John Kerry And The Obama Administration Are Out Of Touch Concerning Russia Putin And The Ukraine

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on March 4, 2014
Posted in: Current Events, Government, politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

First of all I am not an Apologist for Vladimir Putin. I’m not a big fan of Russia and I was really against the Olympics being hosted in that country. The only positive aspect of the Olympics being hosted by Russia was the fact that many negative issues were brought to the forefront as a result. That being said, I think the United States had no business in the issue of Russia and the Ukraine.

Who are we to tell Russia how to handle a country that is in complete disarray that touches their border. I think it is extremely out of line politically and logically for the United States, a country half way around the world to tell a country next door how to respond to the chaos in that country. I just think that is completely out of touch. For example, if a similar situation happened in Mexico and if we felt it was in our National Security interest to enter that country and make some military moves to stabilize, it shouldn’t be the business of a country halfway around the world that has absolutely no realistic interest in the stability of that region. Yet we seem to think it is okay to do the same. What about when the State Department said that Russia interfering could disrupt the balance of the region. If the administration in control before the coup was Russian friendly how can Russia moving in there to “stablize” it upset the balance of the region? To make matters worse we periodically help US friendly leaders take control of countries on their continent. I just don’t understand this administrations logic on this….

Also, what in the world is Secretary of State John Kerry talking about when he gives these “warnings” to Russia concerning the Ukraine? The one that comes to mind first is where Kerry states that Russia invading the Ukraine would be a “grave mistake”. That quote really bothers me. That phrase has somewhat of a confrontational connotation to it. Is Kerry trying to tell Russia that if they invade the Ukraine we may take military action. I doubt that is what he meant, but when dealing with a country who we already have a rocky relationship should we choose our words a little more carefully? Not that they will lead to a war or anything but afterwards if we do nothing or very little it will just be another example of showing how weak this administration actually is….

The bottom line is that I am not sure we have any business in dictating how another country responds to serious unrest on their border. there is absolutely no logic involved in this position whatsoever.

Want to debate it, the Modern Day Machiavelli is ready as always!

There Are More Problems With The Dolphins Incognito Thing Than You Would Realize

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on November 5, 2013
Posted in: Current Events, politics, sport. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments

This is going to be short and sweet. There are so many issues with this fiasco that I’m not sure where to begin. Some are very obvious while others are somewhat hidden and overlooked by the more glaring aspects of the issue. For those of you who may not know, Richie Incognito, an offensive lineman for the Miami Dolphins, seemed to participate in the team hazing of Jonathan Martin. Martin is not a rookie but a young offensive lineman for the Dolphins as well. Martin didn’t respond well to the hazing, leaving the team and officially reported it to the team front office. Incognito responded to Martins actions by leaving racially charged text messages and voice mails. Now I’m not going to go in-depth in what Incognito stated (it’s all over the internet) but I will say on a scale of 1 to 10 that it was a good 7 or 8. Not only was his messages racially charged, they were violent and directed at his family as well. Some people may ask why I don’t rank it higher and my answer is that is bad is it is, I have heard worse. Since this story became known, it has only gotten worse for Incognito. Not long afterwards a video surfaced showing him in some kind of “psychotic” tirade. He is running around a bar with his shirt off yelling, cussing, using racial slurs, and acting like his is completely out of his mind. I think it is this video that is extremely important and remember this because we will get into that in a minute.

First and foremost, what Incognito did to Martin after he left the team is beyond defense. I’m not sure how anyone could defend those actions. I understand the concept of hazing, and to be honest for the most part I don’t have that much of a problem with most hazing. Some people can handle it better than others, and some people can’t handle it at all. It seems that Martin is the latter. In order for him to walk away from a job the has to love, not to mention his contracts is about $800K a year, he must have really had a hard time with the hazing he was subjected too. Once he did this any reasonable person would have recognized this and acted accordingly. Not only did Incognito NOT act accordingly, he “doubled down” with threats and racial slurs. You combine that with the fact that the guy has had numerous problems during his college and professional careers, I believe that he should never play another down of football in the NFL. If you were to isolate the most sensitive aspect of this, the racially charged aspect, I’m not sure it would be enough to ostracize him forever, but when this man shows the lack of intelligence he did, That’s enough for me. If I owned the Dolphins he would never play another down for me, and I was NFL Commissioner, I would do everything in my power to see that he never played another down in the NFL. Would you really want someone who damn stupid around your organization. If this man doesn’t have enough reason and common sense not to think it is a bad idea to text and leave this on voicemail, I don’t want him near me or anything associated with me. Maybe he will play again in the NFL, maybe not. But if I owned the Dolphins it wouldn’t be up for discussion and I’m pretty sure the current Dolphin Organization shares my belief. I’ll go ahead and say now that he won’t play for the Dolphins.

