PORTLAND — Former Portland City Councilor Dan Skolnik faces a criminal charge of driving with a suspended license after he was pulled over Wednesday afternoon on Chestnut Street.
An officer responding to an unrelated call saw Skolnik driving past his cruiser in a silver VW Beetle and recalled that his license had earlier been suspended. He confirmed Skolnik's license was still suspended and issued him a summons to appear in court June 13, police said.
The summons alleges a misdemeanor crime rather than just a civil infraction because of a previous charge of operating after suspension. Skolnik also was issued tickets for driving an unregistered, uninspected and uninsured car, police said.
Paul J. Mattson
NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
Maine CWP Training
101 Main St.
Harrison, ME 04040
It demonstrates his moral character pretty well. This man is an attorney who's already been cited once for this, hence their inclination to pursue it as a felony if I'm reading this correctly. He knew it was wrong, did it anyways, got caught.
Derp. Reading comprehension fail on my part.
Just unbelievable those that can't stay out of trouble themselves want to run for office and tell the rest of us how to live. It's a little of topic I know, but seems though it's that way from local all the way to federal level. All we can do is keep up the fight and hope these SOB don't wear us real Americans down.
What else he has on his record... Under Tina's Law which was passed some time ago, any 3 major offenses or 12 minor offenses in a 5 year time span is an automatic 3 year license revocation. So he's got 2 majors right there with the 2 OAS's. I wonder what else he's got on his record...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." That all men are created equal. Endowed with unalienable rights. Among these unalienable rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Not all powers, only the "just" powers.)
Hunt up John Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1689?) on-line. Skim through it. It is the source of Jefferson's ideas from the Declaration of Independence given above. You'll even see one or two places where Jefferson wrote it practically word for word.
Then hunt up Lysander Spooner's No Treason (1870?) on-line. About 2/3's of the way into the essay you will see where Spooner makes the example that it is wrong for a man to point a gun in your face and demand money. And, the wrongness does not go away just because Mssr's A, B, and C deputize Mr. D to make the threat and demand on their behalf (election).
Thus we find government's legitimate scope is very narrow indeed. Protecting rights from criminals. Yet, we find that government that steps even a tiny bit beyond this scope becomes criminal (A, B, and C deputizing D).
And, there you have it. Criminals in government.
Add government's power and emoluments (pay and benefits from office), and you something very attractive to criminals or the criminally-minded.
[Of course, I am defining criminal much more broadly than just a rapist, robber, burglar, or fraudster. If we only define criminals that way, we miss the much larger pool of criminals (government) who exceed the legitimate purpose of government by acting as agents for Mssrs. A, B, and C.]
Thus, we get all sorts of unbelieveable contradictions:
Eric Holder not prosecuting the Black Panther voter-intimidators after the '08 election.
The Clinton State Department promoting freedom of journalism on practically the same day she is calling for Julian Assange's head.
Ben Bernanke telling us he needs to buy $600B in Treasury Bonds to break the recession and put people back to work, without telling us he necessarily means the US must go $600B further in debt, and that he is going to devalue the dollar by $600B by printing $600B more out of thin air. And, that somehow all of this is going to put people back to work when $1.2T in deficit spending, and all the bank bailouts ($700B?) in '08 and '09 didn't solve the economic crisis. Oh, since the Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel, how does criminals-in-government fit into this picture? The Treasury (government) sells those bonds to the Federal Reserve. Bonds are just loan documents promising to pay interest and principal. The government takes the loan, offering the bonds as written promises to pay. Guess who gets to pay? Right. You. In the form of taxes. Just a complex game of Mssrs A, B, and C, deputizing Mr D to point both an economic gun and a real gun in your face.
I'll stop there with examples of contradictions.
As soon as we shift the ideas about criminals and about government, suddenly it becomes not only believeable but predictable and expected.
It says that it was suspended in 2008 for an overdue inspection, and then he got caught sometime in 2009 driving with it still suspended. His excuse at the time was that he hadn't paid the fee to have it reinstated because he hadn't been given notice that it was suspended.
For Tina's law to apply he would need a third distinct incident to occur AFTER the suspension, so he's currently on his 2nd strike even though this one included multiple other offenses.
let him kill someone, than TINA'S law will aply!!!
No one wants to see anyone hurt by Skolnik's irresponsible behavior. But the fact remains that his behavior endangers other people.
The vehicle inspection and suspended license are what really get me. We get our vehicles inspected so that we can be sure that we don't have an unsafe vehicle. It seems from the whole narrative we've put together here that he had a delinquent inspection in 2008. So his vehicle was last inspected in 2007. A lot can happen to a vehicle in 3 years.
Not to get on my high horse, but I inspect my weapon ever morning before I leave my house. I disassemble it, look for any sign of corrosion or wear, reassemble it, run it through a function check, and then assume my normal carry posture. Every day. He can't be bothered to have a professional look at a much more complex machine a single time in three years.
Last edited by ep0k; 12-12-2010 at 08:54 PM.
Those of us who have researched the Constitution and Constitutional law,
understand that " We the People" have a right to travel in the United States of America.
The U.S. Supreme court has ruled many times Licenses are Commercial.
If you have a driver license you told government/corporation you were involved in a commercial activity.
Skolnik is a classic example of why people in glass houses shouldn't....(fill in the blank).
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!
You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC
Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.
The Supreme Court has ruled...Under the liberty clause of the federal constitution it is your right to travel in this country. American Jurisprudence says...You have the right to travel by Foot, Horse Drawn Carriage, or Automobile.
Licenses are Commercial.
Title 18 USC Section 31...Definition of a motor vehicle...Any vehicle used on the highway in commerce.
A right is a right weather you like it or not.
Right or wrong, if I want to carry concealed, I have to get a permit to do so. And right or wrong, if I want to drive a car, I need to get a license, registration, insurance, and inspection.
Whether those requirements are reasonable or even lawful is irrelevant. Until such time as they change, they are the law. Skolnik willfully violated the law, knowing that those laws are in place to protect public safety.
It has nothing to do with Public Safety....The Corporate State wants your money.
I think 70 to 80 percent of head-on collisions in Maine are licensed drivers.
So how safe are you.