New North Carolina Drivers License Has Emblem for NORTH AMERICANUNION -This is treason!!!

In article >,
Bama Brian > wrote:

> Larry wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bama Brian > wrote:
> >
> >> Larry wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Bama Brian > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Larry wrote:
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> Larry > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>> (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article >, Matthew
> >>>>>>> Russotto
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Follow all traffic laws and the police can't stop or question you.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Unless they throw up a checkpoint.
> >>>>>>> Or just make something up. I've been pulled over several times while
> >>>>>>> following all traffic laws. The last time was for 'making a face' at
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> cop that turned left in front me forcing me to brake.
> >>>>>> So from in front of you, he saw you "making a face"? How, in his
> >>>>>> rear-view mirror? And then he pulled you over from the front?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And you were "making a face" because he made you brake? How dare he!
> >>>>>> Is that another reason you hate cops so much, because this one made
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> brake?!!?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I never heard of
> >>>>>>> a driving law against 'making a face' at a cop. Other classics were
> >>>>>>> 'a
> >>>>>>> similiar car was involved in a crime' That one was funny... there
> >>>>>>> aren't
> >>>>>>> any similiar cars in the area to the one I was driving at the time
> >>>>>>> given
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> was 25 years old...
> >>>>>> Again, you don't know whether there was a crime committed nearby or
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>> the description of a relevant vehicle was... Sure, the cops could have
> >>>>>> been making it up, but maybe all a witness saw was a car with the same
> >>>>>> color and body style as yours. If there was ever a suppression
> >>>>>> hearing,
> >>>>>> all this would come out, under oath.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or the no reason given....
> >>>>>> None is required, as much as this bugs you.
> >>>>> To clarify (before you flame me) a reason is of course required to pull
> >>>>> you over. But there is no requirement that the police inform you of
> >>>>> what their reason is. Should there be a court case (either criminal or
> >>>>> civil) you'd be able to find out the reason via discovery provisions of
> >>>>> the law.
> >>>> So you'd have to wait until court to find out the charges against you?
> >>> Precisely. That's one of the two purposes of an arraignment.
> >>>
> >>>> Makes it hard to retain adequate counsel, doesn't it?
> >>> No, because nothing in the legal process happens before the arraignment.
> >>>
> >>> You get arraigned and find out the charges against you. Then, you're
> >>> entitled to discovery and pretrial motions and issues are litigated.
> >>> Then, the trial.
> >> You might just be already arrested.
> >
> > You might be arrested when? The criminal charges are not always firmly
> > decided at the time of arrest, anyway - the police often "charge" one
> > thing, but the DA or prosecutor can adjust the charges, depending on
> > their legal analysis of the situation.
> >
> >> If so, you'd better have kinfolk or
> >> somebody who cares about you outside. Otherwise you're going to have
> >> trouble with little things, like making bail, finding an attorney,
> >> finding out what you're charged with, and so on.
> >
> > No you won't. You'll find out what you're charged with within 24 hours
> > of your arrest, at your arraignment. By law (at least in NY) you get a
> > written copy of the complaint, which not only says what you're charged
> > with, but describes what exactly you are accused of doing that was a
> > violation of the law. You also have the right to free phone calls both
> > before and after your arraignment to obtain help from family, friends,
> > lawyers, or all of the above.
> >
> > Want to try again?
>
> And if you have no family or friends outside, who you gonna call? Ghost
> Busters?

You'll get a public defender appointed to you at your arraignment.
Since there's not much that a lawyer can do for you before your
arraignment (at least in NY), you're not at a disadvantage.

What, exactly, is your complaint?

Topp@Work wrote:
>
>"Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
> wrote in message
.. .
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> >On Sep 6, 12:25 pm, "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>> >> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in
. ..
>> >>
>> >> > Soon we'll all be mexican-americans unless we stand up to the
>traitors in our
>> >> > govt.
>> >>
>> >> Mexicans ARE Americans you stammering white-trash imbecile.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You lying sack of ****. Illegally entering america does not make you
>> >an american!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> The nation of Mexico is located on the continent of North America,
>> making all citizens of the nation a resident of the North American
>> continent. Hence, they're Americans.
>
>So I guess All Russians are Europeans and Asian?

More so than they are americans, australians, or africans.

>****in nitwit...

yes, but perhaps with study, you'll improve.


--

"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity:
the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1dd649fb?hl=en

"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle:
I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
: http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e8a61824?hl=en

In article >,
Larry > wrote:
>In article > ,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Larry > wrote:
>> >
>> >No, because nothing in the legal process happens before the arraignment.
>>
>> Except the rotting in jail for 72 hours part.
>
>I'm curious how this "72 hour" idea got so popular - I'm guessing TV
>shows.

Nope. One can be arrested on a Friday afternoon, and not see a judge until
Monday afternoon, despite what Riverside says.

>And the amount of time must be "reasonable" and something shorter than
>that could still be unreasonable.

Good luck proving it.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.