Monday, September 30, 2013

Charlie's Sixth Amendment rights (or lack of)


Friend of the blog, Mr. Robert Hendrickson was kind enough to share with us a doozy of a find on Ebay! It is the court transcript of December 24, 1969 (Christmas eve), where Manson appeared before Judge William B. Keene to determine if he had the ability to "represent" himself. (Please read transcript first):


Ok, the part I didn't understand is why the judge told him he couldn't have co-counsel, but could ask for assistance from any capable attorney of his choosing. To me, it sounded almost like the same thing, but I am sure in legal terms, it was NOT. Here is where Judge Keene confuses me:
"But, as I say, it will not be on the basis of three or four or five individuals with the ability to be co-counsel in the matter with each one attempting to call the shots. You are going to have to call the shots yourself."
Something else makes me think too. The part Manson said about the "generation gap." I completely understand where he was coming from in that aspect. Could that have been the motivation behind his need to represent himself? Nothing they did, or said could convince him otherwise. He really made a mistake in his attempt at speaking for himself! Manson never knew when to shut up, and listen. One wonders if Manson would of retained the services of a bad-ass attorney, sat quietly in a suit & tie, and had a short haircut (not shaved), would things have been different, as far as making an impression on the judge & jury? Would they have seen him through rose-colored glasses? Me thinks not! In all honesty, Manson was convicted already, even before the trial began. Look at the incredible negative publicity surrounding the case. You know like hell those jurors SAW, and READ stuff about the murders even before they were called for jury duty. Didn't even Nixon make a comment in front of the press about Manson being guilty? Let me be clear on something, though. I am, by no means a fan of Charles Manson! Personally, I think he is a little creep, BUT I do feel that his rights were violated, and he didn't really get a fair trial. I am not the only one who thinks so either. Internationally known attorney Giovanni De Stefano came to the same conclusion in 2010 when he filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) asserting Manson had been illegally convicted. Of course, that could take years, since IACHR is backlogged with cases, and the courts could always argue that the reason Manson's Pro Per rights were withdrawn was because of his courtroom antics! OK, enough of my blabbering lips....Let us now hear from Mr. Robert Hendrickson on the subject at hand:

Austin Ann has apparently struck right to the heart of the relevant legal issue - "to have the assistance of counsel" outside the courtroom, verses the right to have co-counsel present in the courtroom during the trial and available for actual questioning of witnesses. 
FIRST: It must be realized that on December 24, 1969 at the subject hearing Charles Manson was "representing" himself in Pro Per, AND up until that time he was considered a model Pro Per inmate. Only after his U.S. Constitutional right to "represent" himself was set aside, did he revert to verbal outbursts, etc. in the courtroom. 
SECOND: It should be obvious that a "judicial" word game (between two supposed legal minds) was at play there. BUT when Judge Keene gave Charles Manson the ultimatium to "waive" his Constitutional right to the Sixth Amendment OR he would be denied his right to "represent" himself in Court, it could only turn ugly. It was then a "contest" between two super-egos (one representing the "establishment" and one representing the underdog) 
NOTE: Any attorney who advises a defendant to "waive" any Constitution right may be considered incompetant OR corrupt. 
THIRD: Shortly after this hearing, the same Judge Keene determined that "Mr. Manson is incapable of representing himself."  The judge held that to allow Mr. Manson to represent himself would bring about a fundamental denial of due process.
Of course back then, Judge Keene seemingly WON the battle, BUT today we realize that Charles Manson WON the war. Was the Judge actually tricked by a clever con - probably. BUT Judge Keene obviously shirked his judical duties by ignoring the rights of the three girl defendants - in favor of making it all-about-Manson.
Because the U.S. Consitution states: "to have the Assistance of Counsel FOR HIS DEFENSE," we only need to understand where "his defense" actually takes place and whether the act of "Assistance of Counsel" can include the examining of witnesses.
For me, because MY right to "free speech" (regarding the MANSON movie) was actually set aside by a Federal Judge in the Lynette Fromme / Gerald Ford case, I personally feel a profound connection to Manson's Constitutional "right" denial and mine. On the other hand, can we really expect a so-called "judge" to render substantial "justice" when a Constitutional Amendment is worded so carelessly that several miss-interpretations can be derived so easily? 
Robert Hendrickson






56 comments:

ElComadreja777 said...

