On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:31:48 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:45:01 -0500, Ignoramus26236 wrote:
On 2009-09-21, XR650L_Dave wrote:

That in itself would raise suspicion, and it might even get confiscated
in some areas.

Well, first of all, it is in my pocket, so I would need to be searched for
the money to be found.

I did read an outstanding article a few months ago, about police in Texas
essentially robbing black drivers if they found cash on them. I believe
that it was in New York Times. The town that was doing this is now being
sued. I hope that the lawyers and plaintiffs take as much as possible.

All in all, I consider it to be unlikely to happen to myself, and just
accept the small risk. The upside is that I have cash on hand should
opportunities arise. The return on that $1,000 is very decent.


How good are you at spoken English? What color is your hair? Do you wear
a beard?

Just curious - you can't be too careful, with all that "terrorist"
profiling going on. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

One physicist I am working with looks (and is) Russian, spends a lot
of time at the gym, and has a nervous habit of flicking his gaze
around a lot. He refuses to fly to Washington National anymore because
he keeps getting "randomly selected" for special attention.

Ignoramus26236 wrote:
On 2009-09-21, XR650L_Dave wrote:

That in itself would raise suspicion, and it might even get
confiscated in some areas.


Well, first of all, it is in my pocket, so I would need to be searched
for the money to be found.

Are we supposed to believe that a big talker isn't going to say something
really stupid and incrimminating to a cop and then get busted for all
sorts of bogus stuff?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:34:59 -0700, the infamous Rich Grise
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:30:39 -0500, David R.Birch wrote:

About 1980, I was going west with a buddy across Montana, I was in the
passenger seat. No visible traffic. I see a car approaching ahead and tell
Ray to slow down, he was doing 85-90 mph. The patrol car was slowing as we
passed and it crossed the median, turned on the lights and pulled us over.

The LEO explained about the speed limit being 55 mph and said he was going
to write us a ticket and collect an appearance bond to make sure we were
in Deer Lodge to face justice in 3 weeks. If we didn't show, the bond
would be used as fine.

$5 bond...

Seems the double nickel wasn't popular in spread out Montana, not even
with the cops.

This is the first time I've heard that Montana even _had_ speed limits.

Feds said "No speed limits, no federal highway funds.", so they put
'em in. 75 and 80 for awhile.

--
The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn
are composed entirely of lost airline luggage.
--Mark Russell

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:01:06 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:34:59 -0700, the infamous Rich Grise

This is the first time I've heard that Montana even _had_ speed limits.

Feds said "No speed limits, no federal highway funds.", so they put 'em
in. 75 and 80 for awhile.

This is another thing that ****es me off about the Fed. There shouldn't
_be_ any "federal highway funds" - it should have been left in the hands
of the ones that create the wealth, namely the individuals that actually
pay for the roads.

All that's needed for a federal "highway department" is a map room, in the
reference section of the library.

But NOOOooooo!. The Fed steals your money and then blackmails you with
the money they've stolen from you.

That sucks.

Thanks,
Rich

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:01:06 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:34:59 -0700, the infamous Rich Grise
This is the first time I've heard that Montana even _had_ speed limits.
Feds said "No speed limits, no federal highway funds.", so they put 'em
in. 75 and 80 for awhile.

This is another thing that ****es me off about the Fed. There shouldn't
_be_ any "federal highway funds" - it should have been left in the hands
of the ones that create the wealth, namely the individuals that actually
pay for the roads.

All that's needed for a federal "highway department" is a map room, in the
reference section of the library.

But NOOOooooo!. The Fed steals your money and then blackmails you with
the money they've stolen from you.

That sucks.

Thanks,
Rich



Then there would probably not be a federal highway system...

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:05:06 -0500, cavelamb wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:01:06 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:34:59 -0700, the infamous Rich Grise
This is the first time I've heard that Montana even _had_ speed
limits.
Feds said "No speed limits, no federal highway funds.", so they put 'em
in. 75 and 80 for awhile.

