Imagine the following situation:
You are going 45 in a 40, on your way to an important meeting. All of a sudden, you see those dreaded blue and red lights in your mirror. Shit, you are going to be late. The cop pulls you over and tells you that you were speeding. You explain the situation, and then he lets you off with a warning. Most of us would be happy about this, and we would probably even brag. That is not how a mayor in Warren, Michigan responded to it however. (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_7735/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=HFAgurKX)
So, this mayor decided that he felt guilty not getting the ticket, and so he decided to call the cops and request one. He figured that it could be seen as favoritism, and thus he made the proper choice I know, most of us would think that this dude was batshit insane, but, frankly, it is good that he took the punishment that he deserved.
Most of us get mad when we are punished. We feel that we don't deserve it, that they were waiting just for us, and/or that the Government is out to get us. Personal responsibility is usually thrown out of the window, and that is what happens with tickets normally. In this case, however, the Mayor knew that he was responsible, and he made sure to suffer what he sowed. I really like the fact that a person was so concerned with right and wrong that he requested the proper punishment. This dude rocks
Even more impressive is that this comes from a politician. Far too often, our 'leader' decide that they are above the law. A simply look at Blago, Clinton, Bush, or Spitzer shows this trend. Finally there is a politician, though he is only a small town mayor, that is standing up and doing the proper, and moral thing. All the power to him. I believe that this mayor should run for Govenor.
Read more ...
Showing posts with label ticket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ticket. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2009
Friday, December 5, 2008
PETA and an Ohio City’s Fireworks... and... A Cop and a Pregnant Lady
Today I bring you two short blurbs from my thoughts. One is local, dealing with PETA and their proposal to the town of Pickerington. The other is from Boston, where a cop ticketed a pregnant lady. Enjoy, and make sure to comment!
Recently, the city of Pickerington in central Ohio announced that they needed to cut 1.4million dollars from their annual budget. In this time with tightening budgets and belts, the announcement was nothing surprising, and is actually quite typical as cities in the rust belt start to lose citizens. What is interesting, however, is the fact that Pickerington was planning on eliminating their 28,000$ fireworks display that they have annually on July 4th. After public debate and the like, they started to look for a way to still have their public celebration, but without the cost.
Enter PETA.
As many of you know, I really do not like PETA. They are a group that enables terrorists, and even funds them. Plus, they have crazy ideas and they lie outright. That said, PETA offered to help the city by contributing $1,000 if they do a laser light show instead of the traditional fireworks.
While this money does nothing to help the budget issues, it does give the city a nice alternative that is cheaper than the fireworks. Now, I have no issue with changing the display to lasers, nor do I have an issue with making the display dog-friendly. Hell, I think that this is a great idea, provided they find a way to reproduce the loud bangs. My problem is with the idea that Pickerington might accept this money from PETA. Our government, no matter what level, should not accept monies from groups that violate the law, tell others to, or outright lie. I think that Pickerington should change their display methods, but they should leave the money with PETA.
Over in the great state of Massachusetts there is an interesting story emerging about a cop ticketing a couple rushing to the hospital to deliver their new kid. The couple was rushing to Boston and needed to drive on the shoulder to get around the gridlock of rush hour. After being waved on by two other cops, a third ticketed them. This has created a lot of controversy, and has had a lot of people call for the cops badge.
I think those people are morons.
Here is the deal, you endanger your kid by not going to a local hospital (for personal preference, no real reason), you don’t call an ambulance, you refuse the cops offer to get you one TWICE, and you then violate the law by driving on the shoulder. Then you have the nerve to complain, and think that the cop should get in trouble. That is bull, pure and simple. The cop was doing his job, unlike the other two, and was probably trying to protect the public. The couple put others lives at risk because they were far to self centered to think about others.
I am happy that the baby was born healthy, and I am happy that nobody go hurt, but I am appalled at the parents actions, the two cops actions, and the people demanding the cop is fired. This reminds me of Palin flying back to Alaska just to give birth. The parents were absurd
Moral of the story, get a ambulance next time and stay near the hospital you want to give birth in. Oh, and I hope that the cop gets a promotion. Read more ...
Recently, the city of Pickerington in central Ohio announced that they needed to cut 1.4million dollars from their annual budget. In this time with tightening budgets and belts, the announcement was nothing surprising, and is actually quite typical as cities in the rust belt start to lose citizens. What is interesting, however, is the fact that Pickerington was planning on eliminating their 28,000$ fireworks display that they have annually on July 4th. After public debate and the like, they started to look for a way to still have their public celebration, but without the cost.