This brings me to another aspect of this fiasco that I want to talk about. Although the vast majority of the blame rest with Incognito, is there anyone or anything out there that should or could hold some culpability for Incognito’s actions. Soon after this story came to light, I was discussing it with my circle of friends and I brought up a point that others were missing. Is there a subculture or counterculture that facilitates or enables Incognito’s behavior. Not long after making this suggestion, the video I spoke about earlier surfaced. As I stated earlier, the video shows Incognito in a tirade and although racial slurs aren’t are the focal point of the incident, he does use them. The shocking aspect of the video is that Miami’s center Mike Pouncy (who is also black), is seen in the video smiling and laughing while Incognito is using the “N word”. It’s obvious that there are certain aspects of American society where this word is acceptable. Is the Dolphins “locker room” one of them? Is it acceptable for white Dolphin players to use that word and refer to other black Dolphin player with that word. If you go by the video, I would have to argue yes. Then if you put a guy, who isn’t the “sharpest tool in the shed” in this environment would he use the word when he shouldn’t?There are bad words in the English language and then there are very bad words, then even beyond that there is the “N word” and if the word is THAT bad it shouldn’t be acceptable to use by ANYONE in any environment. There maybe very small exceptions such as academic, or historical context of a movie, but that is about it.

The bottom line is that Incognito is responsible for his actions and he should pay for it severely, but I believe everyone who uses that word in any “acceptable” form shares some culpability, and until we chang that, there will be more and more instances just like this..

Just my dos centavos from the Modern Day Machiavelli.

Have a different opinion, disagree, or think I’m way off base, I beg you to debate me. Just hit me up here, Facebook, or my Twitter.

Burying Tamerlan Tsarnaev The Boston Bombing Terrorist

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on May 10, 2013
Posted in: politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment

I’m going to make this one short and sweet. First and foremost I am the Modern Day Machiavelli, and that being said I am known for saying things others won’t say, being crude, and being especially controversial. I guess this one is no different, but in this case It may be of a surprise to some who know me.

Those that know me, know that I love to read online news articles and comment on them, I sometimes even engage in lengthy debates in the comment sections after articles on major news sites. That being said, I have been astonished and somewhat appalled by the attitude towards the burial of the dead Boston bombing terrorist. For those of you that don’t know, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston bombing suspect’s body has been hanging around for weeks after his death. First it was held for investigative purposes, then when it was available for release to the family there was a delay. Then when the body was claimed, it was stuck at the funeral home because there was a huge dilemma about how to dispose of the body for it’s final rest. Sometimes it seems as though notorious criminals in recent history were cremated but because of muslim practice, cremation was not an option. The general consensus among most Americans is that he should be returned to his native land, but for a myriad of reasons that didn’t seem to be an option either. So the logical thing to do is bury the body somewhere relatively close. This option seemed to be some form of blasphemy or even worse….

Now this brings me to my point at hand. I have several problems with the way some Americans, even government officials are acting towards “disposing” of the remains of this terrorist. First, when the funeral director preparing the remains first mentioned he was having trouble finding a burial place for the body, people hit the internet cursing his body and demanding and suggesting that everything be done to the body except burial. The funeral director stated that people were driving by the funeral home yelling obscenities and that some people gathered outside to protest.

