Long Island Man Arrested For 41st Time For Driving On Suspended License

42Jason Brown may be only 36 but he has just racked up his 41st driving offense in operating a vehicle on a suspended license. That’s right, 41 times. This time he was pulled over after police said that he was driving erratically and they found marijuana in the car as well as heroin and cocaine on his person.

Brown from Long Island allegedly gave a false name at first but was soon in the books with what must be close to a record for such violations. He now faces charges of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, criminal impersonation, unlawful possession of marijuana and criminal possession of a controlled substance. The concept of an “aggravated” unlicensed operation is a bit new to me but I suppose if there is such a thing it would occur sometime before a 41st arrest.

The case illustrates the difficulty in dealing with recidivists of such minor offenses. Society does not want to jail such individuals long-term for minor violations but there is clearly no deterrent for people like Brown in the existing punishment. (I am also curious when a license stops being “suspended” and someone like Brown simply has no license).

112 thoughts on “Long Island Man Arrested For 41st Time For Driving On Suspended License”

  1. A few days ago, in this thread, I called attention to evidence of the behavior of some police and prosecutors that nothing to do with public safety or the protection of property rights. Yesterday, the Justice department released the following report:

    “WASHINGTON — A damning report released by the Justice Department on Wednesday heavily criticized the operations of the police department and municipal court in Ferguson, Missouri, where Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen, was shot and killed by a white police officer in August.

    “DOJ’s civil rights investigation into the Ferguson criminal justice system found that authorities have routinely violated the rights of black citizens and have used tickets to generate revenue for the city.

    “Many police officers ‘appear to see some residents, especially those who live in Ferguson’s predominately African-American neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as potential offenders and sources of revenue,’ in part due to city policies, according to the report.

    “The Justice Department also disclosed several emails sent by current Ferguson officials over the past several years that reveal racial bias. One email depicted President Barack Obama as a chimpanzee. Another email described a man who wanted to get welfare for his dogs because they were ‘mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are.’ A third email included a photo depicting bare-chested dancing women with the caption “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion,” while another email included jokes about Muslims.

    “The report found that city, police and court officials have ‘worked in concert to maximize revenue at every stage of the enforcement process’ for several years.

    “City and police leadership pressure officers to write citations, independent of any public safety need, and rely on citation productivity to fund the City budget,” the report states.

    “ ‘Everything’s about the courts… the court’s enforcement priorities are money,’ one Ferguson officer told federal investigators, according to the report. The report describes several instances of officers abusing their power. In summer 2012, for example, one officer charged a man with violating Ferguson’s municipal code by saying his name was ‘Mike’ instead of ‘Michael.’ The man told the Justice Department that he lost his job as a federal contractor because of that charge along with several others.”

    “DOJ investigators said that while several Ferguson officials blamed residents for not taking responsibility for their actions or dealing with outstanding warrants, they themselves routinely dismissed parking tickets for their friends, colleagues and acquaintances.”

    “One DOJ official said that there are many municipalities that engage in the same practices as Ferguson, and that federal officials hope other cities and towns near Ferguson will take note of the findings and make changes of their own.”
    The Huffington Post 3/4/15

    1. Ken Rogers

      I told you several days ago I felt uniquely qualified to answer this question. You obviously do not want to hear anything but what you want to hear. The President of the United States and The Attorney General and Mayor Slay and that person who is always talking about shining the light on the roaches and stirring up so much trouble……………..You don’t know what goes on in Ferguson and I do. There is police problems in Ferguson but they are not just to Black people. This does make me emotional because you are ignoring me and I lived there all of my life. I had Police brutalizing me there in the 1970s. I am white. I am a woman. So, can you please get over your facts and listen to some reality. That place was a set up for a riot. Louis Head incited a riot there and the City was burned down and President Obama told Governor Nixon to hold back the National Guard the first night there was burning and looting. This is criminal and they should be arrested and the President should stand trial for this. Please do not bring it up again. It is not a good example

      1. @happypappies
        “I told you several days ago I felt uniquely qualified to answer this question.”

        I don’t know to what question you’re referring. Please remind me.

        “This does make me emotional because you are ignoring me and I lived there all of my life.”

        I’m certainly not intentionally ignoring you, happypappies. What is it you’ve written that you think I’ve ignored?

        “I had Police brutalizing me there in the 1970s. I am white. I am a woman.”

        Wherever it was, I’m truly sorry to hear that, but do you mean it happened in Ferguson, MO?

        “So, can you please get over your facts and listen to some reality.”

        I think I know what you’re trying to say here, but a little clarification would certainly help.

        “Louis Head incited a riot there and the City was burned down and President Obama told Governor Nixon to hold back the National Guard the first night there was burning and looting. This is criminal and they should be arrested and the President should stand trial for this. Please do not bring it up again. It is not a good example.”

        Ferguson was burned down? Obama and Nixon should stand trial for not bringing in the National Guard? Those are pretty strong claims, aren’t they?
        Are they really supportable by the available evidence?

        “I am going to make a stab in the dark here and see if you know what an ad hominem attack is.”

