Inauguration hype hits home for me.

[catholicportugalian]

I live about 2 1/2 hours south of D.C.   Today I saw an inauguration bus on I95 near Petersburg (south of Richmond).  My husband just called to tell me that the local police has a checkpoint up not half a mile from my house.  What a nightmare.  This is hitting home a lot sooner that I expected.  I started asking my husband what he wants me to do if I should drive anywhere that there is a checkpoint up.  I fear that this is not a random thing the local police are doing, but the beginning of a regularity.  Our city's local police just acquired tazers a month ago.  Thankfully our Sheriff's office (which my husband is a deputy) does not carry tazers and the Sheriff himself is adamantly against them.  This is frightening.

[thrashbassist]

Like many a political ceremony (inaugurations, DNC and RNC events, etc.), this will be a testing ground for crazy new police-state procedures. I'm also half-expecting a riot, to tell you the truth.

Just take care of yourself.

[catholicportugalian]

I am just glad that my husband is a deputy.  I feel a little safer because he personally knows all of the police officers in our small city.  But I can only imagine how bad things are going to get.  And as it is I have a very uneasy feeling about tomorrow.  We are also getting a bit of a snowstorm overnight. Going to be interesting.

[sociostudent]

I live about 2 1/2 hours south of D.C.   Today I saw an inauguration bus on I95 near Petersburg (south of Richmond).  My husband just called to tell me that the local police has a checkpoint up not half a mile from my house.  What a nightmare.  This is hitting home a lot sooner that I expected.  I started asking my husband what he wants me to do if I should drive anywhere that there is a checkpoint up.  I fear that this is not a random thing the local police are doing, but the beginning of a regularity.  Our city's local police just acquired tazers a month ago.  Thankfully our Sheriff's office (which my husband is a deputy) does not carry tazers and the Sheriff himself is adamantly against them.  This is frightening.

You're lucky...Our police officers have made a nice little youtube with them tasering themselves, as if it's a fun initiation type of thing--SICK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysApL5JEWng

[oyk152]

I have a question friends what is the deferents between police and sheriff.we have a sheriff here in new york city but he works only for the court they told me that he has no power.and are sheriffs not folowing the same rules as police.Sorry for asking but in Greece we don't have sheriffs and i am only a few years here in new york,

[sociostudent]

I have a question friends what is the deferents between police and sheriff.we have a sheriff here in new york city but he works only for the court they told me that he has no power.and are sheriffs not folowing the same rules as police.Sorry for asking but in Greece we don't have sheriffs and i am only a few years here in new york,

I have no idea but I would like to know, as well. Our sheriff has been "re-elected" so many times that he's been the sheriff, for like, 20 YEARS now....and everyone talks about how corrupt he is, but I'm afraid to really talk about him....he's a pretty powerful guy here.

[thrashbassist]

I have a question friends what is the deferents between police and sheriff.we have a sheriff here in new york city but he works only for the court they told me that he has no power.and are sheriffs not folowing the same rules as police.Sorry for asking but in Greece we don't have sheriffs and i am only a few years here in new york,

Police only have jurisdiction over the city in which they serve, whereas the Sheriff's department has jurisdiction over the entire county, and State Troopers have statewide jurisdiction.

That's the main difference, as far as I know. I'm not too keen on law enforcement.

[catholicportugalian]

I have a question friends what is the deferents between police and sheriff.we have a sheriff here in new york city but he works only for the court they told me that he has no power.and are sheriffs not folowing the same rules as police.Sorry for asking but in Greece we don't have sheriffs and i am only a few years here in new york,

The police have jurisdiction in their city or county.  The Sheriff has jurisdiction in the entire state.  The Sheriff is also a constitutional officer who is answerable to the people.  He is elected by the people of his county or city whereas the police chief is hired by the city.  The Sheriff also has a lot more powers than the Police.  The Sheriff can refuse to go along with martial law if he so chooses.  The Sheriff's offices also are responsible for running all prisons.

