 29,667 56.9
1992 67,768 59,516 35,398 59.5
1993 76,531 68,183 41,393 60.7
1994 82,269 73,958 45,367 61.3
1995 85,865 76,947 46,669 60.7
1996 89,672 80,872 49,096 60.7
1997 95,513 87,294 52,059 59.6
1998 104,507 95,323 55,984 58.7
1999 115,024 104,500 60,399 57.8
2000 123,141 112,329 63,898 56.9
2001 131,419 120,829 67,037 55.5
2002 139,183 128,090 70,009 54.7
2003 148,731 137,536 75,801 55.1
2004 154,706 143,864 77,867 54.1

Obviously, there's been some slight improvement in the percentages since the mid 90's.

What are the statistics regarding the socio-economic status of the majority of the POW's in the War on Drugs?

That is to say, what are the numbers of the POW's that are non-caucasian and poor, compared to the number of POW's that are caucasian and not poor.

What is a "drug infraction?"

Just curious.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by mrg

What are the statistics regarding the socio-economic status of the majority of the POW's in the War on Drugs?
[cut]

What is a "drug infraction?"

Just curious.

a "drug infraction" is when the goobermint wants its part in the form of paid-taxes.

[BOBT12]

I have been contacted through a PM by a member who wants to remain anonymous at this time. I am posting this with the member's permission:

Anyway, my thoughts on the info provided in Shoonra's post, which in part said,

"The US Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of liability insurance or some other form of financial responsibility as a condition for a non-commercial driver's license or car registration in a number of cases:
Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 U.S. 535..." (along with a number of other cites)


There are a couple key comments made by the justice in that Bell decision:
1.Once licenses are issued, as in petitioner's case, their continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood. Suspension of issued licenses thus involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensees.
2. This is but an application of the general proposition that relevant constitutional restraints limit state power to terminate an entitlement whether the entitlement is denominated a "right" or a "privilege." Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (disqualification for unemployment compensation); Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551 (1956) (discharge from public employment);

You probably already know where I'm going with this, but I'll follow through with my thoughts nonetheless.

The petitioner had entered into the realm of commerce by the licensing action, whether he actually belonged in the realm or not (Item 1). By that voluntary action, he is required to abide by all conditions of the "agreement" (license), which included having liability insurance.

It's my opinion that what the court is saying is that regardless of whether the petitioner thinks they are exercising a right or entitlement, the fact is, by the license, that person is now exercising an entitlement without regard to the activity (Item 2) because he entered into the agreement. The interesting thing is that the cites in the case following Item 2 (Sherbert, etc) deal with true entitlements. Privileged receipts for entering into other agreements (such as unemployment and social security payments).

The FOCAL POINT of the Bell case is the application of DUE PROCESS which was brought about because Georgia yanked the (voluntairly applied for) license without proper administrative procedure.

I didn't follow up on the other cases Shoonra posted. But if experience can be relied upon, I believe they will yield more of the same discovery.

*****

[idknow]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

I have been contacted through a PM by a member who wants to remain anonymous at this time. I am posting this with the member's permission:

well, i couldnt get the whole quote,
but it looks like Bob outted the anonymous writer LOL
roflmao

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

As for you JRB, you offer nothing but your opinion. Surely, you can do better than that, can't you? Maybe not! Just more talking down (from the bench) to the People. However, you could convince me with reason, you simply don't try. Please remember you don't have any bailliff's here. REASON STANDS SUPREME!

Reasoning with fools oft has ominous results and frankly, is a friggin waste of this court's time.

What I offer is cold, hard experience. I have said before that these kinds of legal arguments are the equivalent of standing on the sidelines and handing toothpicks to the guy going into a gunfight.

Great fun for the toothpick purveyors but it's a real drag for the sucker who heads into the arena.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Reasoning with fools oft has ominous results and frankly, is a friggin waste of this court's time.

What I offer is cold, hard experience. I have said before that these kinds of legal arguments are the equivalent of standing on the sidelines and handing toothpicks to the guy going into a gunfight.

Great fun for the toothpick purveyors but it's a real drag for the sucker who heads into the arena.

Yes, I get it Judge Roy Bean. Bringing up issues of the constitution(s), supreme court decisions, and common sense are a friggin waste of the court's time.

Although, the only ominous results of using reason, appear to be waking up others who may not be currently aware of the issues at hand, and giving the issue more credibility. This is what, it seems, you want to avoid most of all!

Besides, most judges will not permit this sort of stuff in their court in any case. "Truth" and "Justice" will not see the light of day. Today's court only gives the illusion of fairness and justice in order to keep the public in a state of tranquillity, while they are being fleeced by the government, and to control the competition, freelance criminals.

If the judge must have a jury trial, he won't allow these issues to be raised to the jury. Additionally, the jury has likely been dumbed-down to only believe what they are told on the television news.

I am sure that you have a great deal of cold, hard experience.

However, for all who have eyes to see, we must resist becoming androids that follow faulty rules, codes, or laws that are unjust, harmful, and foolish. You point out how difficult that is. Still, it must be done.

Thanks for your warning.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Fudge Boy Spleen

Reasoning with fools oft has ominous results and frankly, is a friggin waste of this court's time.

What I offer is cold, hard experience. I have said before that these kinds of legal arguments are the equivalent of standing on the sidelines and handing toothpicks to the guy going into a gunfight.

Great fun for the toothpick purveyors but it's a real drag for the sucker who heads into the arena.

You must mean this court Jester's time!!!
Your nothing more than an friggin bully blogger as shown by your Creditorus Squaliformus.
When are you going to stop with your rediculous judge persona (as if anybody on these forums actually believe you're a judge)and come to this forum with something that will actually add to these discussions?

What I offer is cold, hard experience.

When I first came to these forums I thought your posts were somewhat comical now their just sad!
Enough with the hand jobs ! get real!

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

As for you JRB, you offer nothing but your opinion. Surely, you can do better than that, can't you? Maybe not! Just more talking down (from the bench) to the People. However, you could convince me with reason, you simply don't try. Please remember you don't have any bailliff's here. REASON STANDS SUPREME!

BOBT12;
If I may interject here.

If and I said IF Fudge Boy Spleen were really a judge he would only be talking down to the citizens (from the bench) Because we all know that he wouldn't have any Jurisdiction over We the People.
And now People back to some more of JRB's BS! uhh!! excuse me! Scattology.

[BOBT12]

rentiap, wow! roflmao!