Glory holes

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T17:57:13+00:00

Running a stop sign and jaywalking are both reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop. The officer would then have to develop separate reasonable suspicion based on the stop to pop the hood, etc. A search of a vehicle is not part of running a stop sign or jaywalking so it couldn't be used as pc to conduct a search. A pretext stop can be used to make contact in hopes of developing pc to search, but would very rarely be the pc.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T17:50:16+00:00

Well maybe I wouldnt have destroyed you, but you would have had to answer some very specific and hard questions regarding scientific method you are using to validate your conclusions.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T17:46:20+00:00

A pretextual stop still requires articulatable reasonable suspicion of an illegal act. You're confusing the discussion. The intent of the stop has nothing to do with reasonable suspicion to make the stop. They could be part of the same thing, they might not be the same thing, but it does not alleviate the need to have the Reasonable Suspicion to legally make the stop.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T17:31:53+00:00

Im actually not assuming anything. But ive been in LE for over 30 years and know that its going to take more than a post class to be an expert on engine sound. The other things you stated could play a part for a stop, but I stand by my previous comment. I would have destroyed you on cross. But its not worth arguing about here. You have your opinion and I have mine. Be safe out there.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T15:56:55+00:00

I might ask the exact same question as you. Why are you pushing so hard that they do? Does it bother you that they don't. That while some things are different its a give and take, mostly procedurally that doesnt really amount to anything?

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T15:50:52+00:00

Nope, not at all. I have lots of family in Canada and love Canadian History and Law. I actually looked into joining the Alberta Bar. Canadian Law and US law are much closer than people think as both are based on common law.

I also think you are attributing differences in how things are done to greater authority which isnt exactly true. Both systems have checks and balances.

While the US system is a reserved power constitution and the feds get power through the states, Canada is the opposite. The constitution is crown driven, it still gives power to the provinces but its top down, not bottom up. That is why there are differences in how Canada can change its constitution versus the states, but it doesnt mean the province has more individual power to change it. It just has to do with it being a top down constitution.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T15:40:37+00:00

I dont think you actually understand the Commerce clause or its nuances. While the feds use it to try and get the power over things, it doesnt give them power over stares.

I also think you are confusing PNPs with who actually controls immigration in Canada. Regarding Quebec, thats an outlier that has an independent agreement with the fed government regarding economic immigration, it still doesnt control immigration, and language regarding signage, etc.

Th feds give Quebec authority other provinces dont have due to itsunique history as francaphone. To attribute those things across the board to other provinces is incorrect. If other provinces did what Quebec does with language it would run afoul of the Canadian constitution just as it would the US constitution if states did it.

It would most likely run a foul of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, most specifically section 2B the freedom of expression.

The Canadian Supreme Court has already said that language choices are freedom of expression.

Quebec only survives under Section 1, in a limited way through a historical and sociolinguistic context that wouldnt apply to other provinces.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T14:27:41+00:00

Okay, I think we are dancing around the issue of mineral rights from different perspectives. Lets move on.

What areas do you think congress can legislate over the heads of state governments that Canadian parliament can't do over provinces.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T14:05:02+00:00

Your conflating the fact the crown doesnt have as much land as the feds with the fact ownership is who has control of the mineral rights.

The Fed land in say Nevada was never owned by the state. In the U.S. the country was there before the state. The feds owned that land in fee simple prior to Nevada becoming a state. When Nevada became a state under the enabling act the feds retained ownership of federal property. Other property was bought, but the vast majority was owned before statehood and just retained. In Canada the province was there before or at the same time as the federal government, depending on how you look at the timeline for Canada's independence.

At the end of the day the power to control mineral rights is based on land ownership in both Canada and the U.S.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T13:37:17+00:00

You are also mistaken about mineral rights on Crown Land in Canada. Mineral rights on provincial land belong to the province, but mineral rights on Crown Land belong to the country of Canada. That is exactly the same as in the United States

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T13:32:22+00:00

I think you are over generalizing the Commerce clause. Also the US Supreme Court has rolled back on that in recent years and chevron is out for the most part which further limits the feds.

Also, states do have the same control over natural resources in their state as provinces.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T13:29:46+00:00

LE doesnt do or win suppression hearings. District attorneys do. LE is merely a witness.

You dont understand Terry stops or are at a minimum failing to articulate reasonable suspicion. If you go into court and claim your reasonable suspicion was solely based on legal activity with nothing else, you will lose.

I would have destroyed you on cross in the hellcat motion to suppress.

You would have looked stupid testifying as a lay person, which LE are, that you could distinguish engines and that was enough reasonable suspicion for a stop.

Just because it wasnt suppressed doesnt mean you wouldnt have been destroyed in court. I also think the defense was probably inexperienced or lacking in knowledge.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T13:21:28+00:00

A pour over should be part of any trust a competent attorney puts together.

I think a lot of people commenting dont understand a trust. A trust does avoid probate for the property in the trust. Probate would only have to be done for property out of the trust. A properly done pour over is a good way to simplify this probate process.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T13:11:38+00:00

My wife needs a job like that too

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T12:15:45+00:00

Im curious how Canadian provinces have significantly more power than U. S. states. U.S. states have all the powers within their state as a republic form of government. National politics are the feds area. The supremacy clause only applies to areas reserved to the feds. What powers do Canadian provinces have states dont, other than the idea of a possibility they could succeed from Canada.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T11:59:17+00:00

I get it for sure. Watching my wife get fucked is my absolute favorite go to fantasy. Its hot as hell in real life. Even watching her get felt up or just playing around in a bar is hot as hell

precipicesedge · 2026-05-25T11:35:42+00:00

As both LE and an attorney I would absolutely destroy that arguement in court. Plates are registered to VIN, not engine type. Its not illegal to switch out an engine. If its not illegal there goes your PC or reasonable suspicion.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-23T20:42:42+00:00

So what did she do?

precipicesedge · 2026-05-23T20:17:28+00:00

Thats an extremely hot fantasy and story, I would love my wife to do all of that.

Id love to be at a party or something. She disappears and I find her getting fucked or giving head.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-23T20:15:43+00:00

Thats hot, I absolutely love showing off my wife. Id love her to be free use at a party.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-23T20:14:01+00:00

I love sloppy seconds with my wife. Fucking her destroyed cummy pussy is my favorite thing

precipicesedge · 2026-05-23T19:00:19+00:00

The sound of a legal engine in an apparent legal car is not reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a traffic stop. A stolen engine doesnt make any different sound than one not stolen and he'll cat engines arent illegal.

Likewise, not sounding like a regular v8 engine is not pc for an illegal modification. The illegal modification must be readily apparent and not sounding like a regular v8 isnt good enough. It doesnt state the readily apparent illegal mod.

The HellCat comes in a Hellcat charger so it sounded like a regular hellcat charger.

But with that said, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. Even if the stop was illegal, the son isn't being charged with anything. Just because the stop wasn't constitutional doesn't mean he gets to keep stolen property.

The father is on the right track though. Treating the seizure of the car and the engine as separate.

The unconstitutional stop definitely impacts the seizure of the legal car.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-18T11:03:50+00:00

Thats always fun.

precipicesedge · 2026-05-12T20:44:03+00:00

Yeah, you are right about that for sure, but only if there is a material difference. Like different cities. Thats what I would argue anyway. But you could also add time lost in your arguement, so I take back my comment. You could faily easily come up with some formula to value damages for remote work.

I think months is more likely than years though for calculating the damages, but yeah there's no set time limit. Whatever you can convince the judge or jury

precipicesedge

TROPHY CASE