Enter PETA.
As many of you know, I really do not like PETA. They are a group that enables terrorists, and even funds them. Plus, they have crazy ideas and they lie outright. That said, PETA offered to help the city by contributing $1,000 if they do a laser light show instead of the traditional fireworks.
While this money does nothing to help the budget issues, it does give the city a nice alternative that is cheaper than the fireworks. Now, I have no issue with changing the display to lasers, nor do I have an issue with making the display dog-friendly. Hell, I think that this is a great idea, provided they find a way to reproduce the loud bangs. My problem is with the idea that Pickerington might accept this money from PETA. Our government, no matter what level, should not accept monies from groups that violate the law, tell others to, or outright lie. I think that Pickerington should change their display methods, but they should leave the money with PETA.
Over in the great state of Massachusetts there is an interesting story emerging about a cop ticketing a couple rushing to the hospital to deliver their new kid. The couple was rushing to Boston and needed to drive on the shoulder to get around the gridlock of rush hour. After being waved on by two other cops, a third ticketed them. This has created a lot of controversy, and has had a lot of people call for the cops badge.
I think those people are morons.
Here is the deal, you endanger your kid by not going to a local hospital (for personal preference, no real reason), you don’t call an ambulance, you refuse the cops offer to get you one TWICE, and you then violate the law by driving on the shoulder. Then you have the nerve to complain, and think that the cop should get in trouble. That is bull, pure and simple. The cop was doing his job, unlike the other two, and was probably trying to protect the public. The couple put others lives at risk because they were far to self centered to think about others.
I am happy that the baby was born healthy, and I am happy that nobody go hurt, but I am appalled at the parents actions, the two cops actions, and the people demanding the cop is fired. This reminds me of Palin flying back to Alaska just to give birth. The parents were absurd
Moral of the story, get a ambulance next time and stay near the hospital you want to give birth in. Oh, and I hope that the cop gets a promotion. Read more ...
Monday, August 25, 2008
I Hear That Change in Your Pocket Going Ching-A-Ling-A-Ling
Post 47
*MAP UPDATE*
Over the last week it looks like Obama regained control in the state of Colorado. McCain, however, then took control of Indiana while reinforcing his ground in Ohio. McCain also gained ground, though did not take the lead, in both New Mexico and New Hampshire. If New Hampshire switched, with all other states remaining the same, then we would have a 269-269 tie. The overall outlook nationally is +1.8 points for Obama.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*
So, I had been planning on making this entry about Biden being chosen as Obama's running mate but decided to trump Lisa over at GCJ with this story today. Biden SHOULD be up by this coming Wednesday. Enjoy
So, I was looking through the AP Wire on my IPhone on Saturday and came upon a funny story in the local news section of it; it appears as though a court in Ohio refused to accept a 'heavy fine payment'. The fine payment happens to be for speeding tickets and is being paid for in pennies. Now, after I stopped laughing and cleaned up everything I threw around when convulsing I started to think about this. I think that there are several things wrong with the court not accepting this payment. Amongst them, the three most prevalent are: You were not specific - This is legal tender - Your precedent sucks. Frankly, I think that the court should be required to accept this mans payment, or, deny taking it but count it as being paid. I really have nothing that grinds my gears to end this paragraph though... damn.
You Were Not Specific:
When a court makes an order of any sort they are usually quite specific. If they are asking for property back they will ask for specific property - you stole a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista they expect a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista returned. Courts rarely leave this sort of thing up in the air. If a court asks for payment in cash, credit, or check then they should expect payment in cash, credit, or check. If the court just asks for payment in anything they should expect payment in anything. This is the fundamental problem of this decision to avoid accepting the payment; the court was not specific enough. Unless they ordered the payment to be specific they have NO RIGHT to require it to change AFTER THE FACT. Hopefully the court learned from this mistake.