While I too do not condone anything Charlie or the rest of them did I agree that he was railroaded. The trial was a mere formality.

Farflung said...

Duplicity appears to be the centerpiece around which the judicial system revolves, and upon which we (code for me) take the ride, because we bought the ticket. Where does one begin?

Ignorance of the law is NO defense! That’s a popular axiom among the police who will deliver such an admonishment before reading some Miranda Rights. You see, being ignorant of constitutional law is OK, so you are given a quick course in what you’re not supposed to be ignorant about.

No contract is binding where any signing party is intoxicated! Damn right, no document or contract should be considered binding when a person is impaired by some narcotic or alcohol. Yet thousands of DUI citations are signed every month. Yep, you are required to acknowledge the receipt of a DUI citation by signature. I would use the cop’s acceptance of my signature on that contract (ticket) as proof that he thought I was in fact, de facto, sober (no I don’t drink and drive… as if anyone admits they do).

Justice is blind! She may be, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have an eye for fashion. The last jury summons I received contained an extra piece of paper, which outlined acceptable forms of attire for the courtroom. I was delighted to find that wearing a low-cut blouse was not appropriate, but there was no restriction on a high-cut shirt, blazoned with a graphic like: HE’s GUILTY! So that’s good.

If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed. If you scrimp, save, and live a life well within your means, you will be rewarded by paying for your legal defense. If I was truly innocent of whatever, I think the public defender would work just fine for me, but I’ll never know.

Jail is where you are held before a trial, where you are given the presumption of innocence. How can this sentence even be written? Jail in any form is punishment. If you are found guilty of something and the punishment equals the time you have already spent in the jail, then you get “time served”, then released. If you are innocent, then you got to fend off months of surprise buttseks, while the slow wheels of justice turned, before being released to discover your job is gone, along with your wife and home. But walk with that head high, because you were able to afford an attorney and drain your savings account in the process. There’s always a silver lining somewhere.

Jury duty. My summons included a warning about the fines and punishment for not appearing. In my case, the defendant was facing the same potential punishment for his crime (shoplifting), as those of us on the jury (times twelve) would face for not showing up to hear his case. I guess the only people not staring down the barrel of some draconian punishment are the lawyers and judges. It’s good to be king.

Jury pay. You can impress the ladies with that $17.50 you get for every day spent listening to people who swear to tell nothing but the truth. But it’s a Faustian bargain, because long after the glamour of spending that money wore off, and over a year had passed, I received a couple letters from the Franchise Tax Board and the IRS. Yep, I neglected to claim $35 of jury pay and faced fines plus the delinquent income taxes. So after dressing properly, arriving on time, and patiently listening before casting my guilty vote, I managed to become a tax evader and presumed criminal at the state and federal levels. So I showed ‘them’ and called my accountant, and only had to pay $50 to send a pair of amended returns, along with the additional taxes and penalties, and returned to live the life of the righteous. Truly a Pyrrhic victory.

AustinAnn74 said...

Wow! Two comments only? Matt, I think I am losing my touch! haha....Nobody wants to discuss? Anybody, anybody?

Matt said...

I'm saving some of my serious follow-up comments to the 6th Amendment post, but I have to respond to Farflung's comment, before I forget what I'm going to say.

First: A brilliant attorney once explained that whenever you are "read" your rights by a cop, you should ONLY respond with: "OK, I'll have one of those attorneys NOW, so I can respond properly.

Second: Being made to "work" as the "trier of fact" (a judge) for next to nothing pay is "slavery," and according to the U.S. Constitution ONLY "prisoners" can be made to work as slaves. Also NOTE that only prisoners can truely be considered the "peers" of defendant prisoners.

One might also consider that the "work" of a (trier of fact) is simply a "low-pay" ho-hum kind of job.

IE: On most jury forms, a prospective juror is asked to swear "under oath" that he / she is a US citizen, but the answer would be considered a "conclusion" of law. It does not become a fact until a Judge formally declares a person to be a "citizen."

AND because most of us can NOT bare lawful witness to a fact that we were actually "born" within the boundaries of the US (but our parents could), we would be swearing under penalty of purjury to a fact that was actually only a "speculation."

Thus, a court of law is really ONLY a theater, where dramatic stories are presented for the public's entertainment.

So why don't we call a "spade a spade" instead of a shovel?

Robert Hendrickson


Farflung said...

Courtroom trials pretty much have to be theater, because I was certainly doing my fair share of ‘acting’.

First I was summoned via the mail with the document containing the above listed passive aggressive reasons to show up, well dressed, and on time.

Entering the hallowed halls included a pat down, magnetic scan, and x-ray of a paperback book. Hey, it was YOU that wanted me here, not the other way around, who do I get to search?

After passing through the gauntlet, I entered the jury pool room, and there wasn’t a table in sight. Nope, just a bunch of plastic hemorrhoid taunting chairs, interlocked side by side and facing what must have been a casting call for freaks and zombies, with a dozen airborne communicable viruses.

Go ahead and read if you can concentrate above the cacophony of…. coughing, while trying to hear your ‘group number’ (G984) announced from a speaker which failed QA for installation at a Jack-in-the-Box drive thru.

Once your number is up, you are gently ushered to a beautifully appointed court room to fill out a questionnaire to identify any bias, prejudice, or foibles you may hold in your heart.

Now comes the exhaustive, extensive, extenuating, excretion of excuses (how that for alliteration?). Reasons why people should not serve on jury duty span the abject reaches of imponderably absurd to rising as high as imbecilic. I was on a weeklong break between a business trip from Asia, before departing for Saudi Arabia, and felt that certainly wasn’t worth mentioning, for what was estimated to be a two day trial. Not so for the mother who would miss her daughter’s performance as an Easter bee (yes, this woman was dismissed).

So now I’m qualified and ready to sit in judgment of some citizen’s faux pas AND…… I’m pissed. Just the sort of guy you want considering your future freedom. A person who could launch a pre-emptive guilty verdict in order to atone for the searches, almost wax paper quality of the toilet tissue in the restrooms, and any other indignity, real or imagined, which occurred over a span of time which felt like it surpassed eternity, but realistically was probably not more than a month.

So by the time I was in the jury box, you better believe I was acting like I was paying attention, being thoughtful, and weighing all the evidence before getting the hell out of there, while praying the last time I see that place will be in my rear view mirror. Truly an example of why- he who governs least, governs best. Jury trials are for the record and for those who have phuked up one time too many, and want to throw the dice with twelve angry people. You only need one to go against the group.

Max Frost said...

No Ann you aren't losing your touch.

Great post! Interesting subject.

I get annoyed whenever I hear someone say that Manson was acting crazy during the trial.

He had very good reason to act out during that one-sided mockery of a trial.

I would hope every American, under similar circumstances, would do the same thing. But of course they don't...which is why this country is in DEEP shit - the people love to be rammed without even a hint of Vaseline. It seems to be the American way.

That's what the girls were warning the country of while holding vigil on the corner of temple & broadway. When sandy said "you are next, all of you!" That's what she meant. If the courts can deny Manson his rights and play out the trial like a rigged game...it's only a matter of time before they will do it to everyone else - even for something as minor as a traffic ticket.

And guess what? She was right.

Cielodrive.Com said...

I'm fairly confident had Charlie represented himself, he'd do an even better job of proving himself guilty.

Panamint Patty said...

Patty seconds that LOL

La-de-la said...

Max Frost,

When was the last time you had anal sex...1971??
Vaseline??? Seriously??

Panamint Patty said...

thats pretty funny

Max Frost said...