[donnay]

I have a question friends what is the deferents between police and sheriff.we have a sheriff here in new york city but he works only for the court they told me that he has no power.and are sheriffs not folowing the same rules as police.Sorry for asking but in Greece we don't have sheriffs and i am only a few years here in new york,

Actually, sheriffs are constitutional and police forces are unconstitutional.  Here is a very good read that help explains it quite well:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[shirteesdotnet]

Police only have jurisdiction over the city in which they serve, whereas the Sheriff's department has jurisdiction over the entire county, and State Troopers have statewide jurisdiction.

That's the main difference, as far as I know. I'm not too keen on law enforcement.

Thats sounds about right. Although Im no expert either

Portugalian... good luck there. here in California, they have checkpoints EVERY FRIDAY now when I leave work. I take side streets until I get to a freeway now. They once waved me through and as I drove slowly I asked "is this constitutional?" and smiled. Ive also seen near my home,cops at all four islands of an intersection standing with big flashlights as people wait for the light to change and the cops shine their lights into peoples cars. Is that constitutional?? I have no idea. I didnt consent to it, be at the same time, they can see in my car as anyone could.

Just hang in there. Find alt routes to and fro.

Since your hubby is a sheriff... im curious if he is aware of the other stuff thats talked about on these boards? 9/11, NWO, etc, etc?

[sociostudent]

Police only have jurisdiction over the city in which they serve, whereas the Sheriff's department has jurisdiction over the entire county, and State Troopers have statewide jurisdiction.

That's the main difference, as far as I know. I'm not too keen on law enforcement.

That's pretty scary, actually. Here's just a smidge of what my county's been dealing with for the last 25 years:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Smith_County_Justice
http://wikileaks.org/leak/smith-county-justice/book.pdf

[thrashbassist]

Just downloaded it. Thanks a bunch!

[abrhim]

sociostudent you said how your sheriff has been around for a while and he's corrupt.  My local sheriff, good ol' presgraves, just got brought up on a ton of charges: involved with local cockfights, extortion, sexual harassment, something with land, all kinds of goodies.  Hopefully your sheriff will face the charges he's guilty of.  And that sucks if your from a small town kind of area because a sheriff could make your life hell, probably way more then a state trooper.

[sociostudent]

sociostudent you said how your sheriff has been around for a while and he's corrupt.  My local sheriff, good ol' presgraves, just got brought up on a ton of charges: involved with local cockfights, extortion, sexual harassment, something with land, all kinds of goodies.  Hopefully your sheriff will face the charges he's guilty of.  And that sucks if your from a small town kind of area because a sheriff could make your life hell, probably way more then a state trooper.

Oh, yeah. I've had family members that have had to leave town because of some of his b.s.

The book explains it all....I'm scared shitless of this guy, to be quite honest.

[rustygunn]

Actually, sheriffs are constitutional and police forces are unconstitutional.  Here is a very good read that help explains it quite well:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

I always understood that the sheriff has constitutional powers (at least they did, if they haven't been stripped by the particular state), that ordinary police officers do not have.  The way I understand it is that they have the authority to work in all three branches of government.  Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the sheriff would be our protection against the state/feds.  I also read that years ago (still?) the sheriff was in charge of the state's malitia.

The Office of Sheriff
The National Sheriffs' Association leads the way to preserve the Office of Sheriff which has recently come under fire from local, state and federal governments.

What is the difference between a Sheriff's Department and a Sheriff's Office and why should it matter?
Black's Law Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

DEPARTMENT: "One of the major divisions of the executive branch of the government....generally, a branch or division of governmental administration."

OFFICE: "A right, and correspondent duty, to exercise public trust as an office. A public charge of employment... the most frequent occasions to use the word arise with reference to a duty and power conferred on an individual by the government, and when this is the connection, public office is a usual and more discriminating expression. . . in the constitutional sense, the term implies an authority to exercise some portion of the sovereign power either in making, executing, or administering the laws.

The Office of Sheriff is not simply another "department" of county government. The internal operation of an Office of Sheriff is the sole responsibility of the elected Sheriff. County department heads are subordinate to a county governing body, because a "department" is truly only a division of county government.  The Office of Sheriff is a statutory/constitutional office having exclusive powers and authority under state law and/or state constitution. These inherent powers are not subject to the dictates of a local county governing body.

The Office of Sheriff has inherent common law powers and sovereignty granted under a state's constitution and/or state law.  It is different from a county department which derives its limited authority from whatever is delegated to is by statute or by state constitution.