This Is Legal Tender:
If the defendant had come in and paid with Canadian Pennies or Euros the court would have had the right, no, the duty, to refuse his payment (though why they would, when those are worth more, is unknown). However, the man came in and paid his fees with what is considered legal tender in the United States. In fact, the Coinage act of 1965 says:
Your Precedent Sucks:
While discussing this case with Lisa from GCJ she sent me a link to some precedent that the court could use to defend itself. In _State v. Carroll_, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.), the courts ruled that:
The problem with this ruling is that it uses no case law from before and actually overrides several cases in other states. I understand the concept of a reasonable procedure for time place and manner but can not understand how pennies fit any of these three categories. You can close shop at 5 and open at 9, you can say it needs to be sent to a certain address, and you can even say that it should be paid in certain coins - BUT, unless you say that in the order, you have NO RIGHT to change your mind AFTER THE FACT. I don't care if an earlier court said that you could, this is illogical and a gross overstepping of the courts bounds.
This decision throws common sense out the window as it allows the courts to change their orders on the whim of the judges and secretaries. It also creates precedent that allows the courts to challenge FEDERAL STATUTES THAT ARE FEDERAL ONLY.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
*MAP UPDATE*
Over the last week it looks like Obama regained control in the state of Colorado. McCain, however, then took control of Indiana while reinforcing his ground in Ohio. McCain also gained ground, though did not take the lead, in both New Mexico and New Hampshire. If New Hampshire switched, with all other states remaining the same, then we would have a 269-269 tie. The overall outlook nationally is +1.8 points for Obama.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*
So, I had been planning on making this entry about Biden being chosen as Obama's running mate but decided to trump Lisa over at GCJ with this story today. Biden SHOULD be up by this coming Wednesday. Enjoy
So, I was looking through the AP Wire on my IPhone on Saturday and came upon a funny story in the local news section of it; it appears as though a court in Ohio refused to accept a 'heavy fine payment'. The fine payment happens to be for speeding tickets and is being paid for in pennies. Now, after I stopped laughing and cleaned up everything I threw around when convulsing I started to think about this. I think that there are several things wrong with the court not accepting this payment. Amongst them, the three most prevalent are: You were not specific - This is legal tender - Your precedent sucks. Frankly, I think that the court should be required to accept this mans payment, or, deny taking it but count it as being paid. I really have nothing that grinds my gears to end this paragraph though... damn.
You Were Not Specific:
When a court makes an order of any sort they are usually quite specific. If they are asking for property back they will ask for specific property - you stole a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista they expect a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista returned. Courts rarely leave this sort of thing up in the air. If a court asks for payment in cash, credit, or check then they should expect payment in cash, credit, or check. If the court just asks for payment in anything they should expect payment in anything. This is the fundamental problem of this decision to avoid accepting the payment; the court was not specific enough. Unless they ordered the payment to be specific they have NO RIGHT to require it to change AFTER THE FACT. Hopefully the court learned from this mistake.
This Is Legal Tender:
If the defendant had come in and paid with Canadian Pennies or Euros the court would have had the right, no, the duty, to refuse his payment (though why they would, when those are worth more, is unknown). However, the man came in and paid his fees with what is considered legal tender in the United States. In fact, the Coinage act of 1965 says:
“United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”
To me, this clearly shows that these pennies should have been accepted by the court. Now, I understand the courts position; they are saying that there is an unfair undue burden on the court now due to this. However, I also can see that all they need to do is take the pennies to the bank, have them weighed, and then have them converted (for free) into real monies. Unless the court is trying to say that they have the right to determine federal law in currency, they should accept all legal tender.Your Precedent Sucks:
While discussing this case with Lisa from GCJ she sent me a link to some precedent that the court could use to defend itself. In _State v. Carroll_, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.), the courts ruled that:
“"It defies logic and common sense that this Congress intended such a wooden and broad application of the statute beyond the control of the payee regardless of the circumstances." [At 4-5] The Court reasoned that under the law authorizing the clerk to collect and issue receipts for the payment of fines, etc., the clerk could "provide a reasonable procedure for the place, time and manner of accepting fines consistent with the efficient operation of the clerk's office."”
The problem with this ruling is that it uses no case law from before and actually overrides several cases in other states. I understand the concept of a reasonable procedure for time place and manner but can not understand how pennies fit any of these three categories. You can close shop at 5 and open at 9, you can say it needs to be sent to a certain address, and you can even say that it should be paid in certain coins - BUT, unless you say that in the order, you have NO RIGHT to change your mind AFTER THE FACT. I don't care if an earlier court said that you could, this is illogical and a gross overstepping of the courts bounds.
This decision throws common sense out the window as it allows the courts to change their orders on the whim of the judges and secretaries. It also creates precedent that allows the courts to challenge FEDERAL STATUTES THAT ARE FEDERAL ONLY.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
Stumble It!
Read more ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)