|
Post by freebird on May 29, 2009 18:19:42 GMT -6
We said it here first. From the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
This is an update regarding the Myrtle Beach Helmet Tickets and the efforts of the freedom fighters who took part. I would like especially thank all the SC BOLT and ABATE of SC members who took part. I would also like to thank the many other diverse groups and individuals that took time to ride on the nasty wet and cold Saturday February 28th. ~FF ----- 49 of the motorcyclists (freedom fighters) who took part in the Myrtle Beach Freedom Ride and who were ticketed for helmet violations have had their cases stayed yesterday. Tom filed motions to have the cases dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. The original city ordinance mandated that the violations, which are civil in nature, be heard by a special tribunal created by the city. However, since that time the tribunals have been found to be unconstitutional (or at least suggested to be by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina). The city moved the cases to municipal court. However, the State Code of South Carolina specifically states that the municipal courts do not have jurisdiction over civil matters. Since the city served the 49 defendants via mail after the Chief Justice's ruling, they were forced to admit that the infractions were civil in nature since you can't serve a criminal complaint by mail. That put the City of Myrtle Beach in a box since State Code says the municipal courts do not have jurisdiction over civil matters. The court decided to stay the trials of these matters while deciding how to rule. The court has stated that none of the defendants need to appear on the scheduled dates. We expect a ruling soon. In the mean time a motions have been file in the South Carolina Supreme Court to declare the ordinances void. More information will be forthcoming as it is made available.
Matt Danielson Tom McGrath's Motorcycle Law Group Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists 1-800-321-8968
|
|
|
Post by DG1 Phillip on May 29, 2009 18:59:47 GMT -6
Dang you beat me to it...I just got that too........ ;D
|
|
|
Post by freebird on May 29, 2009 19:22:16 GMT -6
Dang you beat me to it...I just got that too........ ;D[/quote/ You slowin down.... ;D ;D Find out anything on Hilton...
|
|
|
Post by DG1 Phillip on May 29, 2009 21:20:30 GMT -6
Dang you beat me to it...I just got that too........ ;D[/quote/ You slowin down.... ;D ;D Find out anything on Hilton... Nope left 2 messages and never got a call back tried to call henry again and he is out of town and not taking calls... Will keep trying though
|
|
|
Post by ghostwars on May 30, 2009 4:00:35 GMT -6
I'm not sure if I agree. Civil matters, such as a contract dispute, landlord/tenant dispute, restraining orders, and evictions are all heard in Magistrate Court.
Ordinance Violations, such as noise ordinance, is heard in Municipal Court (city court). Parking tickets is another example that carries no jail time but is heard in Municipal Court.
Like most, I am interested to see how the state's SC rules on this.
|
|
|
Post by freebird on May 30, 2009 4:45:30 GMT -6
I'm not sure if I agree. Civil matters, such as a contract dispute, landlord/tenant dispute, restraining orders, and evictions are all heard in Magistrate Court. Ordinance Violations, such as noise ordinance, is heard in Municipal Court (city court). Parking tickets is another example that carries no jail time but is heard in Municipal Court. Like most, I am interested to see how the state's SC rules on this. Ghost The full version is in the info section....B spells it out for me. That only addresses the 49 on the freedom ride tho. The real test is the Supreme Court which is under no obligation to review for a year. Hopefully they will see some urgency in this matter SECTION 56-7-80. County or municipal uniform ordinance summons. (A) Counties and municipalities are authorized to adopt by ordinance and use an ordinance summons as provided herein for the enforcement of county and municipal ordinances. Upon adoption of the ordinance summons, any county or municipal law enforcement officer or code enforcement officer is authorized to use an ordinance summons. Any county or municipality adopting the ordinance summons is responsible for the printing, distributing, monitoring, and auditing of the ordinance summons to be used by that entity. (B) The uniform ordinance summons may not be used to perform a custodial arrest. No county or municipal ordinance which regulates the use of motor vehicles on the public roads of this State may be enforced using an ordinance summons.
|
|
|
Post by howardstern on May 30, 2009 5:13:45 GMT -6
So the city's big, fat, pasta snarfin' Attorney gave them some bad advice? NO KIDDIN'! The Circus act is coming to an end...
|
|
|
Post by beachbikers1 on May 30, 2009 11:03:46 GMT -6
Picture yourself sitting in front of a biscuit that looks so good your mouth begins to water. You can't wait to put some jam or honey on that sucker and eat it. You go to split it and it just crumbles in your fingers with not a piece big enough to hold anything. That's how I see the City right now!
|
|
|
Post by freebird on May 30, 2009 12:43:45 GMT -6
So the city's big, fat, pasta snarfin' Attorney gave them some bad advice? NO KIDDIN'! The Circus act is coming to an end... Say it aint so... What will we ever do to entertain ourselves... ;D
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on May 30, 2009 13:04:25 GMT -6
So the city's big, fat, pasta snarfin' Attorney gave them some bad advice? NO KIDDIN'! The Circus act is coming to an end... In case anyone doesn't know what the city attorney looks like, here he is: And just ask TonyTrain how sensitive old larda$$ is about his glass of water... PS: At the same meeting that picture was taken, which was the workshop of the FINAL reading of the ordinances - and only a couple of hours before all 15 ordinances were voted in as officially enacted - the city attorney (pictured above) was directly and specifically asked in open, official discussion by a business owner and his legal counsel if he had actually REVIEWED and provided opinions about the ordinances.. His answer was NO, he had NOT!
|
|
|
Post by DG1 Phillip on May 30, 2009 13:44:12 GMT -6
;D ;D ;D Nice photo work on the extenze (size does matter) drink and twinkies I about fell out of the chair on that one......... Does he inject the twinkies hoping they will get bigger? ROTFLMAO!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by geezer on May 30, 2009 18:13:45 GMT -6
Range, you never disappoint me. Great photo.
|
|
|
Post by beachbikers1 on May 30, 2009 20:39:56 GMT -6
Range, you are the Don Rickles of photo editing! We could use you running the Chamber of Commerce!!
|
|
wolf
Junior Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by wolf on May 31, 2009 5:21:28 GMT -6
Range is right. Even in the written drafts of the ordinances, Ellenberg wrote in the heading of the memos "No legal Advice Given". Kind of a legal CYA statement.
Clearly even he knew that these ordinances were unenforceable at the time he wrote them. As I see it they were more of a smokescreen to be used as to disuade the Rallies.
Similarly, here in PA, when the new Mayor of Philadelphia was elected, he and City Council passed some anti-gun ordinances for the city of Philadelphia only. Of course these too were in direct violation of our State Consitiution and were struck down immediatly by the State (before they could even be enacted. Why, the "people" of the city were screaming for control" and the mayor now can say he tried and pont the finger back at the State. In other words "See I tried, but They wouldn't let us"
Why this never happened in the case of MB boggles my mind. where was the SC SAG??? Is he in the pocket of Rhodes and the 4th Reich? Same with the judges that heard the initial suits, AFAIK a law doesn't need to be enforced to be found unconstituional and repealed by court or state order.
|
|
|
Post by howardstern on May 31, 2009 6:57:41 GMT -6
That guys got more CHINS than a Chinese phonebook!
|
|