2012.02.23
Thursday’s column: The fine was $0; the court cost were $74
Mary Gray and her 3-year-old dog, Elvis
At first I didn’t believe Mary Gray when she called to tell me the story about how she ended up having to pay $74 in Roanoke General District Court after her own dog bit her in her home.
But I’ve checked out the story, and it’s true, even if it is a little more involved than that. Read on.
Mary’s dog is named Elvis. He’s a happy, overweight mutt, about 3 years old. When I was over at Mary’s house Friday, he was all wags and licks, no growls.
But Elvis gets a bit overexcited at times, especially when Mary’s daughter’s dogs are visiting. That was the case on Jan. 7. In his excitement, Elvis nipped Mary on her hand.
The bite left a single puncture wound near the base of her thumb. Mary washed it off and thought little about it.
When she woke up the next morning, it was obvious the wound was infected. It was tender and swollen.
“It was like two Krispy Kreme doughnuts on the base of my hand,” Mary told me. Yuck.
So she went to one of those doc-in-a-box medical clinics that are springing up everywhere. The physician there drained the wound, dressed it, and wrote Mary a prescription for antibiotics. She thought that was it.
But a couple of days later, on Jan. 10, Mary’s phone rang. On the other end was Animal Control.
“The lady was very nice,” Mary said. “She said we need to see the dog in your home.” So Mary said, “Come on over.”
The visit went fine. The officer ascertained that Elvis is no kind of vicious or dangerous cur. Mary showed her the documentation for his vaccinations.
But there was one hitch. Mary and her husband had neglected to renew Elvis’ $5-a-year city dog license when it expired. That was an oversight.
READ THE REST OF THIS COLUMN HERE.
Dan,
What troubles me most is the how/why animal control calls up? Did the doctor’s office report the dog bite? Or did animal control show up because she hadn’t paid her license on time?
Comment by BUD — February 23, 2012 @ 6:56 am
We have slowly, but for the most part willingly, given local, state and federal governments increasing power in all areas of our lives. In this case, to force animal registration, compel doctors to report animal bites, even when there is no danger to the public at large, make us open our homes to animal control agents, and go through the court system when proof of license renewal, easily mailed or emailed in, should suffice. Each layer of this bureaucracy costs money and you can bet we get to pay for the oversight the government is providing us.
But talk about government over-reach, how we are over-taxed, and how out of control government is at all levels and you are labeled an extremist, a racist, and a right-wing kook. Hmm, you might not agree with everything they have to say, but maybe those kooks were onto something.
Comment by Katie — February 23, 2012 @ 7:10 am
No, it’s not the Republican-controlled generally assembly’s fault. It’s the fault of the animal rights nuts and local bureaucracy collaborating.
Comment by Suzie — February 23, 2012 @ 8:05 am
Thanks for getting this story out, people remain ignorant about how a lot of things work until they land on them. My Mom’s ordeal over a dog bite, did not involve the courts but it did involve an animal control bureaucracy that is just plain controlling, except of course when you really need their help, then…not so much.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 8:06 am
Dan: This is interesting but I’m not sure you are really making your case unless you provide a frame of reference. Are you saying that this “fee” would have been less or non existent before the current “no new taxes” administration was elected? How much has this fee and others increased over the years? Were these fees ever increased under Kaine and other Democrats or are the increases mostly concurrent with McDonnell and his Republican legislature? Unless you provide some sort of analysis of the fees over the years you are providing nothing more than innuendo.
Comment by scott whitaker — February 23, 2012 @ 8:32 am
Of course there are processing fees. Someone has to pay for the time it took the judge to adjudicate. Someone also has to pay for the time that the animal control officer examined the dog. It doesn’t matter if there was no fine or that the defendant “complied with the law.”
Someone has to pay for the administration and application of all the dog-checking, even if there is no “guilty” verdict. And it sure enough shouldn’t be all the random taxpayers. It wasn’t MY dog that got the nice lady into this “mess,” now was it?
Comment by George Krutz, III — February 23, 2012 @ 8:50 am
Again, do the crime, pay the fine. It costs money to run a courthouse and a judicial system. Keep your dog licensed and you don’t have to pay to use it.
Comment by tass — February 23, 2012 @ 8:56 am
My wife discovered recently that the GA has jacked up the cost of renewing her professional license (medical) by at least 33 percent. This is not something she can recover by charging higher prices or fees because she’s a salaried employee and it’s a license she HAS to have, so the bucks come straight out of our pockets.
