Archive for June, 2012

Most people who have followed the issue no doubt already know after spending close to 2 million dollars several years ago and celebrating the removal of trailers from Haydon Elementary School, the School Board and City Council have decided to go retro, and haul trailers back to the school. Furthermore, the Journal Messenger reports that we can anticipate more trailers rolling up to the schools in the years to come. Perhaps its time for a Citizen  Charter Schools  Committee?


Read Full Post »

by Spartan

It has been 14 hours since the news broke that the ObamaCare mandate was held unconstitutional;  at least that was the initial report.  Unfortunately, the report was amended that the ObamaCare mandate was upheld 5-4 on the basis that the mandate was a tax.  What was most shocking was the deciding vote was cast by Chief Justice John Roberts.  There has been reasonable speculation Roberts was actually siding with Scalia’s opinion but changed his conclusion at the last moment.  This allowed folks to wonder whether he was bullied by Obama or merely did not want to confront Obama and the Democrats.  What ever the reason, Roberts exemplified judicial cowardice.

The apologetics, concerning Roberts’ decision, from the Left and the Right has been an assortment of wishful thinking and delusion.  Glenn Reynolds compared Roberts to Chief Justice John Marshall in the Marbury case.  Reynolds does point out that Senate rules do not allow a filibuster when the bill under consideration has to do with imposing or repealing a tax.  Thus, if the GOP take the Senate and the presidency, they will not need 60 votes to repeal the individual mandate. Ezra Klein, of Journalist fame, praises Roberts for putting himself above partisan reproach.  It is funny how such praise emanates from the political left when they get their way.  Roberts will likely earn a “Profiles in Courage” award from the Kennedy family.

What Roberts and his apologetics missed is the version of ObamaCare that became law originated in the Senate.  Article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution stipulates that all tax bills must originate in the House.

Some will continue to believe that such an omission was unintentional.  I submit such omissions are intentional.  After all, the Supreme Court decided in favor of McCain-Feingold in spite of the explicit language in the First Amendment which states:  “Congress shall make no law …” .  The same Supreme Court that can find rights of life and liberty for everyone but the unborn.

Some people will continue to look for silver linings in this decision.  The end result is this decision allows Congress to tax inactivity.  There are no limits now to what Congress may tax.

The Supreme Court, which used to be the buffer between a zealous Congress, an ambitious President, and the American people, has lost any sense of independence;  something every American lost with this opinion.

Spartan is a lawyer by profession and someone I consider one of the better commentators on American politics.

Read Full Post »

The newswires and blogs are all a buz, here’s a suggestion read the ruling before you let the chatterers, pundits and bloggers warp your reasoning ability.

Read Full Post »

The National Journal on their Education Expert Blog has some interesting entries and links today concerning Charter Schools and Special Education needs. Worth looking at for those of us who would like Manassas to consider Charter Schools as a possible path for Manassas to explore.

Read Full Post »


by Charles Sutherland

According to official City of Manassas Police statistics there were 1,973 arrests in 2011, an average of 38 per week.  Those people arrested did not pay the cost of their own arrest.  Citizens paid their costs for them!  Why?

Even for minor traffic violations, citizens must pay for their own infractions.  So why do politicians make citizens pay the bills for people who are arrested for committing REAL crimes?  Why do the politicians allow citizens to be continually exploited and ridiculed by criminals and social miscreants?

Why do the police have to waste their time holding the revolving door for repeat offenders who are subsidized by taxpayers?   Why do tax-payers have to pay the costs of arresting an offender, pay the court costs of the Hearing, pay the costs of providing free lawyers to the offenders, pay the costs of providing free translators/interpreters for non-English speaking offenders, and pay the costs of providing everyone who is incarcerated with free room & board?

Why have lazy, unimaginative politicians arranged it so that people who are arrested for crimes are treated more favorably than honest people who have to pay for their own traffic violations?

There is nothing preventing the City, county, or Commonwealth from creating laws to make ‘outlaws’ pay the costs of their own criminal behavior!

The only difficulty may be ‘how to collect’ the fines or assessments, but that can also be achieved by impounding vehicles and placing liens on property.  Even if many avoid payment, they know the debt (and the cost of collection) will be permanently on their record…and may eventually have to be paid.  This will reduce the number of offenders, and minimize the number of family members who are willing accomplices.


[“Arrest Fine”]   For example, if someone is arrested, impose an automatic ‘arrest fine’ of $100. (An arrest is more serious than a traffic ticket, and $100 is less than many traffic tickets.) The actual cost of the policemen’s time, finger-printing, processing, etc. can be calculated, since some arrests are more complicated than others; so the law can stipulate “a minimum fine of $100, or the actual cost, whichever is higher.”  (If we wait to do the calculations, it will take five years of “studies” by the politicians.)