This is another thing that ****es me off about the Fed. There shouldn't
_be_ any "federal highway funds" - it should have been left in the hands
of the ones that create the wealth, namely the individuals that actually
pay for the roads.

All that's needed for a federal "highway department" is a map room, in
the reference section of the library.

But NOOOooooo!. The Fed steals your money and then blackmails you with
the money they've stolen from you.

That sucks.

Then there would probably not be a federal highway system...

Sure there would! It just wouldn't be run by bureaucrats. There were
US highways well before the federal behemoth started the "interstate"
system.

All you need is a map room where the states can coordinate the roads
at their borders.

Cheers!
Rich

In article , Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

This is another thing that ****es me off about the Fed. There shouldn't
_be_ any "federal highway funds" - it should have been left in the hands
of the ones that create the wealth, namely the individuals that actually
pay for the roads.

All that's needed for a federal "highway department" is a map room, in the
reference section of the library.

Wrong-o, bucko. Building roads to carry the mail is one of the explicitly
enumerated powers of the Federal government, specifically Congress, under the
Constitution. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 7.

In article , Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:05:06 -0500, cavelamb wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:01:06 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:34:59 -0700, the infamous Rich Grise
This is the first time I've heard that Montana even _had_ speed
limits.
Feds said "No speed limits, no federal highway funds.", so they put 'em
in. 75 and 80 for awhile.

This is another thing that ****es me off about the Fed. There shouldn't
_be_ any "federal highway funds" - it should have been left in the hands
of the ones that create the wealth, namely the individuals that actually
pay for the roads.

All that's needed for a federal "highway department" is a map room, in
the reference section of the library.

But NOOOooooo!. The Fed steals your money and then blackmails you with
the money they've stolen from you.

That sucks.

Then there would probably not be a federal highway system...

Sure there would! It just wouldn't be run by bureaucrats.

How do you figure that?

There were
US highways well before the federal behemoth started the "interstate"
system.

You might profit from researching why the Interstate highway system was built.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard the
Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

This is another thing that ****es me off about the Fed. There shouldn't
_be_ any "federal highway funds" - it should have been left in the hands
of the ones that create the wealth, namely the individuals that actually
pay for the roads.

All that's needed for a federal "highway department" is a map room, in the
reference section of the library.

Wrong-o, bucko. Building roads to carry the mail is one of the explicitly
enumerated powers of the Federal government, specifically Congress, under
the
Constitution. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 7.


i was on I-90 yesterday, thinking about this. passed one of those signs
that say "the eisenhower interstate highway system" and i wondered to myself
"how could those guys on r.c.m. possibly criticize something so plainly and
obviously beneficial to americans as this "eisenhower interstate highway
system"?!" of course i know there would/could/are criticisms of it. i was
thinking eisenhower came back from the war after seeing how ("socialist"?)
germany built their autobahn and figured it was a good idea.
you know, i bet somalia has a very small central government. i bet they
don't have an extensive interstate/national highway system. wondering why
people who prefer small central governments don't go live in places that
don't have large central governments. i'd bet they'd be absolutely free to
pursue any sort of wealth generating schemes they could come up with.

b.w.

In article , "William Wixon" wrote:

i was on I-90 yesterday, thinking about this. passed one of those signs
that say "the eisenhower interstate highway system" and i wondered to myself
"how could those guys on r.c.m. possibly criticize something so plainly and
obviously beneficial to americans as this "eisenhower interstate highway
system"?!" of course i know there would/could/are criticisms of it. i was
thinking eisenhower came back from the war after seeing how ("socialist"?)
germany built their autobahn and figured it was a good idea.

Well, yes, he did, but that didn't have anything at all to do with socialism.

Don't you know why the interstate highway system was designed? It wasn't so
you could go visit your aunt in Topeka, or to move oranges from Florida to
Minnesota more easily.