No, no, say the Repubs, we’re not raising taxes.
Comment by gdad — February 23, 2012 @ 9:16 am
Dan, good morning. Whether or not I would personally agree that these are new taxes would depend on where the money is going. I would recommend finding out where the court costs actually go…if they go directly into the general fund, and fund things other than the courts, then they are likely in lieu of a general tax increase. If they go to fund the courts, then I would say that the court cost increase isn’t necessarily in lieu of a tax increase. And to be academic about it, whether or not a person is found guilty, the court system was still utilized in making that determination….on the other hand, if a person isnt’ guilty, then why should they have to pay anything? This is definitely a thorny issue…perhaps if a person isn’t guilty, the arresting officer’s police department should have to pay the court cost?
Comment by Al — February 23, 2012 @ 9:24 am
Maybe we should have members of the legislature see the clerk on the way out of the legislature each day. Processing fees should start at around $100 a day. That would probably be a good starting place.
Comment by Ron — February 23, 2012 @ 9:44 am
This is just ridiculous.
Comment by scott — February 23, 2012 @ 10:12 am
People seem to be missing the issue. The issue is not why this lady was charged court costs. Instead the issue is why the author, and apparently this young lady, believe that it is okay to break the law and get a break in court and then expect that the time of the judge, bailiffs, clerks, and prosecutors to be free. What in the world happened to personal responsibility in this community?
Comment by CJ Covati — February 23, 2012 @ 11:18 am
By the way, when a defendant is found not guilty then they do not have to pay court costs. However, in this instance the young lady was not found to be not guilty.
Comment by CJ Covati — February 23, 2012 @ 11:20 am
# 8 gdad – I feel your pain and agree that a 33 percent increase is a lot, but since your wife is required to have this license, shouldn’t her employer be paying for the cost of renewal? Then the employer can cover the fee increase by charging higher prices. Every job I have had where I was required to have a state issued license, the employer covered the cost of renewal, and often the original application cost. To me covering that cost is the same as providing hard hats, hearing protection and other required safety equipment on a job site or in a factory.
Again, I think a 33 percent increase is an awful lot in one year for a license that many people would be required to have.
Comment by Pat — February 23, 2012 @ 11:39 am
You are correct CJ Covati. The defendent was found neither guilty nor not guilty. Her case was dismissed. In other words it was found not to have sufficient merit to continue.
Comment by Ron — February 23, 2012 @ 11:42 am
The “issue” is even if you “win”, you can lose. The “issue” is that people are not aware of how the system works until faced with navigating it. Happens every day.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 11:49 am
8
gdad, I thought you would be happy to pay your fair share?
Taxes are GOOD.
Comment by Lake Claytor — February 23, 2012 @ 11:52 am
Of course it is a way to make easy money. Just like the seatbelt law. Any time I have ever gotten a ticket, regardless of what it is for, I always go to court. If I am going to be charged the same about of money then I am going to show up at court and make them earn their keep.
Comment by Tiffany — February 23, 2012 @ 12:17 pm
“Taxes are GOOD.” Now, if they could only be FAIR, we would have it made!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 12:25 pm
“What troubles me most is the how/why animal control calls up?”
This troubles you?
Does it also trouble you that your insurance company is “contacted” by the police when you crash your car into a utility pole?
What if you crash your car, and the officer-on-the-scene discovers you have expired tags and haven’t paid your personal property tax, so you get cited even though the “accident” (stupid word) wasn’t your fault?
This troubles you?
Welcome to the new world, son.
Comment by George Krutz, III — February 23, 2012 @ 12:54 pm
State law requires medical professionals to notify the health department for cases of animal bites that they treat. In turn, the health department notifies animal control, and an officer is dispatched to check on the vaccinations of the pet in question,
Comment by Dan Casey — February 23, 2012 @ 1:17 pm
#21 Summer of ’09 my dog bit my friend while we were in South Carolina. We were visited by Health Dept. folks there and again here in Rke. City while the dog was quarantined to be certain he was not rabid. All was well. About a month later we received a letter form someone in the City saying our dog was not licensed and we had to get him licensed or we would be charged. We complied and we never heard from them again. Sounds like their policy has changed, perhaps.