[“Court costs”] There are already guidelines for this, since they are assessed every day of the week.

[“Cost of incarceration”] This can be $75 per day, since the average cost of prison incarceration in Virginia is currently c. $26,000 per year.

The law can be written so that the assessments for all of these issues are mandated.  In this manner, the judges will have to enforce the law … or be publicly exposed as the ‘activists’ they so often are.

Of course, if the charges are dismissed, some fines/assessments can also be dismissed, but not the ‘arrest fine’ (unless the judge officially rules that it was a ‘false arrest’).  If the defendant is found guilty or plea-bargained, all the fines and assessments are imposed – and collected.

Such laws can be created locally…now!


The law can be written so that if a vehicle is involved in the crime:  the fines/assessments create an automatic lien against the vehicle, and the vehicle is immediately impounded until they are paid or the charges are completely dismissed by a judge.

If the crime is committed in a house, e.g. drug dealing, gang activity, etc. the fines/assessments create an automatic lien against the house.

If the crime is committed ‘on the street’:  when the culprit is arrested, impound all of his/her valuables until the court renders a verdict.  The valuables remain with the police until all fines are paid.

If the crime is committed by an under-age person or a legal immigrant: the fines/assessments are also automatically applied to the parents, legal guardians, or ‘immigration sponsors’… with the same procedures for collection as above.

If the crime is committed by an ‘illegal alien’ the same procedures apply.

The “arrest fine” can be paid on the spot, to avoid any liens on property or ‘costs of collection.’

In all cases, the “arrest fine” is still paid, even if the judge dismisses the charges, unless the judge officially rules it a ‘false arrest.’

Apart from the financial consequences, these ‘inconveniences’ themselves act as a future deterrent to the perpetrator and his/her relatives.   Fewer arrests will also reduce the work load of the police department.

[NB: Although the law requires that everyone is entitled to legal services, does it prohibit collecting payment for some of these costs after the Hearing?   Can’t a convicted offender be invoiced for the cost of his attorney, and his translator if there is one?  If possible, the government(s) should assess the perpetrator for the legal fees and costs of any translators/interpreters, with the same collection procedures.]


Those who violate the law should pay the financial costs of their own transgressions.  With such a law in place, the tax-payers will no longer subsidize criminals.  The criminal element will know they have to PAY THEIR OWN COSTS, or decide it’s better to get out of town.

To the chagrin of lawyers, this will reduce the number of court appearances and tax-payer payments to the criminals’ professional ‘accomplices,’ namely ‘the legal industry’.


‘The legal industry’ (which includes judges) frequently create delays because lawyers benefit financially from delays.  That’s why judges, who are lawyers nominated by lawyers, often reward their legal congregation by constant ‘Continuances’ which generate more legal fees. That’s also why, as a card-carrying member of ‘the legal industry’, the City Attorney may oppose such a law.  But this is legally feasible and can be carefully crafted… in just one or two pages.

The City Council of Manassas (and the other wider jurisdictions?) should enact laws to achieve the above. Crimes for which people are arrested are obviously worse than traffic violations, and the costs of compliance should be borne by the perpetrators.  Criminals, or their families, should cough up the money to pay the costs of their own criminal behavior.  Politicians have compelled tax-payers to subsidize criminals (and their criminal lawyers) long enough!

Read Full Post »

All the public officials and employees of the City who are not “incompetent and corrupt boobs.”

Read Full Post »

Why? I don’t trust Patch. In the article Ms Gibson states: “Manassas Resident Dan Brown who spoke at the public hearing Monday  said he is disappointed the city and planning commission did not work together on their goal to “develop a solution to the space and  needs of the city’s schools so that module units are removed and not  used it the future.”

I don’t recall a Dan Brown at the meeting, and I know I did not say the words in the quote. So good job reporting Erin, especially if your goal was to make an opponent of kids being dumped into trailers look like a trailer park graduite.

Pending Approval II

Doug Brown

10:11 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Schauer says a lot of vague things : could have, should have, we need trailers, we don’t need trailers. In fact, if you do the math : 2 trailers = 2 classrooms for this Fall,  one trailer is for replacing the one classroom that they are taking out of circulation because of moving GT to Haydon, THAT is NOT due to unexpected increase in students coming to Haydon that is do to MCPS shifting resources and programs around while the Johnson center is underutilized. As for the one new classroom needed – half a library is better than no library at all, and a trailer park moving onto campus. Furthermore, start doing a better job representing the views of the parents and citizens of Manassas rather than the incompetent and corrupt boobs that run this city. (I’m civil and polite on my blog 🙂

And one more thing lose the touch time reference, it sounds creepy, especially in a city where you just had a Manassas Sandusky sent away for hopefully the rest of his miserable life.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: