Replies

Hi, I'm back - so be gentle. Flew to Kalifornia and back, got the job offer (no SSAN, no withholding, no reporting) The company is going to fly us back here for court appearances in our various cases. btw, I was hired for my legal expertise.

Let me make a few observations and corrections about what has been posted in my absense.

1st, she was not raped by a cop. She was raped by an NCO while she was at the Naval Academy. You inventive sleuths have already confirmed that she attended. This rape was between the plebe and second year. Of course, once CID dropped the charges, the upperclassmen were relentless. She had two plebe years and decided not to go for a third. I thought she toughed that out way too long.

2nd, she pulled over to the side to burp and change sides. The child suckles for about 50 minutes total, so it is not just a loss of 10 minutes or so we are dealing with here. While she did not make the symposium, she still found an expert witness the following weekend by banging on doors at U of M.

3rd, we have the audio and video from the stop. Doles (who pulled her over) calls in to dispatch, saying "She's just looking for a safe spot." Harmon, the supervisor tells her, "We are not charging you with fleeing (sic-Failure to Comply), because we understand your desire to find a safe spot."

Now google up the cop in that area that was very recently convicted of forcing a woman to have sex with him in the back of his unit. We don't make this crap up.

4th, I pay ALL taxes for which I am liable. The roads are built using tolls (in this case) and gasoline taxes (which we pay). Turns out that the three main income taxes are excises. An excise means that you do not pay the tax if you do not engage in the activity. In the case of most people, they pay the FIT, which is actually descendent from the Income Duty of 1862 on foreign and possession earned income; reference taxableincome.net. They might also be presumed to be liable for the Normal Tax of 1922 as amended, an excise on the privilege of government employment. They might also be presumed to be liable for either the Chapter 2 (self employment) or the Chapter 21 (employment FICA) taxes. Turns out this is an excise on the privilege of having your pay covered for the purposes of National Socialism, and I am not required to participate; reference Railroad Retirement Bd v. Alton RR Co.

5th, the original charges are Child Restraint (which are very beatable given the statutes involved), Obstructing Official Business (ostensibly for refusing to provide identification that she provided), and No Valid License (because she gave them privately issued ID rather than the state issued thing).

The prosecutor is going to argue that the Michigan statute does not apply to a driver. Read it, what do you think?

After we filed a counterclaim, the prosecutor filed Failure to Comply (in the face of the potential troopers' testimony above) and Endangering Children (when the child restraint violation cannot be used as evidence).

I will file a motion to dismiss this last charge and we will hear that in a couple of weeks. Then I go after the assistant prosecutor for malice (he should know better than to file a charge where he knows there is no evidence), and against his boss, the county prosecutor, if they have not dropped all of this by that time.

btw We will be in New York on GMA on ABC Wednesday morning. We presume we will not be hitting softballs.

6th, Child restraint laws ALWAYS have exceptions. Your state is no different. If you drive a cab and pick me and my family up from the airport, we will have no child restraint seat and neither will you. Fortunately for you, there is an exception, so you cannot be charged, unless some stupid cop charges you and you stupidly put up with it.

7th, and I think no one has really considered this as much as I think they should. What is the chance that a child in a restraint will survive an accident at 65 MPH? It is so close to zero, that it will surprise you. So the restraint cannot be the issue in this case. The child would be dead in any event. I think you would be surprised that there is only a 6 in 100 thousand chance that an unrestrained child is involved in an accident. Catherine and I decided that these odds outweighed the risk to get to that symposium so that she could have an opportunity to punish the man who raped her. We are trying to prove he put something in her drink.

8th, I understand and sympathize with your concern that Catherine endangers you if you are on the same road when she is nursing our child. You will find no evidence on the record that she was not in control of that car at all times. Heck the child nursed halfway thru the traffic stop without so much as looking up.

Finally, the license issue. I already discussed the law of this in an earlier thread. Let me add to that. In Ohio (like most states), they have "decriminalized" traffic offenses so that you can be robbed of your right to a trial by jury (depending upon the state). Ohio law (and the laws of most states) say that if a person has committed a "minor," then they cannot be arrested unless they are incapacitated or unless they do not provide "sufficient evidence of identity." It does not say driver's license.

The question that I am formulating for appeal (I always set this up so that I create appealable error), is whether such an intrusion is warranted under the standard of "resonableness" and whether a public official would have the authority to make a warrantless arrest for such an offense at the time the 4th amendment was written.

They don't want to entertain that question.

I will be around for a bit, so "have at me."

7th, and I think no one has really considered this as much as I think they should. What is the chance that a child in a restraint will survive an accident at 65 MPH? It is so close to zero, that it will surprise you. So the restraint cannot be the issue in this case. The child would be dead in any event.

That sir is pure BS. Children have survived far higher impacts in child restraint seats with little or no injury. And on this topic I AM an expert. I am an Emergency Physician with 20 years experience. I've seen kids unscathed in child restraint seats where the car was otherwise a complete twisted mass of metal. At worst having the child in a restraint gives it a far better chance of survival then while being held by a driver.

What is the chance that a child in a restraint will survive an accident at 65 MPH?

So after you get up to a certain speed, you just unbuckle everyone because they will die anyway? That's asinine. Teach your wife how to pull over to breastfeed. Cell phones are bad enough but breast feeding mothers are too much.

You inventive sleuths have already confirmed that she attended.

Actually, we haven't.

All we have is your say-so.

What company was she in? Was she in that year's Lucky Bag?

So......you signed up at Free Republic just to post this piece of idiocy?

I can't believe this thread has survived for four days.

Perhaps your wife should have planned her travel time to allow for breastfeeding...ie pulling over.

I live in California. Please don't move here.

So lets ignore the fact that a child was made into a human projectile in the event of a crash and instead focus on reasons to her being pulled over.

... they cannot be arrested unless they are incapacitated or unless they do not provide "sufficient evidence of identity." It does not say driver's license.

Handing over something you find in a Cracker Jack box hardly qualifies as 'sufficient' unless it is the Cracker Jack Company asking for the I.D.

I will be around for a bit, so "have at me."

Do let us know if/when you come back for more. Laughter is good medicine. Your point that child restraints are no good at 65 MPH was especially therapeutic.