Comment by scott whitaker — February 23, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
I agree with Al, #9, in that it would be interesting to see exactly where these “fees” end up. If they are in fact used for the administration of justice to in part defray the costs of police, administrative and Court work then I see no major problem. But, if these revenues from fees are being used say in the General Fund or are being shipped over to VDOT then I have a problem with that. Again, it would be interesting to know if these “fees” have been increased during this administration or not or if this is just a continuation of policies started by other administrations. What we have uncovered here is that fees are up. What we don’t know is where they are going, how long have they been “up” and why they have increased. Just saying it’s the current administration’s fault and leaving it at that is wrong, IMHO.
Comment by scott whitaker — February 23, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
This reminds me of the one time I called DirecTV about the $6 a month rental fee for each box. I asked them what would happen if I bought my own box. The answer was that I wouldn’t have to pay the rental fee but I would have to pay a $6 programming fee! It’s a crazy world we live in for sure.
Comment by Original Greg — February 23, 2012 @ 1:44 pm
#1 Bud, when a dog bites a person, by law the local health dept. is called by the medical facility to determine if the dog has received its shots and to eyeball the dog, apparently to determine if it is rabid. Seems like good policy to me. My incident occurred in SC and during the designated period of quarantine we returned to Rke. and we were visited by the health dept. again. I don’t recall them even asking if he was licensed and my guess is they just checked records. It was all pretty seamless as was the licensing process. I was told the license fee (or part anyway) went to the SPCA.
Comment by scott whitaker — February 23, 2012 @ 1:51 pm
#17 You really never do get it do you, LC?
Comment by gdad — February 23, 2012 @ 2:02 pm
#14 For whatever reason my wife has to pay for this one herself, Pat. I’ve never thought to ask her why the employer doesn’t cover it.
Comment by gdad — February 23, 2012 @ 2:03 pm
Thanks Dan…
Moral of the story…”Doc it was a puncture wound from a nail in a fence I was tearing down in the backyard. I am pretty sure the fence is current on its “shots”.”
Comment by BUD — February 23, 2012 @ 2:07 pm
Agree with #12 here….standing on the side of personal responsibility. Yes I think it’s annoying but I also think that’s just too darn bad. Suck it up.
Comment by Miriam — February 23, 2012 @ 3:15 pm
#21 Sorry Dan, I did not see you had already answered Bud’s question…
Comment by scott whitaker — February 23, 2012 @ 3:16 pm
I agree that there is a reason for the system to function as it did/does. However, there should be some kind of common sense rule that does not increase suffering for people or animals. I could tell you a story on that score, but I have to ask, anyone know why a valid rabies certificate doesn’t really matter? Except of course without it, the 10 day quarantine becomes 30!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 7:25 pm
Seems like buying a $5 dog tag on time would have saved some money.
Simple fact, if you use the courts then you will have to pay.
To help avoid the cost:
1. Don’t speed (established on the blog weeks ago)
2. If you own a dog, keep up the vaccinations and buy the dog tag
3. Don’t get married, divorced or perform any other actions requiring recording
Sometimes though things happen. Bad luck, stupid decisions, etc. When these things happen suck it up and pay up.
P.S.- If you are a bleeding heart liberal, don’t object to these fees and fines, let the thought of how you are supporting the locality warm your heart.
Public employees thank you for the support.
Comment by Big Momma — February 23, 2012 @ 7:30 pm
Sadly BUD, I think you are right, I know that I will invent whatever story I need to before I admit one of my dogs bit me and it has nothing to do with rabies certificates or dog tags, I do not neglect either.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 7:30 pm
So BM,
Do you believe the police should charge a fee to take a burglary report, or to respond to a traffic accident, or to respond to a robbery call?
How much should a fire department charge a homeowner for putting out a fire?
Do you believe homeowners with no kids in school should get rebate on real estate taxes?
Comment by Dan Casey — February 23, 2012 @ 8:00 pm
So being a “bleeding heart liberal” (whatever that means coming from you), requires us to like that we have to subsidize the unfair tax structure to pad the budgets of government functions rather than ask the wealthy to pay more? Really? Gosh, I thought it meant we want to make this an equitable society and help people who need it. I want my membership fee refunded!!
Got an insurance bill today with an “assessment fee” of 1% added on…
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 8:15 pm
First, Animal Control wouldn’t enter my home without a warrant. Second, I don’t pay fees to have a pet in my home. Call me a criminal, I just don’t do it.