The use of the term "Department" implies being a subordinate unit of  government (i.e. subordinate to local government – "delegated" authority from county government to a department). The use of the term "Office" implies inherent powers and independent sovereignty.
http://www.sheriffs.org/about/OfficeofSheriff.asp

[sociostudent]

I always understood that the sheriff has constitutional powers (at least they did, if they haven't been stripped by the particular state), that ordinary police officers do not have.  The way I understand it is that they have the authority to work in all three branches of government.  Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the sheriff would be our protection against the state/feds.  I also read that years ago (still?) the sheriff was in charge of the state's malitia.

The Office of Sheriff
The National Sheriffs' Association leads the way to preserve the Office of Sheriff which has recently come under fire from local, state and federal governments.

What is the difference between a Sheriff's Department and a Sheriff's Office and why should it matter?
Black's Law Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

DEPARTMENT: "One of the major divisions of the executive branch of the government....generally, a branch or division of governmental administration."

OFFICE: "A right, and correspondent duty, to exercise public trust as an office. A public charge of employment... the most frequent occasions to use the word arise with reference to a duty and power conferred on an individual by the government, and when this is the connection, public office is a usual and more discriminating expression. . . in the constitutional sense, the term implies an authority to exercise some portion of the sovereign power either in making, executing, or administering the laws.

The Office of Sheriff is not simply another "department" of county government. The internal operation of an Office of Sheriff is the sole responsibility of the elected Sheriff. County department heads are subordinate to a county governing body, because a "department" is truly only a division of county government.  The Office of Sheriff is a statutory/constitutional office having exclusive powers and authority under state law and/or state constitution. These inherent powers are not subject to the dictates of a local county governing body.

The Office of Sheriff has inherent common law powers and sovereignty granted under a state's constitution and/or state law.  It is different from a county department which derives its limited authority from whatever is delegated to is by statute or by state constitution.

The use of the term "Department" implies being a subordinate unit of  government (i.e. subordinate to local government – "delegated" authority from county government to a department). The use of the term "Office" implies inherent powers and independent sovereignty.
http://www.sheriffs.org/about/OfficeofSheriff.asp

So, in other words, they answer to no one? THAT can't be constitutional. 
How do we change this situation? This sounds like good subject material for Alex's show (hint, hint)

[catholicportugalian]

Thats sounds about right. Although Im no expert either

Portugalian... good luck there. here in California, they have checkpoints EVERY FRIDAY now when I leave work. I take side streets until I get to a freeway now. They once waved me through and as I drove slowly I asked "is this constitutional?" and smiled. Ive also seen near my home,cops at all four islands of an intersection standing with big flashlights as people wait for the light to change and the cops shine their lights into peoples cars. Is that constitutional?? I have no idea. I didnt consent to it, be at the same time, they can see in my car as anyone could.

Just hang in there. Find alt routes to and fro.

Since your hubby is a sheriff... im curious if he is aware of the other stuff thats talked about on these boards? 9/11, NWO, etc, etc?

thanks for the concern.  My hubby is well aware of everything discussed on these boards and is a truther alongside the rest of us in here.  

donnay, from what I understand the Sheriffs, at least the ones who aren't corrupt, are our best protection against martial law impositions and so forth.  Alex Jones mentioned a little while back how Sheriffs offices are being downsized by the counties and given less authority until they are completely done away with so that the people have no protection from the police.  some sheriffs offices are even being denied a handgun or any weapon of any kind.  Turning them into glorified security guards.  

[sociostudent]

So, we have 2 opposite sides of the spectrum on this thread....what's going on here? Is there really that big of a difference between a sheriff's OFFICE and a sheriff's DEPARTMENT? Is the guy I THINK is a dickwad really just a sweet guy who wants to protect people, or is he the spoiled, drug-running psycho that I've been told about? At this point, I really don't know WHAT to believe.

[rustygunn]

So, we have 2 opposite sides of the spectrum on this thread....what's going on here? Is there really that big of a difference between a sheriff's OFFICE and a sheriff's DEPARTMENT? Is the guy I THINK is a dickwad really just a sweet guy who wants to protect people, or is he the spoiled, drug-running psycho that I've been told about? At this point, I really don't know WHAT to believe.

