 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2007Cali siezing more cars on accusations alone!
Looks like a cop wanted to get himself a corvette: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2113.asp Police in San Joaquin County, California grabbed nineteen cars on Sunday belonging to motorists in the cities Stockton, Lodi and Tracy. The cars were taken for thirty days under the recently re-enacted sideshow law not because anyone was caught street racing or driving "aggressively" at 7am on a Sunday, but because of allegations that are over a year old. (View sideshow law) For example, police grabbed a 2000 Corvette belonging to Evelyn Chavez, 22, because Stockton police Officer Pete Smith claimed he saw her vehicle racing on Austin Road -- in 2006. "If I was racing why didn't I get pulled over?" Chavez asked the Stockton Record newspaper. <...> The burden of proof now falls on Chavez to convince a city employee assigned as a hearing officer that she was innocent over a year ago. The hearing officer is not bound by the rules of evidence and will declare the motorist guilty if it is "likely" that the crime was committed. If declared guilty, Chavez will have to pay Stockton $1000 on January 10 or the city will auction her car and pocket the proceeds. http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071210/A_NEWS/712100318 <picture of yellow corvette being towed> <...> Some owners were upset their vehicles could be taken despite what they called a lack of evidence. "They don't have any videos of me," objected Edzequiel Buligon of Stockton whose heavily customized Dodge Neon was towed. Buligon said his car is modified only because he likes the way it looks, and that when he races, he does so legally, at the Sacramento Raceway Park. <...> The law, authored by State Senate Leader Don Perata, D-East Bay, further stipulates that owners can retrieve their vehicles free of charge before the 30 days are up if they can prove they were not involved or aware the vehicle was being used in illegal activity. <...> ------------------------- Life in the new soviet amerika. The state can accuse of a crime when ever it wants, without evidence, even if it says the crime occured in the distant past, you are then punished starting with being accused only to have the punishment lessoned if you can prove to an unelected, unaccountable government employee that you are completely and totally inoccent. It's the 12th century again legally speaking. this is pre-magna-carta type stuff. Your corvette isn't even safe in the garage, Scott. Some cop might fancy himself a yellow corvette and just go through the registration database and then decide your car is to be siezed. He'll just make an accusation he saw you street racing 15 months ago and you'll have to prove you were not. >Your corvette isn't even safe in the garage, Scott. Some cop might fancy >himself a yellow corvette and just go through the registration database >and then decide your car is to be siezed. He'll just make an accusation >he saw you street racing 15 months ago and you'll have to prove you were >not. Whatever you say, Franz. >>Your corvette isn't even safe in the garage, Scott. Some cop might fancy >>himself a yellow corvette and just go through the registration database [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Whatever you say, Franz. It's not what I say, but what your local PD say. The next cop might just mark down in his log that you were street racing instead of telling you to slow it down.... say when you accelerate to escape the sloths. some months later they show up to take your car. Or do you think they just won't come for you? > >>Your corvette isn't even safe in the garage, Scott. Some cop might fancy > >>himself a yellow corvette and just go through the registration database [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Or do you think they just won't come for you? I'll respond to this, even though Scott will probably also respond later. Brent, listen to a police scanner sometime. They usually report a vehicle type, a plate number, and the suspected behavior. At that time, I'd expect that the plates of such vehicles are probably logged. As such, if they report two vehicles, side by side, rapidly weaving through traffic, speeds suspected over 100mph, and their plate numbers... chances are really good those vehicles are street racing. Similarly, if they report one vehicle, rapidly weaving through traffic, speeds over 100mph, and the plate number... chances are good that if the vehicle is stock, it may be reckless driving due to an emergency. But, if the vehicle is heavily modified so as to resemble a street racing vehicle (i.e., extra high spoiler wing, gutted catalytic converter plus fart can muffler and extra wide exhaust pipe)... chances are really good that the single vehicle is still racing, even without the second car. Finally, if they find a street racing scene with 10 street racers, catch 2 of them but at least get the other 8 plates of the other participants, those 8 would be dealt with later on, even though they think they "got away with it" at the time the left the racing scene. >> It's not what I say, but what your local PD say. The next cop might just >> mark down in his log that you were street racing instead of telling