Comment by Jack — February 23, 2012 @ 8:23 pm
@gdad: “My wife discovered recently that the GA has jacked up the cost of renewing her professional license (medical) by at least 33 percent.”
Finally found something we have in common. Went through the same thing here with my wife’s license. We won’t recoup the cost, either.
Comment by Jack — February 23, 2012 @ 8:26 pm
@Dan,
This fire department charges $75/year to put out your house fire.
http://goo.gl/PYoGm
Comment by Jack — February 23, 2012 @ 8:32 pm
Dan, since this topic is dealing with courts and police reports – I think we told you that the crack heads stole our oil tank from outside the gym last year. At that time, the tank was behind the building. We got a new one and it is to the left of the building, in the front. They tried to steal it last night. They damaged the feeder line running from the tank to the furnace but didn’t get the tank – yet.
Luckily it was warm today and we didn’t need the heat. We were told that the tank would get them $15-20 as scrap metal. Those tanks are heavy and difficult to steal. When they’re feeding, crack heads will work hard for twenty dollars.
Comment by VRWC — February 23, 2012 @ 8:40 pm
BM,
I don’t have a problem with fees per se. What I object to is legislators, not just in Virginia, who approve these fees as a revenue source. Immediately after having done so, they stand up and, with straight faces, say “but we did not increase your taxes.” Those especially tied to the court system become almost unassailable because people who are “fee’d” are typically told, don’t do the “crime” if you can’t pay the bill. I can’t speak for Virginia, but in Indiana revenues from such fees have increased to providing as much as 15% of local revenues. 10 years ago that %age was less than 3%. Nonetheless, the legislators, who enabled this fee increase, will stand up with a straight face and tell you there have been no tax increases.
The fees have no relationship with the actual cost of the functions they are supposedly structured to support. It’s, plain and simple, a way to produce revenue to support local government for the most part. I believe they should stand up and have the stones to call it what it is. That’s my objection. I guess I really shouldn’t expect anything different from politicians.
Comment by Ron — February 23, 2012 @ 8:41 pm
Oh Dan,
It is rather comical to see your panties in such a wad.
It is difficult for me to understand how you can give your unwavering support for taxes and the local services in which they provide, yet you have such a problem with court fees. As I have said before at least some of the burden is shifted to some that would otherwise not pay any part of their “fair share” let alone any amount.
Oh yeah I remember, you love taxes and fees as long as you are not the one paying them. How could I forget.
These services that you love, they are not free as much as you would like to believe. The burden of paying for such services should not be shouldered solely by a small percentage of the population.
I also find it entertaining yet concerning how you always seem to find fault with a system or business, yet excuse the so called “victim” because they did not follow the established rules or failed to fulfill simple duties or responsibilities.
Comment by Big Momma — February 23, 2012 @ 9:39 pm
#17 You really never do get it do you, LC?
Comment by gdad — February 23, 2012 @ 2:02 pm
LC may not get it gdad but I do. I realize you are like every other soul in support of taxes or fees. They are great as long as someone else is paying them. When it touches your wallet then your fiddle changes tune.
Comment by Big Momma — February 23, 2012 @ 9:43 pm
@35 Sandi,
You of all people should be happy to contribute. Don’t blame others you bleeding heart, be happy that you are supporting, creating and saving jobs. Be your own stimulus package Sandi.
You want the wealthy to pay for everyone and everything? I am far from what I consider wealthy but if you expect the wealthy will have the ability to pay all the taxes and fees then we will need to find a whole heck of a lot more to contribute.
Comment by Big Momma — February 23, 2012 @ 10:01 pm
Jack,
That story is an outrage and it’s a perfect worst-case example of fee-based systems of government.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 23, 2012 @ 10:03 pm
BM,
How much do you believe police should charge you to respond to your car accident (you could always avoid driving so as not to get into one, you know) or a burglary at your residence (silly; shoulda bought that burglar alarm)?
And how much should the FD charge for putting out a fire at your home?
Comment by Dan Casey — February 23, 2012 @ 10:10 pm
Dan,
First off, several of your examples are not exactly relevant. If you are the victim of a crime, you don’t pay fees associated with court. So a response by the pd if you are the victim should result in the same.
If the accident is your fault, then in most circumstances you will be ticketed and will pay the associated fees.