In my post, I was not referring to your particular sheriff, but rather the sheriff's office in general.  For all I know, your sheriff could very well be a  "spoiled, drug-running psycho".  Any office can be run over by those with less than honorable intentions.  We see it every day.   

[donnay]

I always understood that the sheriff has constitutional powers (at least they did, if they haven't been stripped by the particular state), that ordinary police officers do not have.  The way I understand it is that they have the authority to work in all three branches of government.  Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the sheriff would be our protection against the state/feds.  I also read that years ago (still?) the sheriff was in charge of the state's malitia.

The Office of Sheriff
The National Sheriffs' Association leads the way to preserve the Office of Sheriff which has recently come under fire from local, state and federal governments.

What is the difference between a Sheriff's Department and a Sheriff's Office and why should it matter?
Black's Law Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

DEPARTMENT: "One of the major divisions of the executive branch of the government....generally, a branch or division of governmental administration."

OFFICE: "A right, and correspondent duty, to exercise public trust as an office. A public charge of employment... the most frequent occasions to use the word arise with reference to a duty and power conferred on an individual by the government, and when this is the connection, public office is a usual and more discriminating expression. . . in the constitutional sense, the term implies an authority to exercise some portion of the sovereign power either in making, executing, or administering the laws.

The Office of Sheriff is not simply another "department" of county government. The internal operation of an Office of Sheriff is the sole responsibility of the elected Sheriff. County department heads are subordinate to a county governing body, because a "department" is truly only a division of county government.  The Office of Sheriff is a statutory/constitutional office having exclusive powers and authority under state law and/or state constitution. These inherent powers are not subject to the dictates of a local county governing body.

The Office of Sheriff has inherent common law powers and sovereignty granted under a state's constitution and/or state law.  It is different from a county department which derives its limited authority from whatever is delegated to is by statute or by state constitution.

The use of the term "Department" implies being a subordinate unit of  government (i.e. subordinate to local government – "delegated" authority from county government to a department). The use of the term "Office" implies inherent powers and independent sovereignty.
http://www.sheriffs.org/about/OfficeofSheriff.asp

Here is a good historical overview: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=HIE_zF1Rv7MC&pg=PA1175&lpg=PA1175&dq=Constitutional+powers+of+Sheriff%27s+Posse&source=web&ots=fVrucB2n0P&sig=aWcjHODxBjVVtulCKsgVMV6vSw0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA1175,M1

"The sheriff is the only law enforcement official with the authority to summon the power of the county. The sheriff has the right, granted by Posse Comitatus, to assemble a militia or posse, and the power to deputize citizens and require them to assist in the keeping of the peace and the enforcement of laws."

"The sheriff represents the power of the people; he does not represent the power of the state."

http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield56.htm


POSSE COMITATUS. These Latin words signify the power of the county.
     2. The sheriff has authority by the common law, while acting under the authority of the writ of the United States, commonwealth or people, as the case may be, and for the purpose of preserving the public peace, to call to his aid the posse comitatus.
     3. But with respect to writs which issue, in the first instance, to arrest in civil suits, the sheriff is not bound to take the posse comitatus to assist him in the execution of them: though he may, if he pleases, on forcible resistance to the execution of the process. 2 Inst. 193; 3 Inst. 161.
     4. Having the authority to call in the assistance of all, it seems to follow, that he may equally require that of any individual; but to this general rule there are some exceptions; persons of infirm health, or who want understanding, minors under the age of fifteen years, women, and perhaps some others, it seems, cannot be required to assist the sheriff, and are therefore not considered as a part of the power of the county. Vin. Ab. Sheriff, B.
     5. A refusal on the part of an individual lawfully called upon to assist the officer in putting down a riot is indictable. 1 Carr. & Marsh. 314. In this case will be found the form of an indictment for this offence.
     6. Although the sheriff is acting without authority, yet it would seem that any person who obeys his command, unless aware of that fact, will be protected.
     7. Whether an individual not enjoined by the sheriff to lend his aid, would be protected in his interference, seems questionable. In a case where the defendant assisted sheriff's officers in executing a writ of replevin without their solicitation, the court held him justified in so doing. 2 Mod. 244. Vide Bac. Ab. Sheriff, N; Hamm. N. P. 63; 5 Whart. R. 437, 440.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Posse+commitatus

