Earlier this summer, I bought a legal CB radio antenna from Radio Shack
and followed the instructions on it when putting it on my car. Then
right after it was on, while I was driving, something happened that
never happened to me before while I didn't have it. A cop followed me
for miles, following every turn I made, even though I wasn't speeding
and wasn't breaking any laws. It was like he was following me for it
being against the law to have a CB antenna on your car. Through my
rearview mirror, I also saw him radio gfrom his car. I guess he was
running my plates just because I had a cb antenna on my car. After
miles, he finally turned a different way. I was on the regular roads
when all of it happened, not on the freeway.

However, now a ham radio operator who was using his ham radio while
driving was arrested for using his "cell phone" while driving. The ham
radio operator fought it in court and after the judge heard the real
descriptions about the radio, the judge ruled that it is similar enough
to a cell phone that it is against the law to use it while driving.

That's what the judge basically said and still counted it as a cell
phone.

I think most people use their cb's in their car. Now, since mobile ham
radios and mobile cb's operate the same way, a separate hand held
microphone that can be used with one hand,

the judge has in effect also ruled that it's against the law to use any
cb while mobile in your car, since a cb is similar enough to a cell
phone. (although the judge had actually said it about mobile ham
radios while driving).

So how come the police, judge, and federal government isn't going after
the manufacturers of the mobile cb's (since those are made to be used
in only cars and not homes, (you can't operate them on house current or
AA batteries) same for mobile ham radios) or after the FCC who approved
of these illegal radios as legal?


Here's the source of the story:

Source: This Week in Amateur Radio
Categories: Amateur Radio News

17:45

Ham Operator ticketed for using his ''cell phone''

Joey Hernandez, W2JLH, was issued a citation for operating his amateur
radio while mobile. He went to court where the judge presiding had to
consult a law book regarding the issue, and when the radio was
described to him, he pronounced a guilty verdict to Mr. Hernandez,
saying that the description of the use of the radio was too similar to
the use of a cell phone and therefore he was guilty as charged. More on
this issue can be found at the linked URL.
Source: This Week in Amateur Radio
Categories: Amateur Radio News

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:40:18 -0800, scammedbyohio wrote:

The ham
radio operator fought it in court and after the judge heard the real
descriptions about the radio, the judge ruled that it is similar enough
to a cell phone that it is against the law to use it while driving.

That's what the judge basically said and still counted it as a cell
phone.

So ask the judge why the Cop doesn't get nicked for a fine while using his
"cell phone" to run your plates while he's driving?

I've heard of some chick beating a littering ticket; chucked a cigarette
butt out the window while driving. She picked up the carbon paper the Cop
threw on the ground from his ticket pad and brought it to court. When she
showed it to the judge he dismissed the ticket.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

From: (Leland*C.*Scott)
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:40:18 -0800,
I've heard of some chick beating a littering

ticket; chucked a cigarette butt out the window
while driving. She picked up the carbon paper

the Cop threw on the ground from his ticket

pad and brought it to court. When she showed
it to the judge he dismissed the ticket.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO


You "heard" incorrect. A judge is REQUIRED to follow the law. A judge
may not indiscriminately dismiss such a case based on information that
another committed the same offense. It has no relation to said original
crime. The imaginary woman's action that broke the law was in no manner
affected, prevented, altered, provoked, endorsed, or caused by your
imaginary officer's actions. In other words, his actions-post wrting her
the ticket do not excuse her actions. Of course, one would expect one
with a remote understanding of the law to realize such, but then again,
those who understand the law do not often find themselves in a position
where they nee plead guilty to criminal charges. Go ahead and 'splain.

"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Leland C. Scott)
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:40:18 -0800,
I've heard of some chick beating a littering

ticket; chucked a cigarette butt out the window
while driving. She picked up the carbon paper

the Cop threw on the ground from his ticket

pad and brought it to court. When she showed
it to the judge he dismissed the ticket.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO


You "heard" incorrect.

No.

A judge is REQUIRED to follow the law. A judge
may not indiscriminately dismiss such a case based on information that
another committed the same offense.

I personally spoke to the person this happened too and those are the facts.
She did just what I said and the judge dismissed the ticket, period.


--
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Leland C. Scott)
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:40:18 -0800,
I've heard of some chick beating a littering

ticket; chucked a cigarette butt out the window
while driving. She picked up the carbon paper

the Cop threw on the ground from his ticket

pad and brought it to court. When she showed
it to the judge he dismissed the ticket.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO


You "heard" incorrect.

No.

A judge is REQUIRED to follow the law. A judge
may not indiscriminately dismiss such a case based on information that
another committed the same offense.

I personally spoke to the person this happened too and those are the facts.
She did just what I said and the judge dismissed the ticket, period.


--
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO



Looks like Leland has got you by the jock strap again Twistedhed.....

From: (Leland*C.*Scott)
From: (Leland C. Scott)
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, LCS wrote:
I've heard of some chick beating a littering

ticket; chucked a cigarette butt out the window
while driving. She picked up the carbon paper

the Cop threw on the ground from his ticket

pad and brought it to court. When she showed
it to the judge he dismissed the ticket.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO

You "heard" incorrect.

No.
*
So you heard correctly, but what you were told was an untruth.
*A judge is REQUIRED to follow the law. A judge may not
indiscriminately dismiss such a case based on information that another
committed the same offense.

I personally spoke to the person this

happened too

I don't doubt you were told as much, but it's bunk.

and those are the facts.

The only facts here are 1) you were told as much and 2) apparently
believe it.

She did just what I said and the judge

dismissed the ticket, period.

Hearsay is not fact.
--
Regards,

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO

Try and stay out of trouble, convict.

"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Leland C. Scott)
From: (Leland C. Scott)
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, LCS wrote:
I've heard of some chick beating a littering

ticket; chucked a cigarette butt out the window
while driving. She picked up the carbon paper

the Cop threw on the ground from his ticket

pad and brought it to court. When she showed
it to the judge he dismissed the ticket.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO

You "heard" incorrect.

No.

So you heard correctly, but what you were told was an untruth.
A judge is REQUIRED to follow the law. A judge may not
indiscriminately dismiss such a case based on information that another
committed the same offense.

I personally spoke to the person this

happened too

I don't doubt you were told as much, but it's bunk.

and those are the facts.

The only facts here are 1) you were told as much and 2) apparently
believe it.

She did just what I said and the judge

dismissed the ticket, period.

Hearsay is not fact.
--
Regards,

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO

Try and stay out of trouble, convict.

Sorry Lee, Twist is right. The Judge can not throw out
a case like this because the officer littered. If the judge wants
to dismiss on for "in the interest of justice" fine, but I've been
to court dozens of times for tickets over the past 30 years, never
seen a case dismissed over the reasons like you're friend claims.


Landshark


--
The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature,
or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you
need from your computer, you are a fool.

Frank Gililland

"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Leland C. Scott)
From: (Leland C. Scott)
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, LCS wrote:
I've heard of some chick beating a littering

ticket; chucked a cigarette butt out the window
while driving. She picked up the carbon paper

the Cop threw on the ground from his ticket

pad and brought it to court. When she showed
it to the judge he dismissed the ticket.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO

You "heard" incorrect.

No.

So you heard correctly, but what you were told was an untruth.
A judge is REQUIRED to follow the law.

No, he is NOT.

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the

form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and

ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the

time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so

branding it... No one is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no

courts are bound to enforce it."

-- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256


A judge may not
indiscriminately dismiss such a case based on information that another
committed the same offense.