You seem to always ignore the fact that the “victims” in your articles have failed perform certain requirements and abide by laws. The fees could have easily been avoided. Way to support ignorance and the failure to follow simple laws.
For your idiotic statement about security systems, you of course know a burglar alarm as you call it does not necessarily prevent a burglary or an intrusion, the alarm either through an audible noise or alerting the proper authorities aim to reduce the impact of the intrusion or burglary. An alarm does not guarantee that assistance from the proper authorities will not be needed. And yes you may be charged for a response if it is a false alarm. A burglar is unaware of a the presence of a security system by the installation itself. Decals and yard signs afford a prospective burglar the knowledge of a potential system.
Many fire departments in at least my area much like rescue personnel are volunteer. In every instance when any of my family memebers has needed such assistance during my lifetime, we always provide a monetary donation afterwards. I am sure you and your kind heart would do the same.
Comment by Big Momma — February 23, 2012 @ 10:34 pm
Is showing your ignorance the new normal for you Big Momma? I do not want “the wealthy to pay for everyone and everything”. Never said it, never implied it, never even thought it. Do you have an issue with being honest or do you just make it up as you go along? Why do you want the wealthy to pay a less percentage on income they gambled to get than people like me, doctors, teachers, and police officers pay for income we worked to get?
Why do you support a Plutocracy? Why do you think rich people are better than the rest of us? Why do you hate the working people in this country? See how stupid it looks to ask ridiculous questions and say stupid stuff. Maybe if you cannot be honest, you should stop posting.
Refusing to make the tax structure fair, protecting the wealthy from more taxes while making people pay for services that should be covered by tax dollars as others struggle to make ends meet as it is, is not something you should be proud of. But then again…
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 10:51 pm
BTW, Big Momma, show me where I complained about the fees? Said they were unfair? Said they were unfairly applied? Said they only hurt poor people? Said anything that attacked the fees except to say (rightly) that we already pay taxes TO run the court system, police department, etc. Show me.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 11:12 pm
BM,
You don’t have to drive. If you choose to drive, you should understand the risks associated with that. And I question whether most traffic accidents result in tickets. No doubt, some do. But most? Where do you get that from?
I take it that you don’t believe police should charge you a fee when responding to an accident. Why not? The way it is now, you’re paying for them to respond to others’ accidents. I would think you’d be up in arms over that.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 23, 2012 @ 11:54 pm
What? Have to pay a fee even when you’ve done nothing wrong? That’s just crazy. Just as crazy as my having to pay $117 this week just to exercise my constitutional second amendment right in Florida. That’s right, even though I’ve NEVER had any type of criminal activity I had to pay $117 for a concealed permit. Florida doesn’t allow open carry, so I can only carry concealed which forces me to pay for the CHP. The 2A says the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed…but I guess that have found a way to tax that right. Perhaps they should tax the other rights too.
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 24, 2012 @ 7:02 am
I’m actually with Sandi on this one. I just don’t think the capital gains tax needs to be raised, I think all other income tax needs to be lowered or equaled to the capital gains tax. I’d be down with an equal across the board, but alas that’ll never happen.
Comment by Uptheriver — February 24, 2012 @ 8:24 am
I often agree with Sandi, but I see hypocrisy in this situation. The fact that you know the person who had to pay a fine doesn’t mean the fine is unfair. And the cost of running a courthouse should absolutely be borne by those who are called before it (sans victims). If the woman in question had licensed her dog, none of this would have happened.
Comment by tass — February 24, 2012 @ 9:07 am
I would also like to add that if the dog is overweight and gets so overexcited that even its owner can’t control it, then it needs a LOT more exercise than it’s getting.
Comment by tass — February 24, 2012 @ 10:15 am
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 24, 2012 @ 7:02 am
(o/ ! /o),
Your rights weren’t infringed in Florida. You just had to pay a fee to exercise them.
Comment by Ron — February 24, 2012 @ 11:15 am
#50 You’ll have to have a chat with them Repubs running thangs down thar, bug.
Comment by gdad — February 24, 2012 @ 11:18 am
Tass, you will need to explain where your #52 applies to me. I am sorry if Big Momma has fooled you into thinking I complained about the fine or anything else in the story of this person I do not know. You are missing some pieces. All I said, and I maintain, is that people often do not understand how things work until they land in the middle of it and that state legislatures, afraid to raise taxes, are pushing higher fees, fines and costs onto people for services taxes used to cover. I am sorry if you have a problem with that, but it is the truth IMO. I have often admitted to being a hypocrite on some issues, but seriously, where is my hypocrisy here?