[donnay]

thanks for the concern.  My hubby is well aware of everything discussed on these boards and is a truther alongside the rest of us in here.  

donnay, from what I understand the Sheriffs, at least the ones who aren't corrupt, are our best protection against martial law impositions and so forth.  Alex Jones mentioned a little while back how Sheriffs offices are being downsized by the counties and given less authority until they are completely done away with so that the people have no protection from the police.  some sheriffs offices are even being denied a handgun or any weapon of any kind.  Turning them into glorified security guards.  

Yes, you are right because the people themselves do not know the power the office of Sheriff holds.

Here is a great man--a hero!:

Sheriff boots Feds from his county

By Phil Hamby

http://www.uhuh.com/action/sheriff/sheriff.htm

Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming said this week that as a result of Case # 96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he now has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions.

After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever."

He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction in my county unless I grant it to them."

Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had ruled the state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law enforcement official in the county.

Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides. "Put another way," Mattis said, "if the sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave." Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on the definition of the word "sovereign," which is defined by Webster's as "paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. Independent: a sovereign State."

Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, without a valid warrant and without first following due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.

As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in court.

Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has not attempted to seize any citizen's real property, bank account or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out of his county.

Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of his county. He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government employees at all levels of government are also bound by and should be expected to obey certain laws.

As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and government officials alike act within the law and their designated powers.

Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long as he wants to be.

Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the same stance.

[rustygunn]

Thanks donnay...good stuff to know.

[donnay]

It's my pleasure Rusty.  More people need to know this information and run for Sheriff in their areas.  If we get more good sheriffs like Sheriff Dave Mattis, we would have a first line of defense over the federal tyranny.

[catholicportugalian]

My husband's account of ticket writing on I95 last night.  On a normal day out of all the tickets he writes, and he writes the most tickets of all the deputies, he pulls over about 95% white people, 3% black, and 2% other.  He said yesterday about 99% of everyone he pulled over was black and he got a lot of "I am going to the inauguration" as an excuse.  He always responded back "yeah that's great, press hard five copies."  lol.  It will be interesting today as we have had snow falling since last night and it will continue today.

[sociostudent]

It's my pleasure Rusty.  More people need to know this information and run for Sheriff in their areas.  If we get more good sheriffs like Sheriff Dave Mattis, we would have a first line of defense over the federal tyranny.

What are the general qualifications?

[catholicportugalian]

What are the general qualifications?

you have to be a certified police officer with some experience in law enforcement and you need to have some connections if you want to win the election.

[Letsbereal]

[donnay]

What are the general qualifications?

This is pretty much the requirements:

      Any man or woman who desires to run for the office of sheriff must be a qualified voter who meets the other requirements set out in the ___________ Constitution and statutes. The basic qualifications required of a person seeking the office of sheriff are:

           1. Be a citizen of the United States,
           2. Be at least 21 years of age,
           3. Be of sound mind,
           4. Be literate,
           5. Be a resident of ____________ for at least one year.
           6. Be a resident of the county in which he seeks office for at least one year, and
           7. Be a resident of the election ward or precinct for at least 30 days.

[Monkeypox]

My husband's account of ticket writing on I95 last night.  On a normal day out of all the tickets he writes, and he writes the most tickets of all the deputies, he pulls over about 95% white people, 3% black, and 2% other.  He said yesterday about 99% of everyone he pulled over was black and he got a lot of "I am going to the inauguration" as an excuse.  He always responded back "yeah that's great, press hard five copies."  lol.  It will be interesting today as we have had snow falling since last night and it will continue today.

Now they'll file a class action lawsuit and say that Blacks were unfairly targeted. 

[catholicportugalian]

Now they'll file a class action lawsuit and say that Blacks were unfairly targeted. 

well my husband's argument is quite logical.  When you are going 80mph on the highway, all he is going to see is the make and color of your car.  He didn't pull over a black guy.  He pulled over a red honda or a green bmw, etc.  And when you are going 80mph on a 65 and his radar catches it, your case is out the window.

