NV Chief Justice says that Court will Go Broke unless cops write more tickets

[phill4paul]

Nevada’s top judge recently had to appear before state lawmakers asking for more money for the state Supreme Court, apparently because law enforcement officers aren’t writing enough traffic tickets.

Chief Justice James Hardesty testified before a joint Senate Finance and Ways and Means subcommittee, during which he told the panel that the court needed $700,000 by May 1 or it will be out of money. “Do you want me to close the judicial branch of government at the state level on May 1?” Hardesty said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

He added that law enforcement is not generating the same amount of revenue from traffic tickets as it once did, and that’s robbing the high court of funds for operations. “I’m not faulting law enforcement; either they are understaffed or they have changed policies,” Hardesty said.
“Now with all due respect to the citizens of Nevada, I don’t think anyone is driving better. I think the truth is that we’re seeing less traffic violations because law enforcement’s priorities have changed and it has changed dramatically.”
The Review-Journal reported that ticket citations are down 21% since 2010, from 615,267 statewide then to 484,913 last year.

http://www.allgov.com/news/controver...25?news=856058

Now with all due respect to Hardesty the citizens should tar, feather and whip him across state lines with a warning never to return.

[tod evans]

“Do you want me to close the judicial branch of government at the state level on May 1?” Hardesty said

That would be a damn good start!

[aGameOfThrones]

Motherfucker!

He added that law enforcement is not generating the same amount of revenue(theft) from traffic tickets as it once did, and that’s robbing the high court of funds for operations

[ZENemy]

Vote hard, vote often.

[paleocon1]

"Now with all due respect to the citizens of Nevada, I don’t think anyone is driving better"

Nice admission by the Thudge that traffic enforcement has never been about public safety, but rather always a simple shakedown/extortion exercise by his gang affiliation.

[Weston White]

Looks like y'all have some pay and benefits cut decisions to start making; well better get busy now:

James W Hardesty

JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 2014 Total: $271,973.36 (Benefits: $65,141.54)
JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 2013 Total: $271,775.54 (Benefits: $64,959.24)
JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 2012 Total: $267,577.12 (Benefits: $61,298.12)
JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 2011 Total: $206,831.81
JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 2010 Total: $206,156.21
JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 2009 Total: $167,472.03
JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 2008 Total: $164,255.12
JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 2007 Total: $160,965.23

Judge Hardesty: http://www.transparentnevada.com/sal...=any&s=default

All: http://www.transparentnevada.com/sal...FFICIALS&t=job

[oyarde]

Good Lord what a loser .

[Slave Mentality]

What a $#@! bag.

[acptulsa]

"Now with all due respect to the citizens of Nevada, I don’t think anyone is driving better"

But thanks to the willful and systematic destruction of the middle class, fewer people are driving at all.

Guess the robber barons never heard that a rising tide floats all boats.

[phill4paul]

New definitions:

Traffic Violation: The extortion of money committed by government officials on drivers while their vehicle is in motion.

[tod evans]

New definitions:

Traffic Violation: The extortion of money committed by government officials on drivers while their vehicle is in motion.

If ya' figure a kop earns $50k and this fine judge is earning $300k, a ticket cost $200.00, just to support those two salaries requires 1750 tickets!

That's almost 5 tickets per day 365 days per year and that doesn't support any other aspects of governments monstrosity...

[morfeeis]

i would like to see if traffic accidents have gone down or up and if there is a positive or negative correlation between harm to the public and written tickets.

[Thor]

It's for the children!

[donnay]

He should be tried for conspiracy to commit extortion, racketeering and obstructing justice.

[phill4paul]

i would like to see if traffic accidents have gone down or up and if there is a positive or negative correlation between harm to the public and written tickets.

I'd bet a hundred that traffic accidents haven't increased 21%. I've yet to ever hear anyone say "Ya know, If it just weren't for the chance of getting a darned ticket I'd really like to get in an accident today."

[presence]

If ya' figure a kop earns $50k and this fine judge is earning $300k, a ticket cost $200.00, just to support those two salaries requires 1750 tickets!

That's almost 5 tickets per day 365 days per year and that doesn't support any other aspects of governments monstrosity...

Where do I get to vote for all elected officials and gov't employees, at all levels, to receive minimum wage?

[phill4paul]

He should be tried for conspiracy to commit extortion, racketeering and obstructing justice.

He'd find himself not guilty on all accounts.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Vote hard, vote often.

Without campaign finance reform and a solid constitutional test for candidates, it is unlikely that the best outcome from voting will be found.

Here is the strategy to test and purify state legislators in support of the constitution.