The interstate highway system was built for rapid movement of troops and tanks
and guns and bombs. That it happens also to be enormously useful for commerce
and civilian transportation is merely a side effect of its original purpose.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "William Wixon" wrote:

i was on I-90 yesterday, thinking about this. passed one of those signs
that say "the eisenhower interstate highway system" and i wondered to myself
"how could those guys on r.c.m. possibly criticize something so plainly and
obviously beneficial to americans as this "eisenhower interstate highway
system"?!" of course i know there would/could/are criticisms of it. i was
thinking eisenhower came back from the war after seeing how ("socialist"?)
germany built their autobahn and figured it was a good idea.

Well, yes, he did, but that didn't have anything at all to do with socialism.

Don't you know why the interstate highway system was designed? It wasn't so
you could go visit your aunt in Topeka, or to move oranges from Florida to
Minnesota more easily.

The interstate highway system was built for rapid movement of troops and tanks
and guns and bombs. That it happens also to be enormously useful for commerce
and civilian transportation is merely a side effect of its original purpose.


Those who are old enough, remember the Military Police directing
convoys through towns large and small. They ignored traffic lights and
civilian traffic had to wait, unless it was an emergency vehicle. Even
that made it take weeks or months to cross the US. if you happened to
be going the same direction as the convoy, you had to ignore the traffic
lights and stop signs too. They got quite upset if you caused the
convoy to stop.

In a military emergency, the military has priority on the interstate
highways.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Sep 22, 7:29*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

The interstate highway system was built for rapid movement of troops and tanks
and guns and bombs. That it happens also to be enormously useful for commerce
and civilian transportation is merely a side effect of its original purpose.

Doug got it exactly right! A major portion of the money to build the
interstate highway system was from the military budget. Many parts of
the system are built to be quickly converted to aircraft runways to
land B-52 size aircraft. For instance the I-5 system between Portland
and Salem is 24" thick reinforced concrete. The rest of I-5 in the
area is not.The highway is straight as an arrow for miles and miles.
All the overpasses are built with single or thin double columns for
support. Not seismically safe at all. All approaches to the overpasses
are compacted earth, not rock. There is a large National Guard
construction group in Salem. I ask you why?

Well, so that in 24 hours or less, the overpasses can be knocked down
and the approaches cleared out and suddenly we have runways for B-52
aircraft. They can't return to their base because it was nuked! There
are no military/industrial facilities in the Willamette Valley, so no
nukes would be targeted there.

Exactly the same situation in the Sacramento valley part of I-5. Check
it out sometime. Same situation in the Omaha NB area. Look at other
freeways designed in the 1950''s and you will see the same pattern.

Of course, today no one thinks this way because the bombers are
obsolete, but the freeways are still ready.

Of course, Ike got this idea from the German Autobahn system. They
were regularly used for operational runways, not just emergency. I
remember driving in the German Alps and wondering at the long straight
stretch of highway with railway right next to it. They even cut away
the side of a mountain to keep it straight. Then I saw the very large
double steel doors on the mountain side. Ah ha! That was a secure
hanger area. Months later I discovered that was the exit to an
underground aircraft factory! They pushed the completed planes out the
door onto the highway, started the engine and took off! All protected
by very steep mountains.

Other interesting things are the old Nike installations around
Seattle. One south of Issaquah has an access road to the top
completely inside the mountain. Another is under one of the community
colleges in the area.

Great thread for metalworking!

Paul in Central Oregon

From what I heard, and it is true in other countries was emergency
aircraft landing and take off zones.

Korea uses their highways just this way - and jets land - fueled - take off
and then you get to drive.

Single bombs can wipe out an airport. Lots of roads and fuel storage sites
prevent first strike issues.

Martin

William Wixon wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard the
Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

This is another thing that ****es me off about the Fed. There shouldn't
_be_ any "federal highway funds" - it should have been left in the hands
of the ones that create the wealth, namely the individuals that actually
pay for the roads.