you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Brent, listen to a police scanner sometime. I smell a trivial semantic complaint coming.... > They usually report a vehicle type, a plate number, and the suspected > behavior. At that time, I'd expect that the plates of such vehicles are > probably logged. yep... a trivial procedure difference. congrats. > As such, if they report two vehicles, side by side, rapidly weaving through > traffic, speeds suspected over 100mph, and their plate numbers... chances > are really good those vehicles are street racing. I've had people racing me, but I wasn't racing them.... that would suck to lose my car cause someone got competitive. > Similarly, if they report one vehicle, rapidly weaving through traffic, > speeds over 100mph, and the plate number... chances are good that if the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > muffler and extra wide exhaust pipe)... chances are really good that the > single vehicle is still racing, even without the second car. That's nice.... but this boils down to 'trust the cop' and 'trust your government'. Neither can be. > Finally, if they find a street racing scene with 10 street racers, catch 2 > of them but at least get the other 8 plates of the other participants, those > 8 would be dealt with later on, even though they think they "got away with > it" at the time the left the racing scene. Again, you assume trust is well placed in authority. It's not. To get rid of due process and send law back to the 12th century because you don't like street racing is extremely dangerous. >>>Your corvette isn't even safe in the garage, Scott. Some cop might fancy >>>himself a yellow corvette and just go through the registration database [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >to slow it down.... say when you accelerate to escape the sloths. some >months later they show up to take your car. When they do, I give you permission to gloat. :) >Or do you think they just won't come for you? No, I don't think they will, because I nether participate in nor spectate at street races. Maybe if you can show me some evidence of an INNOCENT person having their car impounded, then perhaps I'll start to worry. >>Or do you think they just won't come for you? > No, I don't think they will, because I nether participate in nor > spectate at street races. Maybe if you can show me some evidence of an > INNOCENT person having their car impounded, then perhaps I'll start to > worry. Well they are all guilty of something in the eyes of the police and the government you trust. Everytime the government cannot prove it's case you assume the government is correct. the same government that cheats us with RLCs, the same government that intentionally sets the speed limit well below what is proven safe, the same government that cheats people at every turn. But they won't cheat people here? no, not with the laws designed to go after the people you object to... take their rights away and you're fine with it. You don't think they'll ever turn that 'tool' of law you gave them on you? You're fooling yourself. As to showing an innocent person, I'll say the one in the article who's yellow corvette was taken. If what she did was so horrible, why wasn't she even pulled over? They just wait about a year to come take her car after whatever the cop claims is long forgotten? That's bullshit and smells even worse than bullshit. >>>Or do you think they just won't come for you? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >yellow corvette was taken. If what she did was so horrible, why wasn't >she even pulled over? They explained that in the article: too many racers, not enough cops to catch them all immediately. Lots of crimes are investigated for months or even years before warrants are issued and the perps are hauled in. And there WERE warrants issued; this is not just some rogue cop who decided he wanted a cheap Corvette - unless you are about to claim that the judge was in on the scheme? BTW, you'll notice that she doesn't deny that she participated in/spectated at street races... > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:31:31 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > cop who decided he wanted a cheap Corvette - unless you are about to > claim that the judge was in on the scheme? Brent would...but it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. > BTW, you'll notice that she doesn't deny that she participated > in/spectated at street races... If I read the info on the law right, all someone has to do is happen to be in the area at the time to be guilty by association. Just like the schools back in my educational time when you could be guilty of drinking merely by being seen with a group of drinkers, and not have a thing in your hands. > If I read the info on the law right, all someone has to do is happen > to be in the area at the time to be guilty by association. Just like > the schools back in my educational time when you could be guilty of > drinking merely by being seen with a group of drinkers, and not have a > thing in your hands. That's what we are getting, a parental government. And as children of the government we have no freedom, no liberty.... we become property of the government. It will be just like the school system, which of course isn't similiar to the prison system. >>>>Or do you think they just won't come for you? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They explained that in the article: too many racers, not enough cops > to catch them all immediately. Government always has an excuse for flushing our liberty down the toilet. Trouble is too many people accept it. > Lots of crimes are investigated for > months or even years before warrants are issued and the perps are > hauled in. In what states does a cop see a murder committed, can clearly identify the murderer and then they 'investigate' for a year and then arrest the perp with a cop as an eye witness? > And there WERE warrants issued; this is not just some rogue > cop who decided he wanted a cheap Corvette - unless you are about to > claim that the judge was in on the scheme? So what? The warrant is based on nothing more than accusation from a cop, no evidence and then there's no justice, just an andminstrative hearing where one is guilty by default and has to prove innocence. That's just plain wrong. If they get away with this, why won't they expand it? > BTW, you'll notice that she doesn't deny that she participated > in/spectated at street races... So why don't you support RLCs? Afterall, you apparently think the government is honest. >>>>Your corvette isn't even safe in the garage, Scott. Some cop might fancy >>>>himself a yellow corvette and just go through the registration database [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >When they do, I give you permission to gloat. :) So, which will your reaction be? 1) Admit Brent and Nate and myself were right all along? or 2) Be hypocritically indignant about your treatment while not changing your position? or 3) Become convinced of your own guilt, as with Parsons in 1984? or 4) Blame your teenaged son, despite his perfect alibi? >No, I don't think they will, because I nether participate in nor >spectate at street races. Maybe if you can show me some evidence of an >INNOCENT person having their car impounded, then perhaps I'll start to >worry. Since in your mind (as in the law) accusation is proof of guilt, you can't be convinced that way.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>>Your corvette isn't even safe in the garage, Scott. Some cop might fancy >>>>>himself a yellow corvette and just go through the registration database [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >1) Admit Brent and Nate and myself were right all along? When I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong. > Looks like a cop wanted to get himself a corvette: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > declared guilty, Chavez will have to pay Stockton $1000 on January 10 or > the city will auction her car and pocket the proceeds. http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071210/A_NEWS/712100318 > <picture of yellow corvette being towed> > <...> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > he saw you street racing 15 months ago and you'll have to prove you were > not. From the first article, which also includes the full text of the Sideshow law, why wasn't this part of the actual Sideshow law quoted? "This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to protect the public from the consequences of reckless driving on a highway or in an offstreet parking facility and exhibitions of speed on a highway at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately." From the second article, why weren't these parts of the article quoted? "Smith said the answer is that there are a lot of cars at sideshows and street racing events, and officers see more than they can safely catch. "They deal with what they can," Smith said. "Just because you fled the scene doesn't mean you got away with it." To me, it's clear that they are going after high speed drivers suspected of street racing, not just seizing any vehicle they see fit to seize. If and when the seizures become arbitrary, then there is a point that can be made. Until then, this is a great deterrent for street racing and also for modifying otherwise stock vehicles to the point where they would also be street racing cars. On Dec 10, 11:25 am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > Looks like a cop wanted to get himself a corvette: > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > To me, it's clear that they are going after high speed drivers suspected of > street racing, not just seizing any vehicle they see fit to seize. Key word: suspected. Unless you can *prove* street racing, I'll thank the police to keep their grubby paws off my ride. > If and when the seizures become arbitrary, then there is a point that can be > made. Until then, this is a great deterrent for street racing and also for > modifying otherwise stock vehicles to the point where they would also be > street racing cars. Prove that this isn't arbitrary. Prove that modifying a car so that it "might" be used for street racing is illegal. nate > On Dec 10, 11:25 am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Key word: suspected. Speeds over 100mph and weaving through traffic lanes, especially with a vehicle modified for street racing, more than likely indicates street racing type driving. So does doing drifting in parking lots, and especially doing donuts (circular tire skids). There is also a big difference between accidentally squealing wheels as when the pavement is wet vs. launching a vehicle when the light turns green. In the former, the wheels squeal and the vehicle remains relatively stationary and the careful driver usually lets off the accelerator when this occurs. In the latter, the wheels squeal as the vehicle is still in motion and the driver is still in constant acceleration as they are more than likely flooring the accelerator pedal. > Unless you can *prove* street racing, I'll thank the police to keep > their grubby paws off my ride. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Prove that modifying a car so that it "might" be used for street > racing is illegal. Gutted catlytic converters easily violate California emissions laws. Fart can mufflers with extra large exhaust pipes make the vehicles louder than stock mufflers and stock exhaust pipes, even if the fart can muffler makes the noise a higher pitch. On Dec 10, 12:01 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > On Dec 10, 11:25 am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > > <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > type driving. So does doing drifting in parking lots, and especially doing > donuts (circular tire skids). OK, fine. But where is the proof that the vehicles seized were engaged in such activity? > There is also a big difference between accidentally squealing wheels as when > the pavement is wet vs. launching a vehicle when the light turns green. In [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > driver is still in constant acceleration as they are more than likely > flooring the accelerator pedal. Sure. But again, I haven't seen any proof where the owners of the vehicles seized were engaged in such activity - only that they were *accused* of same. > > Unless you can *prove* street racing, I'll thank the police to keep > > their grubby paws off my ride. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Gutted catlytic converters easily violate California emissions laws. OK, but there's no evidence that any of the vehicles seized had gutted cats. > Fart > can mufflers with extra large exhaust pipes make the vehicles louder than > stock mufflers and stock exhaust pipes, even if the fart can muffler makes > the noise a higher pitch. Yeah, so? Unless you can prove that the vehicle is illegally loud, there's no problem, and merely the presence of an aftermarket exhaust system is evidence of nothing other than that the vehicle is equipped with an aftermarket exhaust system. This discussion is starting to sound like all the discussions about 55 MPH Interstate speed limits, short-timed lights at RLCs etc... how much is it going to take to make people realize that there has been a huge paradigm shift away from "safety" and towards "catching violators?" nate >> Speeds over 100mph and weaving through traffic lanes, especially with a >> vehicle modified for street racing, more than likely indicates street racing [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >vehicles seized were engaged in such activity - only that they were >*accused* of same. Please bear in mind that we're hearing about this throught the "mainstream media" filter, which tends to remove most of the useful facts from the information stream and instead focuses on the sensational aspects of the story. No doubt there is more evidence in this case than is being reported to the public. >>> Speeds over 100mph and weaving through traffic lanes, especially with a >>> vehicle modified for street racing, more than likely indicates street racing [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>vehicles seized were engaged in such activity - only that they were >>*accused* of same. > Please bear in mind that we're hearing about this throught the > "mainstream media" filter, which tends to remove most of the useful > facts from the information stream and instead focuses on the > sensational aspects of the story. No doubt there is more evidence in > this case than is being reported to the public. We've seen the text of the law Scott. The government doesn't need evidence, just the cops' opinion. It's not a court of law, it's an adminstrative hearing. There's no justice or innocent until proven guilty or anything of the sort. > >> Speeds over 100mph and weaving through traffic lanes, especially with a > >> vehicle modified for street racing, more than likely indicates street racing [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > sensational aspects of the story. No doubt there is more evidence in > this case than is being reported to the public. From TFA it appears that vehicles were seized because their owners were accused of committing a crime. The vehicles were seized before any sort of trial or hearing. That should be all you need to know to get outraged. If you've got any evidence that this isn't how this went down, please present it, but TFA is pretty clear about those facts. nate >> Please bear in mind that we're hearing about this throught the >> "mainstream media" filter, which tends to remove most of the useful [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >were accused of committing a crime. The vehicles were seized before >any sort of trial or hearing. Happens all