106 posts shown.
Lisa Morales4 said:So, my brilliant friends, have any of you actually spent some time chatting with the folks down in Antarctica lately?
Did you realize that the US and Antarctica were actually part of the same landmass millions of years ago? Back during the era of the supercontinent Pangea and later during Gondwana, they were essentially one single piece of earth:
Both Antarctica and the US share very similar geological structures and soil systems.
In fact, up until the 19th century, people used to refer to Antarctica as Terra Australis.
Regarding Antarctica territorial claims ... when you look at things through the lens of ecological preservation, scientific research, and protecting the local flora and fauna
District of Columbia
So, I guess you've all brilliantly concluded that Antarctica and Australia must also share the same warm climate? Maybe there are venomous lizards and snakes down there just like in Australia... uuuuh, yeah, I'm definitely not going there. No thank you...
(🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣)
Lisa Morales4 said:Australia holds the largest share of Antarctica's territory
(It’s basically the only continent where the US hasn't stuck its fingers in or tried to claim a piece, which honestly gives it the best shot at staying a pristine wilderness...)
The Antarctica online forum launched just last month: you can check out everything from local wildlife and temperatures to what daily life is actually like... feel free to jump into a thread
...the walls of the houses are about 33 inches thick, built from the same kind of heavy-duty paneling used in industrial walk-in freezers—inside stays just as warm as it is cold outside👍
and so on
National Science Foundation
take a look to see what's new and what's happening lately
Man, you might as well go grab a Nobel Prize in Physics while you're at it. You don't even realize you've made an epochal discovery here. It's warm inside because it's cold outside, all thanks to some insulation? Seriously, get in touch with the National Academy of Sciences. Like, yesterday.
And I bet those panels are made of totally eco-friendly materials that just biodegrade easily once they're done, right?
Look, folks, please don't laugh at me here—this is actually an interesting concept if you think about it. Energy prices are going to skyrocket, which means consumption will be strictly limited. Eventually, people might be forced to relocate to Antarctica, where they’ll end up burning through as much energy just for weekly heating as all of Europe uses in an entire year. And honestly... where is all that electricity even coming from?
Personally, I kind of dig the idea. :-)) :-))
I’ve heard people say you can just write up some kind of formal statement and send it straight to the Highway Patrol—basically telling them you never actually received any notice from the Municipal Court, just to try and justify the situation. I guess... does that even make sense?
Do you think they'll slash the fine if I didn't hand over my license for inspection within that 8-day window?
Benjamin Wilson7 said:-In your case, the absolute statute of limitations would have been June 30, 2008 (counting to the end of the month), provided there wasn't a final judgment already in place.
The High-pressure solution becomes final the day it's issued and can't be appealed, especially since it overturned the first one.
-They can't take anything from you without a final, binding judgment.
The officers at the police station are telling me the statute of limitations doesn't apply if the proceedings were ongoing. But how am I supposed to know if they actually were?
Can the police just decide to revoke a driver's license on their own, or does that have to go through a Municipal Court? Because if we're talking about a court matter, I never received any summons—let alone an actual decision.
When I called the Highway Patrol, they kept referencing some order from September 15th, but they wouldn't clarify if it came from the court or somewhere else...
I went down to the station two days ago with this notice, trying to figure out what was going on and which specific decision they're using to pull my license. The officer actually asked me where my license was (which, strategically, I forgot at home). She told me to bring it in so she could explain everything. I mean, the notice itself lists my license number... the whole thing feels a bit off to me. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen the police bend the rules a little...
So, I’ve got a bit of a situation regarding traffic violations and statutes of limitations that I wanted to run by everyone.
Back on June 11, 2006, I committed a violation—well, actually two—and I ended up appealing the citation through the VPS.
Then, a few days ago, a process server shows up at my door with two envelopes. One contains a decision from the VPS dated April 16, 2008, which basically overturns the initial citation and sends the whole matter back to the municipal court. The other envelope is just a summons from the police telling me to show up at the station and bring my driver's license with me—no explanation, no context, nothing. I called the Highway Patrol to see what was going on, and they told me they’re suspending my license for three months because of those old violations. But here’s the thing: I never received a single notice for a municipal court hearing, let alone any ruling stating my license was being taken away. When I asked them what legal basis they were using to suspend my license, they claimed there was a Municipal Court ruling from September 15th. Now, I’m wondering... shouldn't the statute of limitations have kicked in after two years (by June 11, 2008)? Or am I missing something?
Should I actually hand over my license before I get a chance to see that actual court ruling? I tried digging for information about this supposed decision, but honestly, they just gave me the runaround—nobody could tell me which specific ruling they were even talking about. To top it off, the clerk was being incredibly condescending, basically telling me that the existence of the ruling doesn't change the fact that I have to comply. I had to remind them that under the Traffic Safety Act, I have a right to see that document, and I have the right to appeal if that's even an option.