All that's needed for a federal "highway department" is a map room, in the
reference section of the library.
Wrong-o, bucko. Building roads to carry the mail is one of the explicitly
enumerated powers of the Federal government, specifically Congress, under
the
Constitution. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 7.


i was on I-90 yesterday, thinking about this. passed one of those signs
that say "the eisenhower interstate highway system" and i wondered to myself
"how could those guys on r.c.m. possibly criticize something so plainly and
obviously beneficial to americans as this "eisenhower interstate highway
system"?!" of course i know there would/could/are criticisms of it. i was
thinking eisenhower came back from the war after seeing how ("socialist"?)
germany built their autobahn and figured it was a good idea.
you know, i bet somalia has a very small central government. i bet they
don't have an extensive interstate/national highway system. wondering why
people who prefer small central governments don't go live in places that
don't have large central governments. i'd bet they'd be absolutely free to
pursue any sort of wealth generating schemes they could come up with.

b.w.

In article
,
KD7HB wrote:

On Sep 22, 7:29*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

The interstate highway system was built for rapid movement of troops and
tanks
and guns and bombs. That it happens also to be enormously useful for
commerce
and civilian transportation is merely a side effect of its original
purpose.

Doug got it exactly right! A major portion of the money to build the
interstate highway system was from the military budget. Many parts of
the system are built to be quickly converted to aircraft runways to
land B-52 size aircraft. For instance the I-5 system between Portland
and Salem is 24" thick reinforced concrete. The rest of I-5 in the
area is not.The highway is straight as an arrow for miles and miles.
All the overpasses are built with single or thin double columns for
support. Not seismically safe at all. All approaches to the overpasses
are compacted earth, not rock. There is a large National Guard
construction group in Salem. I ask you why?

Well, so that in 24 hours or less, the overpasses can be knocked down
and the approaches cleared out and suddenly we have runways for B-52
aircraft. They can't return to their base because it was nuked! There
are no military/industrial facilities in the Willamette Valley, so no
nukes would be targeted there.

Exactly the same situation in the Sacramento valley part of I-5. Check
it out sometime. Same situation in the Omaha NB area. Look at other
freeways designed in the 1950''s and you will see the same pattern.

Of course, today no one thinks this way because the bombers are
obsolete, but the freeways are still ready.

Of course, Ike got this idea from the German Autobahn system. They
were regularly used for operational runways, not just emergency. I
remember driving in the German Alps and wondering at the long straight
stretch of highway with railway right next to it. They even cut away
the side of a mountain to keep it straight. Then I saw the very large
double steel doors on the mountain side. Ah ha! That was a secure
hanger area. Months later I discovered that was the exit to an
underground aircraft factory! They pushed the completed planes out the
door onto the highway, started the engine and took off! All protected
by very steep mountains.

Other interesting things are the old Nike installations around
Seattle. One south of Issaquah has an access road to the top
completely inside the mountain. Another is under one of the community
colleges in the area.

Great thread for metalworking!

Paul in Central Oregon



Hmmm... this thread is interesting and got me Googling.

Sorry to say, but this came up pretty quick:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/mayjun00/onemileinfive.htm

Above is 'deep linked' from this site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/

Erik

I will top post, but I gotta say that it was a fascinating post. Thank
you.

i

On 2009-09-23, KD7HB wrote:
Doug got it exactly right! A major portion of the money to build the
interstate highway system was from the military budget. Many parts of
the system are built to be quickly converted to aircraft runways to
land B-52 size aircraft. For instance the I-5 system between Portland
and Salem is 24" thick reinforced concrete. The rest of I-5 in the
area is not.The highway is straight as an arrow for miles and miles.
All the overpasses are built with single or thin double columns for
support. Not seismically safe at all. All approaches to the overpasses
are compacted earth, not rock. There is a large National Guard
construction group in Salem. I ask you why?

Well, so that in 24 hours or less, the overpasses can be knocked down
and the approaches cleared out and suddenly we have runways for B-52
aircraft. They can't return to their base because it was nuked! There
are no military/industrial facilities in the Willamette Valley, so no
nukes would be targeted there.

Exactly the same situation in the Sacramento valley part of I-5. Check
it out sometime. Same situation in the Omaha NB area. Look at other
freeways designed in the 1950''s and you will see the same pattern.

Of course, today no one thinks this way because the bombers are
obsolete, but the freeways are still ready.

Of course, Ike got this idea from the German Autobahn system. They
were regularly used for operational runways, not just emergency. I
remember driving in the German Alps and wondering at the long straight
stretch of highway with railway right next to it. They even cut away
the side of a mountain to keep it straight. Then I saw the very large
double steel doors on the mountain side. Ah ha! That was a secure
hanger area. Months later I discovered that was the exit to an
underground aircraft factory! They pushed the completed planes out the
door onto the highway, started the engine and took off! All protected
by very steep mountains.

Other interesting things are the old Nike installations around
Seattle. One south of Issaquah has an access road to the top
completely inside the mountain. Another is under one of the community
colleges in the area.

Great thread for metalworking!

Paul in Central Oregon

"Erik" wrote in message
...



Hmmm... this thread is interesting and got me Googling.

Sorry to say, but this came up pretty quick:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/mayjun00/onemileinfive.htm

Above is 'deep linked' from this site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/

Erik


sorry for the thread digression.

i'm sure you all have seen this before, many times. (funny computer
animation movie of a commercial airliner landing on a freeway)

http://www.spike.com/video/405/204155

"KD7HB" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 7:29 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

The interstate highway system was built for rapid movement of troops and
tanks
and guns and bombs. That it happens also to be enormously useful for
commerce
and civilian transportation is merely a side effect of its original
purpose.

Doug got it exactly right! A major portion of the money to build the
interstate highway system was from the military budget. Many parts of
the system are built to be quickly converted to aircraft runways to
land B-52 size aircraft. For instance the I-5 system between Portland
and Salem is 24" thick reinforced concrete. The rest of I-5 in the
area is not.The highway is straight as an arrow for miles and miles.
All the overpasses are built with single or thin double columns for
support. Not seismically safe at all. All approaches to the overpasses
are compacted earth, not rock. There is a large National Guard
construction group in Salem. I ask you why?

Well, so that in 24 hours or less, the overpasses can be knocked down
and the approaches cleared out and suddenly we have runways for B-52
aircraft. They can't return to their base because it was nuked! There
are no military/industrial facilities in the Willamette Valley, so no
nukes would be targeted there.

Exactly the same situation in the Sacramento valley part of I-5. Check
it out sometime. Same situation in the Omaha NB area. Look at other
freeways designed in the 1950''s and you will see the same pattern.

Of course, today no one thinks this way because the bombers are
obsolete, but the freeways are still ready.

Of course, Ike got this idea from the German Autobahn system. They
were regularly used for operational runways, not just emergency. I
remember driving in the German Alps and wondering at the long straight
stretch of highway with railway right next to it. They even cut away
the side of a mountain to keep it straight. Then I saw the very large
double steel doors on the mountain side. Ah ha! That was a secure
hanger area. Months later I discovered that was the exit to an
underground aircraft factory! They pushed the completed planes out the
door onto the highway, started the engine and took off! All protected
by very steep mountains.

Other interesting things are the old Nike installations around
Seattle. One south of Issaquah has an access road to the top
completely inside the mountain. Another is under one of the community
colleges in the area.

Great thread for metalworking!

Paul in Central Oregon

---

a great number of highways in sweden are done this way too. they have
revetments and hidden bunkers all over the place alongside the highways for
storing the viggens during a crisis.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:01:00 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

You might profit from researching why the Interstate highway system was
built.

Yeah - it was build during the "civil defense" panic, when we were all
terrified that Russia would be coming over the hill Real Soon Now. There
was a requirement that all overpasses have enough vertical clearance to
pass large military vehicles, and that sort of thing.

I'm 60 now, so I saw it all unfold.

And that's another problem - too much damn military, with bloodlust in
the spot where their heart is supposed to be.

Cheers!
Rich

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:52:55 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Richard the
Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

This is another thing that ****es me off about the Fed. There shouldn't
_be_ any "federal highway funds" - it should have been left in the hands
of the ones that create the wealth, namely the individuals that actually
pay for the roads.

All that's needed for a federal "highway department" is a map room, in
the reference section of the library.

Wrong-o, bucko. Building roads to carry the mail is one of the explicitly
enumerated powers of the Federal government, specifically Congress, under
the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 7.

And boy, ain't they doing a great job of it!
/sarcasm

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0500, Ignoramus26236
wrote:

On 2009-09-21, rangerssuck wrote:
Here's another one: My 20 year old niece was driving in the rain.
Truck in front of her was doing 55 (speed limit was 65). Cop was
behind her. She changed into the left lane to pass the truck. Cop
changed lanes as well. It starts raining really hard, so she slowed to
60. Cop pulls her over and writes a ticket for "obstructing traffic."
She tells him that visibility was really bad because of the heavy
rain. He says, "If you can't do the speed limit, stay out of the left
lane." Then, my brother calls the cops, and they offer him pretty much
the same deal Iggy got.

Now, my brother's something of a wimp about such things. Had it been
me, I would have had newspaper reporters at the trial.


Well, in my case, I clearly was in violation, so I do not object to
the original ticket. What I felt was a little disconcerting, was the
fact that they were willing to not report my violation in exchange for
more $$$.

In the case of "driving school", there is at least some fig leaf, but
here, it is just "we will not report your crime if you give us money".

Mind you, I actually prefer this outcome to having my ticket reported,
but I think that it is a corrupt policy.

Iggy: You live in Chicagoland, right? Ex post facto, it's well
known as Corruption Central - Home of "Vote early and often." If
you'd slipped $100 cash to the patrolman under your license, the
response would be "Have a nice day, you may go now..."

(Try that in California and the cop is hooking you up Right Now.)

Folks, remember that most Windows Mobile devices will act as a really
nice "wire" and will record audio as long as you have free memory. Set
the recording bitrate and sensitivity and learn how to put it into
Record now, before you are under duress.

For a Palm Treo, you assign the option button on the side to "Notes"
and then all you have to do is press the little Record red ball.
11,025 Khz mono should be plenty

Let's see, divide 11 kb/s into 2GB gets you...

If you have a way to prove this shakedown to a Judge (like, say a
nice clear recording of a cop asking for a bribe...) you call the
State AG or the FBI and start kicking butt and taking names. Suborning
a bribe, falsification of official records, tax evasion ...
(You don't honestly think he's going to list bribe money on his
taxes, do you?)

-- Bruce --

On 2009-09-24, Bruce L Bergman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0500, Ignoramus26236
wrote:

On 2009-09-21, rangerssuck wrote:
Here's another one: My 20 year old niece was driving in the rain.
Truck in front of her was doing 55 (speed limit was 65). Cop was
behind her. She changed into the left lane to pass the truck. Cop
changed lanes as well. It starts raining really hard, so she slowed to
60. Cop pulls her over and writes a ticket for "obstructing traffic."
She tells him that visibility was really bad because of the heavy
rain. He says, "If you can't do the speed limit, stay out of the left
lane." Then, my brother calls the cops, and they offer him pretty much
the same deal Iggy got.

Now, my brother's something of a wimp about such things. Had it been
me, I would have had newspaper reporters at the trial.


Well, in my case, I clearly was in violation, so I do not object to
the original ticket. What I felt was a little disconcerting, was the
fact that they were willing to not report my violation in exchange for
more $$$.

In the case of "driving school", there is at least some fig leaf, but
here, it is just "we will not report your crime if you give us money".

Mind you, I actually prefer this outcome to having my ticket reported,
but I think that it is a corrupt policy.

Iggy: You live in Chicagoland, right? Ex post facto, it's well
known as Corruption Central - Home of "Vote early and often." If
you'd slipped $100 cash to the patrolman under your license, the
response would be "Have a nice day, you may go now..."

(Try that in California and the cop is hooking you up Right Now.)

Folks, remember that most Windows Mobile devices will act as a really
nice "wire" and will record audio as long as you have free memory. Set
the recording bitrate and sensitivity and learn how to put it into
Record now, before you are under duress.

For a Palm Treo, you assign the option button on the side to "Notes"
and then all you have to do is press the little Record red ball.
11,025 Khz mono should be plenty

Let's see, divide 11 kb/s into 2GB gets you...

If you have a way to prove this shakedown to a Judge (like, say a
nice clear recording of a cop asking for a bribe...) you call the
State AG or the FBI and start kicking butt and taking names. Suborning
a bribe, falsification of official records, tax evasion ...
(You don't honestly think he's going to list bribe money on his
taxes, do you?)

I am 38 years old, never gave a bribe, and I am not about to start for
no good reason. I do not think of myself as a unusually honest
individual, I just do not like to give bribes.

i

Of course, today no one thinks this way because the bombers are
obsolete, but the freeways are still ready.

B 52's are obsolete?

Steve

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:00:53 -0500, Ignoramus8004
wrote:

On 2009-09-24, Bruce L Bergman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:51:36 -0500, Ignoramus26236
wrote:

On 2009-09-21, rangerssuck wrote:
Here's another one: My 20 year old niece was driving in the rain.
Truck in front of her was doing 55 (speed limit was 65). Cop was
behind her. She changed into the left lane to pass the truck. Cop
changed lanes as well. It starts raining really hard, so she slowed to
60. Cop pulls her over and writes a ticket for "obstructing traffic."
She tells him that visibility was really bad because of the heavy
rain. He says, "If you can't do the speed limit, stay out of the left
lane." Then, my brother calls the cops, and they offer him pretty much
the same deal Iggy got.

Now, my brother's something of a wimp about such things. Had it been
me, I would have had newspaper reporters at the trial.

She was following "Basic Speed Law" which is almost uyniversal
between states - "driving no faster than safe for the existing road
and traffic condtions."

Classsic No Win Situation (ast the time), and you could probably
argue that one with a judge and win in a courtroom. If she didn't
slow down he could cite for Basic Speed Law simply by still going the
speed limit in the driving rain where visibility was reduced and
braking traction was nil - so she slowed down to a safe and reasonable
speed...

And the cop called it 'obstructing traffic' instead. Face it, the
MFing cop was late to go off duty, and she was slowing him down in
getting back to the police station, so she's getting a ticket for
something. And since they'd never buy 'Spitting on the sidewalk'...

Well, in my case, I clearly was in violation, so I do not object to
the original ticket. What I felt was a little disconcerting, was the
fact that they were willing to not report my violation in exchange for
more $$$.

Iggy: You live in Chicagoland, right? Ex post facto, it's well
known as Corruption Central - Home of "Vote early and often." If
you'd slipped $100 cash to the patrolman under your license, the
response would be "Have a nice day, you may go now..."

I am 38 years old, never gave a bribe, and I am not about to start for
no good reason. I do not think of myself as a unusually honest
individual, I just do not like to give bribes.

Well, that's exactly what they did - they asked for a bribe to "make
it all go away." And there's no sugar-coating it. If you go along
with their offer and then they get caught (through no actions of
yours), they could very easily turn it all around and make it out that
YOU approached THEM with a bribe, and since they are the sworn
officers who do you think gets the benefit of the doubt? Hint - it
ain't you. You have to have your ass well covered.

I would call a criminal lawyer for a consult Right Now, he might be
joining you in court to contest the ticket on the merits - you might
get the Judge to toss the ticke out if he learns about the little
stunt the local Policeman's Benevolent Fund (IOW the Precinct Beer and
Hookers slush fund) just tried to pull.

Depending on the state laws, you might have "a friend" along as you
go to pay the bribe and watch them tear up the ticket - whatever you
do, do NOT tell them your 'friend' is a Lawyer or a State/Federal LEO
and is there to serve as an unimpeachable witness to the bribery...

-- Bruce --