First of all, I’m not sure what people expect to be done. Are we barbarians? You would think so from what has been suggested over the last week or so. Remember one of the key elements that separate us from muslim extremist and other terrorist is that we are a civilized society. I am almost ashamed of how we, as a collective, have conducted ourselves over the several weeks. I expect that kind of behavior from a select few, but from what I have seen of a good portion of people, as well as members of our local and state governments, I stand bewildered. Now don’t get me wrong, I have no sympathy for Tamerlan Tsarnaev or his brother. As a matter of fact I was somewhat tickled by the way he died, and could care less if his brother died in a similar fashion. But when they’re dead they’re dead, bury them and be done with it. Now I’m not saying there should be a dignified funeral and some kind of “pomp and circumstance”, just dig a hole, throw his ass in, cover it up, and be done. Finally, today he was buried in Virginia but officials stated that they are going to try to find some legal avenue to “undue” the burial. I find this sickening and somewhat ridiculous.

You must also realize that the longer we prolong this, the more we are making him a martyr to the terrorist and sympathizers he represents. Remember we are the civilized ones, we are a better culture, a better society, and damn sure a better country. Are we also going to set some kind of precedence? What happens when Charles Manson dies, are we going to refuse to bury him as well.

The bottom line is that burying this worthless piece of dung is not about him, it’s what we are.

I could give a damn if he ever rest, but I think it’s about time to put this to rest.

Want to debate, I’m begging you because I’m the Modern Day Machiavelli!!!!

Now That The Academy Awards Are Over Can We Get On With Life??

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 25, 2013
Posted in: Current Events, politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

This one is going to be short and sweet folks. I’m not real big on pop culture, but I am indifferent of its coverage. I don’t really get into the media hype surrounding the pop culture but to each his own. Very seldom do I even pay attention to these types of stories, I think they are a little over the top and way to much attention is paid to things that have very little relevance in everyday life, but “to each his own”. My attitude has changed though over the past week or so. The past week we have been inundated with ridiculous, over the top, and useless coverage of the 2013 Academy Awards.

It seems each year gets worse and worse considering the media coverage, but this year seem much worse than any. One thing that seems to be of great importance is the host. Once the host is named, there are countless stories about the host pertaining to his attributes, his talent, whether he will be a success or failure. It seems as though the choice of host is more important than the event itself. Then comes the countless and pointless side stories about the pre-parties, what everyone will wear. This year I saw a story completely dedicated to Jennifer Lawrence and the dress she wore that revealed “side boob”. It seems there are enough people in this world who are interested in “side boob” that we write stories on it that make the front page of major media sites such as MSN and Yahoo News. Honestly, I had no idea what “side boob” was and I had to look it up. For those of you that don’t know side boob is when a woman wears a top or dress that reveals, not the nipple, but the side of her “boob” when she isn’t wearing a bra. In the case of Jennifer Lawrence, all you could see was the bottom of the side of the “boob” where it rested against her chest. Basically is was just a fold of skin and wasn’t all of that attractive to me personally. I’m not saying everyone, but I would think that a significant portion of the people interested in that story have some type of fetish or even perversion. Now that the awards are over I sat down in front of my computer and what do I see, two articles about the Awards show that really have nothing to do with the awards show. First one was another article about Jennifer Lawrence, this time tripping on the steps to accept her award and the second was about Daniel Day Lewis being tired and needing a break. The Lawrence story was about her tripping up the steps to accept her Oscar and the big deal was that she almost said the “F-bomb” when she tripped.

Now I understand in today’s technological world that there is so much space for information on the web that it has to be filled with something. I also understand that the way internet news sites are constantly fed information and news that sometimes you have to fill those spaces with information that maybe somewhat irrelevant, but when I go to sites like MSN and Yahoo and the feature story is Lawrence “almost” using the “F-bomb”, I can’t help but shake my head at the way our society is allowing itself to be “dumb-down” with such irrelevant nonsense. It’s like I’m living in a real life version of the film Idiocracy.

To be honest I was hoping that maybe after the Oscars, we would be able to pick up a paper, click on a news site, or turn on a television without being overwhelmed with minutia surrounding people who have no concept of reality, but the way things are going it will be at least another week before the media is back to normal.

What say you!
Let me know, I’m The Modern Day Machiavelli!

Does The Loyal Opposition Exist Anymore?