La-de-la,

It's still a commonly used phrase. Seriously.

AustinAnn74 said...

I'm sorry, but Sandra Good needed a good, sound beating with a sap. Out of all those girls, she still is trying to justify the murders committed by her friends as an environmental cause. This woman is sicker than Manson has ever been.

Matt said...

Why Manson wanted to represent himself!

Here's a clue: "The lawyer for Mrs. Atkins got 50__"

BUT the Judge interupted Manson before he could explain his motivation for wanting to be his own attorney.

The lawyer for Mrs. Atkins got $50,000 for her "priviledged story"- exploited it in the media and then walked away. Manson understood that he could have any attorney he wanted. Hell, they were lining up outside the Judge's chambers with high hopes of landing the $$$$ case of the century. Of course, this was back in the day when lawyers were unscrupulous.

Being denied the right of self-representation, he got Kanarek (the only one he could trust) to represent him. AND he had Daye Shinn who actually knew how to live by the code of "prisoners."

I suppose one could say: "Manson must have been really paranoid NOT to trust an "officer of the court." He didn't trust cops either.

If you crefully examine the subject transcript, you should begin to see the real Charles Manson. Unfortunately, when an actual trial is taking place everyone is consicious of "performing" well and ALL involved become exagerated characters, except the really quiet ones - they are dangerous.

Robert Hendrickson


AustinAnn74 said...

That Atkins story that was leaked to the papers was the nail in Manson's coffin. You know that someone on that jury read it. Manson was going to be found guilty even before the trial. He didn't get a chance to really be able to put up a good fight. I know this would not have helped in the least bit, but why wasn't there a change of venue? Why was there a strange umbrella defense? Was that Manson's idea?

La-de-la said...

Common in the 80's maybe. Seriously.

Matt said...

IF you could have but ONLY one U.S. Constitutional Right, which one would it be? Have YOU ever given that "question" any thought?

Do YOU even know what "right" allows the eviliz blog to exist?

Robert Hendrickson


Farflung said...

Having a “one” right from the bill of rights, is like having one vital organ. Most would pick the heart, but in about four minutes you’d likely want some lung action to compliment what that heart was trying to do in the first place. The First Amendment allows for free speech, religion, and assembly where grievances can be brought to the government as part of a self directed society. One may be surprised to discover that most other nations will claim to possess a similar ethos; it just so happens that they all want the same faith and ruler. So who’s the victim there?

The much maligned Second Amendment keeps honest governments honest. Many nations prohibit ordinary citizens from owning firearms because the government is scared shitless of their citizens. We have gun shows and stores which are held accountable for some number of deaths each year, which almost approaches a quarter of the deaths resulting from the automobile, which isn’t even in the constitution. Weird.

The Third Amendment is an utter mystery and no one knows a thing about it.

The Fourth Amendment can be appreciated once you’ve visited some locked down monarchy where there are checkpoints every few miles, where you are to produce your papers. The US has a similar system with mobile checkpoints camouflaged as CHP or state police cars looking for that burnt out light, expired registration, or unattached seatbelt. Good afternoon, I’ll need to see a driver’s license, registration, proof of insurance, thumbprint, SMOG certificate, autographed picture of Randy Mantooth, and your itinerary. All quite routine.

The Fifth is so popular, that it has entered the lexicon of other countries. Nothing is more heartwarming than hearing someone from Malaysia take the Fifth, when responding to a question. Obtaining justice through due process, and not beating the crap out of someone to get a confession is good form.

I don’t get the Sixth Amendment because of the juxtaposition to the wheels of justice turning slowly. It seems one could use the latter as an argument supporting the designed violation of the former. There, now I have a headache.

The Seventh Amendment is the crazy aunt locked in the basement right, which no one understands, but we keep it around out of some weird sense of obligation.

Which segues nicely to the excessive bail cum cruel and unusual punishment amendment. I don’t know how this is ever going to be satisfied. Bill Gates may be a good test case for excessive bail since he could throw down billions and not feel the pain I would with $500. Cruel and unusual punishments are an oxymoron since punishment which isn’t cruel (eating pies), would automatically become unusual (eating pies). So I guess that leaves pleasant punishment, which may be a view of just what a bunch of BDSM freaks our founding fathers were.

The Ninth Amendment must have been written in Latin or Esperanto because no one understands what it means, especially the Supreme Court.

But if I had to pick a favorite, it would be the Tenth Amendment. Also known as: Your right to parrrr-ty! That’s right; it’s the ‘go ask your father’ clause of the constitution where anything NOT prohibited by Federal Law, is up to the people to decide. Enter gambling, brothels, public drinking, drive through divorces, and walk in 24 hour strip clubs, all culminating in Nevada. Yeeee Hawwww!

Matt said...

To Farflung:

Thank you for exercising YOUR right to FREE SPEECH, and thank you to the eviliz team for facillitating Farflung's RIGHT. AND of course, thank you to the founding fathers for realizing that such a RIGHT must be protected for the people from an otherwise evil government.

AND the Third Amendment is what provided the Sourthern Planation owners with "condemnation" compensation, when the Union "soldiers" nested in their homes during the Civil War. Unfortunately, that Amendment has never been up-dated to include police, FBI Agents, politicians, etc. from taking over our property, even for a short time period.

I think it was B. Clinton who explained: "I don't want the taxpayers to have to pay Monica everytime I nest in her bed!"

Robert Hendrickson


Max Frost said...

I loved the '80s!

AustinAnn74 said...

I don't think the local, city politicians that live in my area are familiar with rights. For some odd reason they think that our neighbor, who owns lake-front property didn't want it anymore, so they took her property away from her, and put it in the hands of a real estate developer, who is building a marina. Funny thing is, the lake is almost bone dry from drought, and there is a zoning law in place for no commercial building near the lake. I guess my neighbor, who has been out here since 1949 didn't need lake front property anymore! The guy that is building the marina, and plays golf with the local politicians needs the marina more than my neighbor. What rights? Americans are losing their rights on a daily basis!

Max Frost said...

Careful Ann, you are going to piss off a life-long military blogger who chooses to keep his head buried in the sand, fantasizing that the US government is somehow good and has the people's best interest at heart.

The fact is we are already living in a fascist police state governed by a bunch of chicken shit candy ass pretend politicians who are nothing more than tellers in a huge bank, who's mission is to squeeze all the money out of the hard working former middle class via illegal taxes with compounded fees, etc.

Rights? Hah! Yeah what a joke. Protesters are now labeled 'anarchists' and 'potential terrorists.'

Hell, one brainwashed, former EL blogger, labeled me a 'Timothy mcveigh type' simply because I was excercising my alleged 1st amendment right to free speech while using it wisely to criticize this overt Ponzi scheme scam of a government. He was playing right into their hands - doing whatever he can to squash dissent.

Sadly, most people in this country won't wake up until they are already locked up in a FEMA camp, scratching their heads and wondering how it all happened.

Panamint Patty said...

That's a bit dramatic for Patty's tastes, Max. Let it go?

Max Frost said...

Let what go?

Ann's last comment left the door wide open. I couldn't resist.

Doesn't mean I'm holding onto anything...

summerof1985 said...

No biggie, but, except for a bench trial, 'trier of fact' refers to a jury.

AustinAnn74 said...

I am sorry. I guess I changed the subject. Haha...

Matt said...

To Farflung: We all like to think we know it all, but as much as I have studied the law, until Farflung put the Constitutional Amendments in such a clever context, I never realized the "founders" may have had something ELSE on their agenda plate, besides preserving the "rights" of common folk.

IF you look at the "rights" of the people and compare them to the "powers" of the government, the "rights" are small and the "powers" are many and well spelled out. It's as if: "We gave ourselves ALL the power- maybe we better give the groundlings some "scraps" from the table (that can easily be minimized by the courts later). Something to think about.

To Max: The Vietnam War / 1960s changed America-FOEREVER. But CM "killed" the 60s, thus at least ending the destructive War!

To Patty:
When you witness the google earth technology - especially the ability to SEE images from miles in space - would it not make sense that we also developed the ability to "LISTEN" to someone speak from the same distance.

To Everyone: From Kindergarden through High School, we are forced to attend school for FREE, BUT thereafter we MUST pay $$$$$ for a real education.

What's that all about?

Robert Hendrickson


La-de-la said...

Max,

I'm curious: What are you doing to ensure you won't end up in a FEMA camp? And what can I do so I make sure I don't end up in one of these camps? I'm sure there's only Vaseline in those camps.

Farflung said...

Some ancient Californians may recall the CHP “Safety Checkpoints” where cars were randomly selected for a thorough inspection for YOUR safety and the safety of children and puppies (again that’s: safety, children, and puppies). There was a sticker which was absolutely indestructible which was placed on the front windshield as a sign of a vehicle in compliance. It was mathematically amazing to see some cars with half a dozen of these stickers crowding the margins of a windshield, on a vehicle randomly selected (read profiling you damn dirty hippie). Finally people tired of this extra intrusion into their daily lives and struck back with it being a form of “illegal search” and won; thus placing the safety (children, puppies) checkpoints in the faded memories of but a few.

Another imponderable law from the same time period involved the public display of a vehicle’s registration. You read that correctly, your vehicle’s registration card was required to be displayed in an openly visible location in California (we’re No 1). It was typically on the sun visor or in a windowed wallet which was strapped to the steering column, or in a glass tube mounted above the license plate on a motorcycle. What a great way to preserve your privacy, by having your home address on display in that brand new, fully loaded, Cadillac. What could possibly go wrong here?

Some enterprising criminals would go to the long term parking lots at airports and look for those Caddys and assume the owner was out of town (ding!), wealthy (ding!), and probably had an empty home filled with goodies (cha ching!), at the address displayed on the registration as required by law. Thanks to a crime spree involving hundreds of break-ins, the government sprung into action and allowed Californians to put their registration out of public view. That’s kind of embarrassing and yet we still have registration cards in our cars for reasons no one questions nor understands. They are superfluous since there is an expiration sticker on the plate, and the plate is tied to the VIN, and you can run a traffic light, where a camera (so much for facing your accuser) will send you a ticket. No need for that silly piece of paper, other than to give you a chance to violate another law (no registration) which is utterly redundant. Oh well.

Farflung said...

The internet never disappoints. There’s actually a company which manufactures replica CHP inspection stickers so your car restoration will be complete:

Inspection Sticker Exemplar

To my amazement, within a few more seconds, I was able to find some registration holders for the steering column:

Old School Registration Holder

Obviously these are for vehicles which had the ignition switch on the dashboard (where god intended it to be), versus the modern steering columns which are too large and bristling with controls. Like the high beam switch which rightfully belongs on the floor (where god intended it to be).

Matt said...

Farf, in Texas they cleverly call the State Police the Department of Public Safety. As far as I know they still perform such inspections. In the early 1980's I was young & foolish enough to allow a DPS Officer to "inspect" my vehicle. I spent that night in the Ward County Jail in Monahans until they determined that the suspicious white powder (in an Arm and Hammer box) was indeed baking soda.

DebS said...

I feel like such a Pollyanna. I have never had to show up for jury duty. I have gotten many notices but all have been cancelled without me ever having to go the courthouse. I have never been arrested either so have no personal experience on that front.


I have however been stopped for speeding. On one occasion the CHP officer went to the passenger side of the car to ask for my license, registration and proof of insurance. He correctly said that he smelled alcohol on my husband's breath so he had me get out of the car and preform stupid human tricks along side of the road.

I had not been drinking and that is precisely why I was driving. Duh! It is a bit humiliating to go through their paces while other cars are whizzing by but after passing with what I suppose was flying colors he thanked me and let me go on my way. I did not get the speeding ticket which I righteously deserved. YAY! It probably helped to keep me from complaining that I had to do the tricks at all.

Max Frost said...

La-de-la,

LOL! Good question...guess we'll find out when we get there...

My grandmother survived auschwitz so I'm guessing I've inherited the ability to withstand somewhere in my genes.

And no, there will not be a trace of Vaseline in any of those camps.

GrumpFromPahrump said...

Max

This lifelong military guy proud American will hide his head in the sand after he knocks your dick in the dirt. Scumbag

Max Frost said...

Howdy Grump!

Long time.

I've missed your razor sharp wit and insightful posts.

What's new with you?

GrumpFromPahrump said...

BTW Max - This lifelong military proud American's Uncle Leonard, who got killed in Korea, was on one of those tanks that liberated Auschwitz. Oh, I forgot..the whole Governemt and Military is corrupt and uses Vasaline on us. Jerk Off

GrumpFromPahrump said...

Max Frost said...

Thanks For the laughs Grump!

Glad you're back!

GrumpFromPahrump said...

Liz, Patty, Matt, Deb, Austin Anne, that is it. I have deleted Eviliz as a fovorite. It's over. I believe in freedom of speech, but this Manson board is not the place for that guy. He was supposed to "bring all kind of knowledgs" to the blog. All he has done is disagree with everybody, insult people, and put down the Govt. If I had his info, I'd turn him into Homeland Security after I beat the f**k out of him.

I hope you guys enjoy your future Eviliz Tours. I enjoyed the first one, but am so glad I didn't make the second one.

I was one of the few that started this blog with Liz years ago. It was fun and respectful. Not any more.

Live long and prosper, and load up on the Vasaline.

Steve

Max Frost said...

Turn someone in to homeland security (sounds a lot like hitlers' "fatherland security") for excercising their right to free speech?

And what country are we in again??

LOL Grump - you sure know how to keep me laughing!

Keep 'em coming.

Cheers mate!

Matt said...

OK Farflung, YOU started it.

I can remember seeing the registration on my Grandfather's 49 Green Cadillac as if was yesterday. Now the memories are flooding in. Sure enough, The following story was told manny times by my parents. My aunt (grandfather' daughter) married an "animal" trainer / collector and rented them out to the movie studios. She still lived at home and he would come there after work. I guess some burglers got my grandfather's address (maybe off vehicle registration) and one night they climbed in the bathroom window. That night HE (my uncle) had come over and parked his python snake in the bathtub.

THIS is the TRUTH: Apparently, the burgler actually came through the window and stepped right into the tub with the python. Obviously it was too dark for the burgler to see the snake, but he must have realized what he had nested with. The noise was so great even the neighbors were awakened.

He took-out the entire window, frame and all, in his haste to exit. When the cops arrived and assessed the situation - they laughed and laughed!!!

You see the python was a 30 footer and took up the entire tub.

Robert

You've all probably seen my uncle's work, he even provided the lizards to play in the first dinasour movies.



Matt said...

I can't do those stupid human tricks sober. How do they expect drunks to pass?

Farflung said...

Fortunately I haven’t been pulled over in the last 25 years, so I didn’t notice how the noose tightened a bit more. But what does showing proof of insurance have to do with a speeding violation? Everyone is capable of getting a traffic violation via a camera, which doesn’t need to see registration or proof of insurance. Plus the officer verifying your insurance that day, won’t do me any good if you hit me the day after it expires. It just seems like one of those weird things we have collective accepted in order to solve nothing.

Why not require license, registration, proof of insurance, a blow into a breathalyzer, a trunk search, and a DNA swab too? Rather than do the stupid roadside human tricks, why not just blow into the breathalyzer? He used a machine to measure your speeding rather than have you run down the road to see how quick you appear. If you get into a crash, there’s an automatic requirement to blow.

I’d tell the cop I’d be more than happy to take the field sobriety test, and ask him if he would mind getting my wheelchair out of the trunk. I don’t need a wheelchair; I just keep one in my trunk for just such an occasion.