A) Test officials and candidates for acceptance of the root purpose of free speech being to assure information vital to unity needed to alter or abolish is shared and understood.

B)Test officials and candidates for acceptance of root purpose of free speech as prime constitutional intent used to create unity to conduct Article V with constitutional intent as the prime right for the purpose of protecting unalienable rights.

C) As an official of government, can you accept that EVERY American can understand and accept A)?

D) Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg
http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmark...al-convention/
Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.
http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-...n-applications

E) Can you understand and accept that any state legislator that cannot accept A), can be impeached in this constitutional emergency as being unfit for office?

F)Can you understand and accept that A) B) C) D) & E) are legal process and that IF citizens act with D) as justification, and E) to complete the legal process, they WILL be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" BECAUSE their states, as led by the people, then will agree that proper preparation for Article V consists of;

1) Amend Article V to assure the right to "alter or abolish" is enforceable under law by including preparatory amendment as a requirement.

2) End the abridging of free speech.

3) Securing the vote.

4) Campaign finance reform.

G) Americans need to agree that Officials of states and federal government must accept that such preparation by amendment is completely constitutional and can only enable democratic assertion of the principles of the republic, and, once complete; WHEREUPON all amendment should cease until America can be certain it is competent to Article V by testing itself to assure it knows and can define constitutional intent

[acptulsa]

Here is the strategy to test and purify...

Purify them? Are we going to boil them?

B)Test officials and candidates for acceptance of root purpose of free speech as prime constitutional intent used to create unity to conduct Article V with constitutional intent as the prime right for the purpose of protecting unalienable rights.

Well, no, since I don't agree with that statement myself. That said, I don't think one legislator in fifty could unscramble that tangle of verbiage sufficiently to honestly tell you if they agree with it or not. And, of course, there is no test you could ever possibly devise that would tell you accurately whether someone accepts such a proposition with all their heart anyway. None. But it might be funny to watch a McCain, or a Feinstein, or any number of them trying to figure out what the hell you just said. Very funny indeed.

[Anti Federalist]

So, an open and honest admission that:

1 - It is not about "safety".

2 - It is about revenue generation and control.

And Boobus yawns.

[XNavyNuke]

How did we ever manage having a functioning court system for the first hundred years of this country before adopting the European model of a "professional", revenuing police organization?

XNN

[PaulConventionWV]

“Now with all due respect to the citizens of Nevada, I don’t think anyone is driving better.

Oh... remind me again what the purpose of tickets is, then? Because you said it yourself: It certainly isn't making our roads any safer.

[Chester Copperpot]

He should be tried for conspiracy to commit extortion, racketeering and obstructing justice.

+1

[pcosmar]

He should be tried for conspiracy to commit extortion, racketeering and obstructing justice.

There is not a court in this country that would hear that case.

[presence]

Oh... remind me again what the purpose of tickets is, then? Because you said it yourself: It certainly isn't making our roads any safer.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Purify them? Are we going to boil them?

Well, no, since I don't agree with that statement myself. That said, I don't think one legislator in fifty could unscramble that tangle of verbiage sufficiently to honestly tell you if they agree with it or not. And, of course, there is no test you could ever possibly devise that would tell you accurately whether someone accepts such a proposition with all their heart anyway. None. But it might be funny to watch a McCain, or a Feinstein, or any number of them trying to figure out what the hell you just said. Very funny indeed.

Filter them, maybe heat them up first since they are kind of greasy.

The actual test goes like this starting with the first and most vital part. Let us see if you can pass it, all sincere Americans logically can do so easily and with satisfaction.

Do you agree and agree and accept that the framers defined the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights they also defined, and actually intended for us to be adequately unified to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those rights? Then, would you agree and accept that they intended free speech to serve the purpose of enabling such unity?

The strategy first posted is covers all prime constitutional intents vital to enforcement and also gets more complex when approaching a group of legislators, which is the entire process is addressed in the step-by-step version I posted.

[jkr]

[phill4paul]

Purify them? Are we going to boil them?



Well, no, since I don't agree with that statement myself. That said, I don't think one legislator in fifty could unscramble that tangle of verbiage sufficiently to honestly tell you if they agree with it or not. And, of course, there is no test you could ever possibly devise that would tell you accurately whether someone accepts such a proposition with all their heart anyway. None. But it might be funny to watch a McCain, or a Feinstein, or any number of them trying to figure out what the hell you just said. Very funny indeed.

If you don't feed them they go away.

[presence]

Purify them? Are we going to boil them?

I didn't know that was an option! YES!!!

[Christopher A. Brown]

If you don't feed them they go away.

If you don't feed them they go away.

Since you cannot answer this question,

Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

You suggest evasion for others, and hide the text? Weird.