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 12, 2013
Posted in: Current Events, Government, politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

When I first began my quest in politics we referred to the opposing view as the loyal opposition. According to most experts the loyal opposition refers to the opposing party, usually the one not in power, in a two or more party system. This term originates in the parliamentary system in Great Britain but has evolved to include other systems of government where power is shared or routinely transferred between parties. Now it’s used to refer to the opposing party and how they can oppose the parties ideas and policy, but remain loyal to the government and country. It’s usually an endearing term used to describe a political adversary. When I think of loyal opposition as in the history of our country, I think of the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. These were people who were loyal to the government and the country in which the represented, but disagreed on the course it should take. Although each vehemently disagreed with the other, each new that the other had the best intentions for the country. There are many other examples throughout the history of our country, but I think you get the idea.

What I’m wondering as I write this, does the “loyal opposition even exist anymore”? I’m not sure it exist at all and if it does it is very small. There was once a time in my life where I believed the majority of the left could be considered the loyal opposition, while only a select few on the left did not have honest intentions whether they were right or wrong. Believe it or not, I would defend the left and refused to admit to anyone, or myself, that the Democrats and the left did not have the best intentions. Over the last 20 years it has become mor and more difficult to defend the vitriol, the actions, and even political platforms in which the left put forth. I guess the first time I noticed the left and their sadistic method in which they try to destroy not only the politics of anyone opposing them, but the person was the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. The manner in which Clarence Thomas was personally attacked was unconscionable. They didn’t attack Justice Thomas’ politics, they attacked his character and integrity in an attempted to smear him so bad that he would never be confirmed. Fortunately it didn’t work, but it wasn’t for a lack of trying. The people who attacked Justice Thomas was not part of the loyal opposition. Unfortunately it has gotten progressively worse over the years and there are no signs of easing.

The reason I bring this up now is the State Of The Union is scheduled for tonight and therefore Marco Rubio has been chosen to give the response. Instead of using allowing the President’s address to speak for itself, the DNC has chosen in on organized fashion to discredit Marco Rubio before the SOTU, and before the response. The only reason you would want to do this is to attack Rubio personally and discredit any platform in which Rubio is putting forth. I think this is a tactic that would not be used by the “loyal opposition”. If the DNC and the left believed that the President address was what was best for the country, and was genuine, why would they feel the need to discredit Rubio before he ever speaks? Because to the left it’s not about laying your ideas out there for the country to decide.

Yep, the loyal opposition to conservative ideas is a thing of the past, and it’s because I have come to the realization that the left is honest and genuine with their ideas anymore. They are putting their own self-interest above that of the country. The DNC and the left have “shown their cards” and it’s not the best interest of the country. They have two goals using entitlement programs to “buy” votes and discrediting anything the right has to say, and this prebuttal of the SOTU rebuttal is a perfect example. It is not about the exchange of ideas anymore, it’s about doing anything and everything possible to stay in power. I have said for years that the defining difference between the left and right is that the Right believes in country first and everything else second while the left believes in party above all else. The perfect example of this is the way minorities are treated who are conservative or right leaning. Two quick examples that come to mind are Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. Because they don’t fall in line like the left thinks they should, the have been torn apart by the left. Instead of respectfully disagreeing with their politics and praising their achievements, the left has done everything to destroy these two individuals. That is why I believe, without a doubt, the left hasn’t been the loyal opposition for some time. Therefore its time to treat them like the enemy they are.

Have a different Opinion? I’ll debate anytime – anyplace.

I’m the Modern Day Machiavelli.

The U.S. Postal Service, Saturday Delivery And Are Their Days Numbered?

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 7, 2013
Posted in: Government, politics, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

I’m sure by now everyone has heard the news the United States Postal Service has made the big decision to cease saturday delivery. It seems they have been threatening or considering the move for some time and there was even question as to whether the USPS had the authority to make the decision or was that a decision only Congress could make. I hear that some Congressmen disagree with the Postal Service about the authority but nonetheless, they have made the decision. The only question, is stopping Saturday delivery enough to preserve an institution such as the postal service? I’m wondering if stopping Saturday delivery will even begin to correct the problems associated with the Postal Service. It leaves me wondering, can the United States Postal Service be fixed or has it’s time come and gone.