[catholicportugalian]

  This is really hard for me because both you and I are traditional catholics, but if I were you I would not tell anyone about my husbands ticket writing. In my opinion ticket writing is not part of being a good police officer who is suppost to protect and serve the people. I went to court years ago for driving with out insurance. During this time My 18 year old daughter had lost both of her kidneys. We could not afford the insurance and her medical costs. Neither the COP, the JUDGE, or the DA gave a crap about my situation. So right now for the last 6 years I have driven without a license and if I get stopped they will not find me without a FIGHT.

I am sure my husband would be sympathetic to you in that situation.  We don't believe we should be forced to have insurance.  Perhaps you should consider moving to New Hampshire where it is not required.  My husband writes speeding tickets for the most part.  And he isn't a Nazi about it either. He only pulls people over who are going at least 13 miles or more over the speed limit.  It is dangerous to speed and so it is understandable.  I don't know what you financial situation is, but we have had very difficult times in the past and always managed to have car insurance.  Isn't there anyway you could find it affordable?  I only pay $52 a month with Allstate.  I shouldn't like to see a fellow Catholic thrown in jail for driving without a license.  It would be such an easy way to put you in the system.

[JonTheSavage]

You're lucky...Our police officers have made a nice little youtube with them tasering themselves, as if it's a fun initiation type of thing--SICK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysApL5JEWng

I'd rather be shot than tased. I've felt both, and I'd "bite the bullet" any day over a high voltage shock.

[JonTheSavage]

Actually, sheriffs are constitutional and police forces are unconstitutional.  Here is a very good read that help explains it quite well:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

That is a GREAT read. I'll pass it along.

[catholicportugalian]

Here is my financial situation. I am self employed, I have four kids, and we were doing ok until Her kidneys failed do you know what it cost for a transplant?  The first one was done with partial insurance, We paid 20% of $500,000.00. She has had Two and the last one was at Johns Hopkins in baltimore. I might not be the greatest at handling money but it was just to hard for me to tell my daughter that She could not have a kidney because we need car insurance.

But wouldn't it be just as bad to be imprisoned for driving without a license? I just wonder if there isn't anything that can be done for you. have you talked to your priest and sought his advice?  perhaps someone could hold a little fundraiser for the medical expenses.  I bet if you told your priest the problem, he would be happy to pay for your car insurance.  As the church believes that all money is God's money and the priest would be under an obligation to help you if he has the means to.

[shirteesdotnet]

Jeez. I wish your husband gave tickets in California. Over here if you're doing 50.5mph in a 50 zone you're busted now. I had a situation last year as I drove up to see my mom in an alt cancer place. The cop gave me a ticket for doing 40 in a 25 zone. I immediately complained and said there was NO WAY I did 40 in a 25 zone!!! It was snowing, all the cars on the road were passing us AND my wife was taking photos of the city we were driving through. The cop got mad I would question him and wrote me up for 45 in a 25 zone and told me never to question a cop again. F THAT! I have been literally down ever since my mom died. But as I decide to come out of my shell and live again, Im going to file a complaint with this officer. I have about 10 photos my wife took on this street and using Google Maps along with the time stamps on all of my photos, I am able to PROVE I was driving 19 mph. Not 25, and certainly not 45.

[donnay]

Jeez. I wish your husband gave tickets in California. Over here if you're doing 50.5mph in a 50 zone you're busted now. I had a situation last year as I drove up to see my mom in an alt cancer place. The cop gave me a ticket for doing 40 in a 25 zone. I immediately complained and said there was NO WAY I did 40 in a 25 zone!!! It was snowing, all the cars on the road were passing us AND my wife was taking photos of the city we were driving through. The cop got mad I would question him and wrote me up for 45 in a 25 zone and told me never to question a cop again. F THAT! I have been literally down ever since my mom died. But as I decide to come out of my shell and live again, Im going to file a complaint with this officer. I have about 10 photos my wife took on this street and using Google Maps along with the time stamps on all of my photos, I am able to PROVE I was driving 19 mph. Not 25, and certainly not 45.

Good--you need to fight back--we all do!  I have two tickets in my life and both I have contested each time.  I will not roll over and take it on the chin just because they think they are above the law!!!