That insurance “assessment fee” was tacked onto our insurance by the State of Virginia from what I can gather. Expect more of this.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 24, 2012 @ 3:00 pm
BM,
You don’t have to drive. If you choose to drive, you should understand the risks associated with that.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 23, 2012 @ 11:54 pm
You are exactly right Dan. I choose to drive and I accept the risk that there is a chance I will be caught speeding or violating other laws that will result in fines and the associated fees. If I get caught I won’t cry about it.
But back on the topic to which you ignore, in both columns you have written about this the subject and so called “victim” failed to comply with a law. You overlook that fact and ignore that these could have easily been avoided.
Comment by Big Momma — February 24, 2012 @ 5:53 pm
I am sorry if Big Momma has fooled you…..
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 24, 2012 @ 3:00 pm
Sandi,
I am sure Tass is able to see exactly how you are and understands your beliefs.
Comment by Big Momma — February 24, 2012 @ 5:54 pm
Sandi, I misread the 4th response, where you said “Thanks for getting this story out …. My Mom’s ordeal over a dog bite, …” as the story being about your mother and that’s why you were on the side of the scofflaw. I agree that raising fees is a backdoor, politically safe way of raising revenue without raising taxes, and that higher fees disproportionately affect lower income people.
But all they had to do was license their dog. I received a notice in the mail a week or so ago. My dog’s license had expired and I didn’t renew it. They notified me early in February, said I had until the end of the month to re-license her without penalty, and I took care of it. If I hadn’t, I’m sure I would get another notice. The people in the story didn’t *just* let the dog’s license lapse. They let the license lapse and ignored notices about it. That’s where it changes from an oversight to your own damn fault.
$5 is all it would have taken.
Comment by tass — February 24, 2012 @ 6:55 pm
Thanks Tass, I appreciate that. “$5 is all it would have taken”, I agree and would never say otherwise. Bedford County does not send a notice if you forget to renew, that would be helpful (or maybe I renew before they mail them) but either way, it is the pet owner’s responsibility.
I don’t doubt she forgot it and I don’t doubt that she was shocked to see how the system works; most people are. The courts, clerks, lawyers and judges do that stuff every day, the rest of us do not and really have no need (or the time) to inquire how it all works. You know that whole thing about “sausage making”? It’s true.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 24, 2012 @ 11:55 pm
This is why I keep fish and not dogs or cats but I guess they’ll find a way to tax my fish next.
Comment by Maloof — February 25, 2012 @ 11:55 am
I do not want “the wealthy to pay for everyone and everything”. Never said it, never implied it, never even thought it.
You apparently do since the top 5% currently pay more than the bottom 95% in federal income taxes, and you want them to pay even more.
Comment by Suzie — February 25, 2012 @ 1:22 pm
#61 Gee, maloof, I’ve never had anybody take my cats in decades of owning them. And I’m in absolutely no fear that it will happen any time soon, either. You sure are paranoid.
Have fun cuddling or playing with those fish.
Comment by gdad — February 25, 2012 @ 2:54 pm
54. Ron, Name any other constitutional “God Given Right” that requires the paying of a fee (or tax, if you will) before you can exercise it. Just imagine the uproar if a person had to pay a fee and get a permit in order to exercise their choice of religion, or to exercise free speech.
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 25, 2012 @ 3:28 pm
@63 Hey Tool: it’s tax not take
Comment by Maloof — February 25, 2012 @ 6:56 pm
@63 Hey Tool: it’s tax not take
Comment by Maloof — February 25, 2012 @ 6:56 pm
Maloof,
Maybe no one has take his cats but apparently someone took gdads glasses. But if he can’t see the computer screen how does he know his cats are still there?
Comment by Big Momma — February 26, 2012 @ 3:33 pm
#66 “Maybe no one has take his cats but apparently someone took gdads glasses,” BM? Tell you what, get back to us after you learn proper grammar and how to punctuate. Or maybe somebody took YOUR glasses?
Comment by gdad — February 26, 2012 @ 11:06 pm
#65 I’ve never had anybody tax my cats, either, maloaf.
Comment by gdad — February 26, 2012 @ 11:08 pm