The first time I really remember noticing the Postal Service was in the early to mid 90s. I noticed that the Postal Service was sponsoring the Olympics and Lance Armstrong’s cycling team. I thought to myself, why in the world does a government entity have to employ a marketing strategy that includes multi-million dollars sports sponsorships and endorsements. I found this particularly odd. The Lance Armstrong deal was worth $10 million or so a year. Also the USPS signed on as a major sponsor for the 1992 Olympics at the tune of around $90 million dollars. After five years and $140 million of taxpayer money to gain sponsorships and endorsements usually reserved for Fortune 500 companies you would think it made a positive difference. Not exactly, the revenue of the USPS dropped approximately $13 million by 1996. They say “hind-sight” is 20/20 but I think this was one of the most ridiculous and ill-managed decisions in the history of the United States government. I would have thought there would have been some public outcry about the need (or lack there of) of the endorsements and sponsorships. It begs the question, “why would a government agency need a campaign that marketed a service in which the government had a monopoly”? You see the USPS has a monopoly on most, if not all mail. Unless someone can prove me wrong the USPS has a statutory monopoly on first class mail and other small enveloped mail. Packages are another issue. USPS wants you to believe that their package shipping is cheaper and offer these gimmick “if it fits, it ships” deals where anything can ship for a flat rate if it will “fit” in one of their predetermined size boxes. What I have found is that the boxes seem intentionally odd sized and very few things I have tried to ship will fit in them. Also they seem cheaper than their competitors but by the time you add the “bells and whistles” such as insurance and tracking that come standard with UPS, the cost is usually more. Even if the cost was a wash, anyone who has had any interaction with the Postal Service knows that their customer service is an ABSOLUTE nightmare. So if the cost of shipping is anywhere near the same, most people are going to avoid the USPS altogether.

Also as they cease Saturday delivery and continuously raise the price of a stamp, the USPS states that it cost the USPS around $1.50 per mail item. What I would like to know is how much of that $1.50 is the result of absurd union influence on employee pay and benefits? I know, I have seen a federal employee benefits chart and postal employees benefit packages are separated from other employees and are somewhat better. For example comparable health insurance for postal employees is approximately 15% cheaper than any other federal worker. It puzzles me as to why the USPS workers are entitled to be required to pay a smaller portion of their premium than other federal employees. This is just an example of government unions and how they are just not compatible with federal service. If someone has a different opinion or believe I wrong, please let me know.

For years I lived in a very rural area that had a local Post Office in the community. The office only had one full-time employee and she was the postmaster. She had been employed by the USPS for years and was paid well. The crazy thing is the postmaster lived about 30 miles from the post office. The lobby hours extended past the service counter hours so they had to pay someone to lock the lobby every night. So instead of hiring a local person who was not a postmaster, and much cheaper for the USPS , they over paid a postmaster to travel 60 miles a day plus a local person to do nothing but lock up. The bad part about it was the fact that when the local person was not available the postmaster would lock the lobby when the service counter closed, without notice, denying mail to a majority of the community. Later they announced that only the lobby would be open on Saturday and that the service window would be closed. So afterwards every Saturday the postmaster would drive the 30 miles (one way), sort and post the mail, and then sit there behind the service counter until the lobby closed and then locked the doors and left. You could walk into the office, check your mail, and wave to the postmaster on the other side of the closed glass window. If you received a package or something registered you could show her the notice through the window, but she couldn’t help you because she was “closed”. It was one of the most ridiculously stupid things I have ever seen. Why would you cut service without cutting cost. Someone please explain that one.

Remember earlier when I was talking about customer service. Have you ever heard of those UPS Brown Stores? For those of you that haven’t they are “store faces” owned by UPS that offer shipping / package solutions as well as a place to receive packages to be held. These locations also have PO boxes they rent for a premium price. As a matter of fact the last time I checked the monthly rent on a UPS/Brown store PO box was almost as much as the yearly rent on PO box at the local Post Office. Yet, the last time I checked, almost all of the boxes were currently being rented. What?? Why in the hell would someone pay that much per month when you could get one at the post office for a fraction of the cost, or for that matter delivered to your home for free? You see the way these boxes work, the postal service delivers the mail to the UPS store who in return place it in the customer’s box. The only reason I could understand why ANYONE would do this is level of service and convenience. Which is almost non-existent at your local post office. Again, please someone tell me I’m wrong.