AustinAnn74 said...

The reason DPS does this here, is because every other car they stop has either white powdery substances in it, or human cargo without papers. Trust me, I know. I have some property in Laredo, which is on the border. Lots & lots of drugs, and human smuggling going on, especially on the highways. You have to go through border patrol 50 miles out of town on the US side!

Matt said...

AA, what I didn't understand at that tender age is that I could have refused the search. They had no warrant or probable cause. I had nothing to hide so I consented. I vowed after that experience that no one would be allowed to do any more than a visual search ever again.

I have been pulled over since then (albeit 2-3 decades ago) and have refused. I found it amusing how hard they would try. One time a Trooper said "I can get a dog." I said, "bring two!" Never again means never again.

La-de-la said...

Max,

GUESS? All that pontificating and all you can come up with is Guess?!?!?

I guess gramma's genes were just lucky the Allied governments were there. Seriously.

Max Frost said...

I GUESS you will have to find the answers on your own.

It's much better that way - you'll actually have a great chance to learn something.

AustinAnn74 said...

Yeah, Matt, the troopers here are hard asses! Hell, we were coming back to Austin one time from Laredo, and we got pulled over by DPS, and they started letting the air out of our tires, thinking we had kilos of coke in them. They didn't give a shit. Out there, in the border area, those troopers will pull your ass out of the car, and beat you senseless for smarting off. It is another world down there. No rights, no nothing! hahah...It sucks!!

Max Frost said...

Actually ann that sounds like MOST of America these days...

Matt said...

Yes AA, the Peoples Republic of Texas. But authorities get away with it because people LET them. After my incident down there I began keeping a cassette recorder in my car and began always turning it on when I got pulled over. A cop demanded I turn it off once. I politely declined and he backed off. Now we have smart phones as equalizers.

As long as there are people in positions of perceived authority there will be lesser minds that will seek to abuse it. Know your rights and stand up for them.It's your duty.

AustinAnn74 said...

Well, the good thing is, all DPS cars have the dash cam now. A while back a female trooper here, in TX did a full body cavity search on a woman on the side of the road. She stuck her finger in her butt right out in the open. The trooper was fired, I think. They had no probable cause for any kind of search. Actually, it was two women. Ridiculous!!!

Matt said...

Yeah, I hear that vid is making the porn circuit rounds now.

Matt said...

I can really appreciate everyone's experience with cops, especially because I spent 1965 - 1967 at Fort Hood, Texas. Maybe that is the common denominator WE all have as an interest with the MANSON case?

But after watching the DC cops yesterday - riddle that car with bullets with the little girl inside - maybe the day is near when WE will be safer living inside "internment camps."

Before the Vietnam War was an America we were NOT afraid of - but now I bet the President is thinking: That little girl looks just like Sasha and Milea!

Robert Hendrickson

PS: Thank you Ann for letting ne join you in a great post.


AustinAnn74 said...

It was a pleasure having you aboard! Please let us know any time you want to contribute!! I am very familiar with Ft. Hood! Its not too far from Austin. :-)

Marley said...

Lol Patty your so smart Really.
You are a top notch douchebag that is for sure. Who knows nothing.
BTW get with the Facts Patty
Because you make me Barf!!

You are a mockery that is for
sure especially when you went
on that tour and imitated folger
being dead and Mocked the victims
You are sick. You know about
as much as the Colonel NOthing.

Do something useful rather than
run your FAT MOUTH.

Panamint Patty said...

Hi, Rene (aka Marley) Patty is not sure of your true identity, but you are definitely not Gary's relative as you have stated: that we have learned FOR CERTAIN. That being the case, what's your real deal? Patty is sick of the filth you put in her mailbox. So just speak it for us, k?

Panamint Patty said...

Oh wait...now you are not Gary's cousin, but you are a friend of Gary's cousin Paul?

Patty is sorry if she has caused Paul any hurt but she has never heard this from him. She only gets abuse from you. Please ask him to write her, she'd be happy to work with him.