|
Post by rangemaster on Jun 8, 2010 16:06:26 GMT -6
The helmet sign just south of the main Harley Dealership - approx 3:00 PM today: and approx 5:00PM today: Compare/contrast the sign - and have a good laugh!
NOTE: Yes, I checked a few of the other sign locations - same thing.
|
|
|
Post by classic53 on Jun 9, 2010 5:14:07 GMT -6
What a waste of YOUR TAX money!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Jun 9, 2010 9:05:46 GMT -6
What a waste of YOUR TAX money!!!!!!!!!! Not mine.... I live in the County and soon Charleston
|
|
|
Post by General_Malaise on Jun 9, 2010 9:16:26 GMT -6
On the morning show this AM Leith admitted that they prepared the ammended signs prior to the decision as they were quite sure that they would lose.
Frustrating that they knew all the time that they were legally in the wrong, but just defied the fact just to stick it in the face of Bikers. If no one had taken it to court it would still be the LAW wrong or not.
It would be great if some type of civil action ($$$) could the taken against the city for their BLATANT actions in passing what they knew to be an illegal law.
|
|
|
Post by bikergal on Jun 9, 2010 9:25:24 GMT -6
They showed them going up last night on channel 10 news. Funny, there was a news crew there when they changed the signs, pure coincidence I'm sure.....
|
|
|
Post by bikergal on Jun 9, 2010 9:32:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on Jun 9, 2010 15:36:39 GMT -6
...What also gets me is Rhodes had said that "we still have 14 of the 15 ordinances", but in that ruling didn't they also knock down 4 others??? Rhodes is a piece of work to say the least. OF COURSE John Rhodes is LYING - but it's actually a bit complex, and he (as usual) OMITS key details. One of the 15 "new" ordinances was gone a long time ago: the one that created the "repugnant and unconstitutional" (actual quote from SC Supreme Court Chief Justice Toal) Administrative Court. THAT made it 14 of 15 ordinances still valid - a while back. The Supreme Court opinion yesterday DID ABSOLUTELY remove the helmet ordinance.
That made it 13 of 15 ordinances still valid.
At least 3 MORE ordinances were "impliedly repealed by the ordinance repealing the administrative hearing system" (actual quote from the Supreme Court opinion). They are:
- 2008-62 | An ordinance to prohibit the possession or consumption of liquor, beer, ale, porter and/or wine in the parking lots abutting certain public rights of way; the violation of which is an administrative infraction.
- 2008-63 | An ordinance to prohibit the destructive use of the landscaping areas required by zoning law, and to prohibit public nuisance uses of parking areas; the violation of which is an administrative infraction.
- 2008-66 | An ordinance to require security measures at convenience businesses; the violation of which is an administrative infraction.
These ordinances were deemed to have been INEFFECTIVE way back at the time that the Administrative Court (and associated ordinance) was deleted.
THAT makes it (NOW, as of TODAY) 10 of the 15 ordinances still standing (several of which have been AMENDED since they were passed, in order to reflect PROVEN faults with them). Thus - AS OF TODAY - only 10 of the original ordinances are in effect, and ALMOST EVERY ONE of the remainder were MODIFIED to correct faults with them AS ORIGINALLY PASSED. However, the 3 of the 4 listed above (2008-62, 2008-63, and 2008-66) that are NOW invalid CAN be restored by the city council - all they have to do is amend them to have a penalty of a CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR instead of the stated "Administrative Infraction" in the (proper) Municipal Court instead of a "repugnant and unconstitutional" Administrative Court.
Several city officials have stated that they PLAN to do this.
If that is done to all 3 of those ordinances, the final tally will likely be that 13 of the 15 ordinances will still be valid - but that ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THEM that survived had to be FORCIBLY MODIFIED in order to pass muster AND be legal. So there you have it folks: the EXPOSED outright lie by John Rhodes (CURRENTLY it is 10, not 14, of the 15 ordinances) - and the FACTUAL DETAILS from me that you WON'T read or hear anywhere else (from politicians NOR the media).
|
|
|
Post by General_Malaise on Jun 10, 2010 19:23:21 GMT -6
One convict to another "whatcha in for?? Second Convict "destructive use of the landscaping areas" First convict ??
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Jun 10, 2010 19:26:50 GMT -6
One convict to another "whatcha in for?? Second Convict "destructive use of the landscaping areas" First convict ?? OMG I can't stop laughing.... ;D ;D Doin a nickle for a noise ordinance myself.....
|
|
|
Post by General_Malaise on Jun 10, 2010 19:32:38 GMT -6
So what is "destructive use of the landscaping areas" ?
Digging holes in the flower beds?
Illegally trimming bushes?
Watering the flowers with processed beer?
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on Jun 10, 2010 22:59:51 GMT -6
One convict to another "whatcha in for?? Second Convict "destructive use of the landscaping areas" First convict ?? First convict replies:
"Interesting - I'm in because I helped make the law against 'destructive use of the landscaping areas'" .
|
|