Now some of you are probably saying that all I am doing is complaining without offering any solutions to the problem. First of all I’m not sure the postal service can be corrected and if so it will take compromises by both citizens and postal employees. It would take monumental changes to create any real difference. One thing I have always wondered is why do you get mail delivered to your house for free (regardless where you live) yet you pay to go where they sort the mail anyway. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Any other service would be the opposite, personal service at your home would involve an extra fee. So maybe we should look at charging a yearly fee for home delivery and if you don’t won’t to pay then go pick up your mail yourself. Depending on how far you live from an incorporated area should determine your yearly fee. I currently have my mail delivered to my house, not because I don’t won’t to pay for a box, but because any way to avoid the circus they call a post office is what I want. If the box was free and delivery was with a fee trust me I would be paying. Another way would be to alter the way “junk mail” is handled. First of all junk mail should have its own class such as first class, media mail, and others, except it should cost a premium. That would eliminate the needless BS bulk the Postal Service is responsible for and the ones thinking it was important enough would pay more. Maybe that would generate more revenue, I’m not sure. It would be worth consideration. These are just several suggestions that could help get the USPS on the right path

Now as I’ve stated earlier I’m not sure anything could repair the disarray that the postal service has become. Sometimes I wonder if one day our children will talk about the United States Postal Service like the Pony Express. Don’t get me wrong, I like the fact that my mail is delivered to my door six days a week (soon to be five) for absolutely free. I very seldom use the mail myself so a book of stamps last me longer than it takes to raise the price of a stamp. I’m just afraid that the time may have come and gone for the United States Postal Service.

What say you.

I’m the MODERN DAY MACHIAVELLI!

The Great Traffic Scam Our Local Government at Work

Posted by Modern Day Machiavelli on February 6, 2013
Posted in: Current Events, Government, Justice, politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments

Everyone seems to have reservations about the government these days. Between the threat of banning firearms and being overtaxed there is now, more than ever, reason to be untrusting of the government. The largest and most wide-reaching conspiracy doesn’t involve Washington, it’s not a product of the CIA, its much more local than you would ever think. They involve the counties and municipalities in which we live and socialize.

Yes, traffic enforcement and ticket writing are one of the biggest scams, rackets, or whatever you want to call it in America today. Forget all of the “legitimate” reasons you hear for traffic enforcement because most of it is BS. The real reason for writing tickets and the issuance of traffic citations is much more deceptive and self preserving than you could imagine. As a career law enforcement officer on various different levels I learned this first hand.

One thing that I feel the need to clarify before we go any further is the difference between a traffic officer and a patrol officer. In very small departments there may be little, if any difference between the two, but in larger departments there is a significant one. Both are what we refer to in the profession as uniformed officers, but the difference relies in the duties in which each has. Patrol officers for instance answer “calls for service”. They usually patrol a specific assigned area and respond to 911 calls as well as other incidents within the assigned beat. Traffic officers on the other hand do just that. They enforce traffic laws, parking laws, and respond to accidents. Just something I wanted to make people aware.

First of all the only presumption in traffic enforcement is not the presumption that you are innocent but the presumption that you will not appear in court. Most traffic officers issue more citations than they could possibly testify to in court. Therefore the only way they could possibly do this is the presumption that the vast majority of people issued a citation will not take the time or hassle to challenge them but simply take the easy route and just pay the fine. Some studies suggest that less than 5% of drivers issued citations challenge them. That gives traffic enforcement a 95% chance that they will never be questioned about this ticket. When some officers issue more than 100 tickets a month, that officer doesn’t have the time on duty, nor mental capacity to testify to that many tickets. When you do challenge a ticket the real “racket” begins.