the time. Try getting arrested for DUI sometime - in California they will throw you in the drunk tank, take away your driver's license, and impound your car for up to 30 days - all right there by the side of the road at 4 AM. At least with the street racers they had enough evidence beforehand to convince a judge to issue a seisure warrant. > >> Please bear in mind that we're hearing about this throught the > >> "mainstream media" filter, which tends to remove most of the useful [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > driver's license, and impound your car for up to 30 days - all right > there by the side of the road at 4 AM. Um, no thanks. Doesn't sound like my idea of a fun party. > At least with the street racers they had enough evidence beforehand to > convince a judge to issue a seisure warrant. And you guys put up with this sh.t? How come you haven't revolted or something yet? nate >> At least with the street racers they had enough evidence beforehand to >> convince a judge to issue a seisure warrant. > >And you guys put up with this sh.t? How come you haven't revolted or >something yet? You mean it's different where you live? > >> At least with the street racers they had enough evidence beforehand to > >> convince a judge to issue a seisure warrant. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You mean it's different where you live? Yes, aside from the federal drug seizure laws (which are bullshit as well.) Most civilized people don't have to worry about their posessions being taken simply because they are *accused* of a crime. nate >> >> At least with the street racers they had enough evidence beforehand to >> >> convince a judge to issue a seisure warrant. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Yes, aside from the federal drug seizure laws (which are bullshit as >well.) Can you cite the relevant statutes for, say, DUI? Or driving without insurance? >>> >> At least with the street racers they had enough evidence beforehand to >>> >> convince a judge to issue a seisure warrant. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Can you cite the relevant statutes for, say, DUI? Or driving without > insurance? And they say incrementalism is the realm of kooks and consipracy theorists... >>> Please bear in mind that we're hearing about this throught the >>> "mainstream media" filter, which tends to remove most of the useful [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Happens all the time. So you just accept it now. See the conditioning has worked on you. > Try getting arrested for DUI sometime - in > California they will throw you in the drunk tank, take away your > driver's license, and impound your car for up to 30 days - all right > there by the side of the road at 4 AM. And it is entirely wrong. > At least with the street racers they had enough evidence beforehand to > convince a judge to issue a seisure warrant. Read the f.cking law, there doesn't have to be any evidence what so ever. It's cop say so. >Speeds over 100mph and weaving through traffic lanes, especially with a >vehicle modified for street racing, more than likely indicates street racing >type driving. So does doing drifting in parking lots, and especially doing >donuts (circular tire skids). Eh? Drifting in parking lots and doing donuts are done for their own sake, not as "street racing type driving". They aren't competitions. Sometimes they are exhibitions, but not always. >There is also a big difference between accidentally squealing wheels as when >the pavement is wet vs. launching a vehicle when the light turns green. Yes, but the cops are permitted to ignore this distinction. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > From the first article, which also includes the full text of the Sideshow > law, why wasn't this part of the actual Sideshow law quoted? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > exhibitions of speed on a highway at the earliest possible time, it is > necessary that this act take effect immediately." Because the excuse used is simply that, an excuse. There is no good reason to go back to things like guilty until proven innocent and getting rid of jury trials, hell even trials period. My point is that this violates our basic rights. It's simply gives the government the ability to take the property of anyone of its choosing. Remember the property is taken and then the accused has to prove his innocence to a government employee, not even a judge, but someone who is employeed by the government really no different than a clerk that processes your water bill payment. It is a wrong headed system. It's in total violation of the principles of the US of A. > From the second article, why weren't these parts of the article quoted? So you're objection is that I focused on the loss of our rights instead of the excuses given by the government? The government can ALWAYS come up with an excuse as to why it should have more power and should be able to extinguish liberty. It will point to some objectionable behavior or make a scary monster out of something or both to justify a new power. > "Smith said the answer is that there are a lot of cars at sideshows and > street racing events, and officers see more than they can safely catch. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > To me, it's clear that they are going after high speed drivers suspected of > street racing, not just seizing any vehicle they see fit to seize. So you trust them. Why? Where is the track record of being able to trust government? There is none. Government always becomes corrupt without checks on their behavior. Where is the check here? There isn't one.The accused is automatically guilty for crying out loud. > If and when the seizures become arbitrary, then there is a point that can be > made. Until then, this is a great deterrent for street racing and also for > modifying otherwise stock vehicles to the point where they would also be > street racing cars. You don't give government arbitary power! It WILL be abused. That is what happens. 6000 years of history should have sent that lesson to everyone. Why do people fall for the same crap? Why do they refuse to learn? I don't have to wait until the seizures become arbitary to know this is bad. Murder is a lot worse than spinning tires... how about we get rid of trials before locking people up for life? >> Looks like a cop wanted to get himself a corvette: >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >exhibitions of speed on a highway at the earliest possible time, it is >necessary that this act take effect immediately." That's standard boilerplate to get around a constitutional or charter requirement of a waiting period between a law's passage and when it takes effect. >To me, it's clear that they are going after high speed drivers suspected of >street racing, not just seizing any vehicle they see fit to seize. They seized a car in late 2007 for suspected street racing which allegedly occurred in 2006 (but no arrest or ticketing resulted) How many violations of the Constitution are involved here? Off the top of my head: * Ex Post Facto law -- the sideshow law took effect in November 2007, the alleged racing in 2006 * Speedy trial -- the police were allegedly aware of the street racing since 2006, and took no action until late 2007. * Due process -- the standard of proof is likelyhood of guilt, not proof beyond reasonable doubt * Due process -- the motorist is required to prove her innocence. * Due process -- the motorist is not granted a trial by jury * Due process -- the law allows deprivation of liberty and property on a peace officer's unsubstantiated "determination". >If and when the seizures become arbitrary, then there is a point that can be >made. How about if they are capricious? >Until then, this is a great deterrent for street racing and also for >modifying otherwise stock vehicles to the point where they would also be >street racing cars. Since no modification of a vehicle is either necessary or sufficient to make it a "street racing" cars, this simply makes zero sense. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Life in the new soviet amerika. The state can accuse of a crime when > ever it wants, without evidence, even if it says the crime occured in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > accusation he saw you street racing 15 months ago and you'll have to > prove you were not. Lots of people get convicted of crimes based on accusations alone. Nothing new about that. Anyway, highway racers are kid killers and have no rights. >>Life in the new soviet amerika. The state can accuse of a crime when >>ever it wants, without evidence, even if it says the crime occured in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Lots of people get convicted of crimes based on accusations alone. Nothing > new about that. Anyway, highway racers are kid killers and have no rights. How about people accused of street racing but who really weren't? How about them? a.shole. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel SFB spewed: > Lots of people get convicted of crimes based on accusations alone. Nothing > new about that. Anyway, highway racers are kid killers and have no rights. And what are you going to do when they try to sieze that beater of yours, you goat molester? You gonna kick the cop in the teeth? Signature-- Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend (a.k.a. SADDAM) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj >SFB spewed: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And what are you going to do when they try to sieze that beater of >yours, you goat molester? You gonna kick the cop in the teeth? My bet is that SADDAM will be on it's knees (for at LEAST 3 reasons I can think of) in front of the officer in charge. -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy > Looks like a cop wanted to get himself a corvette: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 22, because Stockton police Officer Pete Smith claimed he saw her vehicle > racing on Austin Road -- in 2006. No doubt the Stockton PD motor pool will have a nice addition to its unmarked fleet. These vehicles are in high demand for conducting sting operations. Our local cops like to have nice rides whenever they grab a few grand of petty cash and head down to the local strip clubs to check that lap dances comply with local ordinances. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ "A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his client to plant vines." -- Frank Lloyd Wright |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.