As I’ve clearly stated above, most officers presume, hope, or “bank” on the fact that you will not challenge a traffic citation and that you’ll not inconvenience yourself in traffic court. If you are one of the 5% that do, be ready for an experience that is very conducive for the officer and as much a hassle as can possibly be for the defendant. In most jurisdictions you are given a court date and this date is not actually a court date but more or less a deadline in which to pay the fine. When you pay the fine, you are pleading guilty prior to the court date. If you don’t want to pay the fine, a phone number and point of contact is usually provided on the citation. Once you inform the court you want to challenge the citation you are assigned a court date. You will be required to be in the courtroom at that date and sit through the entire day’s court cases until your case is called. Once your name is called you and the issuing officer will be asked to testify before the judge. This is where it gets tricky. First of all, as I stated earlier most officers presume you won’t appear, some even have that presumption after you plead not guilty, so there is a good chance the officer will not be there for the first scheduled court date. I’ve seen some agencies that discipline officers who do not show for court, but the agencies who encourage, or even condone, officers that issue unrealistically numbers know they cannot be at every court appearance. This is where the judge will lose credibility in my opinion. Some judges, not all but most, will ask the clerk to postpone the trial until the officer is available and give you another court date. Remember, an officer writing 100 tickets or more a month doesn’t do so by testifying in court. But what is really unethical on the court’s part is the biased way in which they give the officer a way out for not appearing in court. If a lawyer were to represent someone in the same court, the case would more than likely get dismissed if the officer doesn’t appear and worse if the defendant doesn’t show, at the very least, the court would find you guilty and access the fine PLUS court cost. I have seen some jurisdictions that issue bench warrants for failure to appear in traffic court. Yet the officer gets the unfair benefit of “hey this person is serious about challenging the ticket”, and usually the officer will appear the second date. In extreme cases I have seen officers who will not appear regardless and they just play the percentages, 95% is definitely in the officers’ favor.

Now there are numerous credible stories on the web involving law enforcement agencies, including municipalities, counties, and state agencies instituting quota systems among their traffic enforcement officers but that is not the real travesty. The real travesty involves the direct correlation between revenue and citations. There have been many credible studies that show a direct correlation between the two. It seems when local governments run low on funds, citations increase to generate revenue for the local government. There have been many documented cases where municipalities have relied on citation revenue for approximately 50% of their budget. Randolph, Missouri, a small town not too far from Kansas City, relied on citation revenue for approximately 3/4 of their municipal budget. Even though a law had been passed 15 years prior by the Missouri legislature stating that only 35% of a municipal budget could be generated through citation fines, the small town was targeting out-of-town traffic to fund their city. City and County judges rubber stamp these practices, and condone these unethical policies, with unrealistically high conviction rates.

To make matters even worse, these unethical practices by everyone from the police to government administrators lead to much more serious violations of citizens rights. The traffic stops and citations are used by officers to conduct unlawful searches of persons and vehicles on a routine basis. They use tactics such as intimidation and promises not to issue citations if a search is allowed. Sometimes they threaten to detain motorist for hours until proper warrants are obtained if they refuse or fail to consent to an otherwise unlawful search. What about the DUI/DWI? Police use false premiss to set up DUI checkpoints and arrest motorist with absolutely no probable cause whatsoever. Can you imagine the revenue that DUI’s generate? Now I’m in no way condoning driving while intoxicated, but even worse than that is gross violation of civil rights. In my first few years as a patrol officer, our department had one DUI officer assigned to each precinct. The one assigned to my precinct set the state record for DUIs in a year with around 600. He was recognized and given an award by the department of public safety, but what no one talked about was the fact that how many of those DUIs were dismissed or had a not guilty verdict. But that didn’t matter because it didn’t fit the template.

Now I know a large percentage of the readers will think I crazy, some will think I’m insensitive, and members of MADD think I have my opinions because no one close to me has ever been hurt by a drunk driver. None of that is the case. I think it is imperative that this gross injustice be known to the public. What if everyone who received a citation this year pleaded not guilty? I know it would never happen but if it did it would throw the municipal and county court system into disarray. There should be a distinct standard when issuing a citation. The standard should be that for every citation issued, that officer should be prepared and physically able to testify in court. Today that is just not the case. If you remember anything from this, remember when you are issued a citation it’s not the presumption of innocence but the presumption that you won’t challenge the ticket.

Have a different opinion, think I’m crazy, or want to challenge me, I’ll welcome any and all to debate this anytime.

Just “dos centavos” from The Modern Day Machiavelli.