        For what it’s worth, I majored in philosophy as an undergraduate and received an “A” in deductive logic. 🙂

        “An ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the man” or ‘to the person'[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

        Note the caveat,” *When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy* in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2]” (my emphasis)

        Note also that argumenta ad hominem may assess either positively or negatively the person in question.

        A good example of argumentum ad hominem (arguing to the man) is one you’ve provided when you wrote, “Paul C. Schulte is a College Professor with a Mensa IQ” with the implication that he’s therefore right about the desirability of imprisoning Jason Brown.

        Another example: Barack Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, so he knew what he was doing to preserve the peace when he urged Governor Nixon to stand down the National Guard in Ferguson, MO.

        I look forward to your responses.

        1. As I said Ken Rogers, I was going to take a stab in the dark and make an ad hominem attack.

          For what it’s worth, I majored in philosophy as an undergraduate and received an “A” in deductive logic. 🙂

          Where did you go to school. lol

          Oh please sir, come inside of my head and tear it apart, I look forward to you doing so.

          Your logic is not only circuitous, it is baseless. I have been sitting here wondering the last 2 days if you are an attorney and if so feeling sorry for your clients.

          You heard exactly what I said about Ferguson. That pos article that you posted that was full of nothing but the most surface allegations was just totally insufferable. Like most of the claims that you have been making.

          Nothing you are saying is holding together. The weave is warped to the eye as your understanding of the universe seems to be.

          1. happypappies

            “Oh please sir, come inside of my head and tear it apart, I look forward to you doing so.”

            No, said the super-sadist to the masochist, I don’t think I will. 🙂

  2. @Paul C. Schulte

    “Inga – ad hominem attacks, oy.”

    I took what Inga wrote to be referring to some of your *behaviors*, not to you as a person, PC.

    Ergo, it wasn’t an ad hominem attack on her part.

    Any identification of you as a person and your behaviors would, in this instance, be on you, not on her.

    1. Ken Rogers – you really don’t know what an ad hominem attack is, do you?

  3. @Inga (Annie)

    “Ken Rogers, Paul never supports his assertions, probably because they are unsupportable. Ken, Paul does this little act with many commenters here. Makes an assertion, then runs off or tells the other person to go research the assertion. Don’t waste your time.”

    Thanks for the pattern recognition, Annie. As you can tell from my last response to Paul, I had begun to see that he’s more comfortable with making emotional assertions and accusations than with engaging in reasoned discussion. Nonetheless, I’m not ready to give up on him as an interlocutor, just yet. 🙂

    1. Ken Rogers – BTW, would you show me were I used emotion? Asking you to answer a straightforward question is not emotional. And, since it has been awhile and you have probably forgotten, the question is: What is your solution?

  4. @Paul C. Schulte

    “Ken Rogers – my thinking is that you do not have a solution to the problem and therefore are spending all your time attacking other people. My feelings are not involved at all, I am not a liberal.”

    I don’t attack people, Paul. I attack sloppy thinking, and emoting as a substitute for serious thinking. Your disinclination to answer my earlier question clearly indicates your aversion to serious thinking.

    Here’s something for you to either think or emote about:

    “International More: Drug Policy Drugs Portugal Decriminalization
    Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs Eleven Years Ago And The Results Are Staggering

    “Samuel Blackstone
    “Jul. 17, 2012,

    “On July 1st, 2001, Portugal decriminalized every imaginable drug, from marijuana, to cocaine, to heroin. Some thought Lisbon would become a drug tourist haven, others predicted usage rates among youths to surge.

    “Eleven years later, it turns out they were both wrong.

    “Over a decade has passed since Portugal changed its philosophy from labeling drug users as criminals to labeling them as people affected by a disease. This time lapse has allowed statistics to develop and in time, has made Portugal an example to follow.

    “First, some clarification.

    “Portugal’s move to decriminalize does not mean people can carry around, use, and sell drugs free from police interference. That would be legalization. Rather, all drugs are “decriminalized,” meaning drug possession, distribution, and use is still illegal. While distribution and trafficking is still a criminal offense, possession and use is moved out of criminal courts and into a special court where each offender’s unique situation is judged by legal experts, psychologists, and social workers. Treatment and further action is decided in these courts, where addicts and drug use is treated as a public health service rather than referring it to the justice system (like the U.S.), reports Fox News.

    “The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following ten years. Portugal’s drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.

    “One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.

    “While this policy is by no means news, the statistics and figures, which take years to develop and subsequently depict the effects of the change, seem to be worth noting. In a country like America, which may take the philosophy of criminalization a bit far (more than half of America’s federal inmates are in prison on drug convictions), other alternatives must, and to a small degree, are being discussed.

    “For policymakers or people simply interested in this topic, cases like Portugal are a great place to start.”

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7#ixzz3TSW45W00

    Inasmuch as the “Land of the Free” currently incarcerates more of its citizens per capita than any other country in the world, a majority of whom are non-violent drug users, decriminalizing drug possession would be a welcome step in the right direction.

    1. Ken Rogers

      The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist’s view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly—but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.

      The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.

      Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-relativism.html#ixzz3TSdioXU4

      Is that a good enough reference for you?

      Paul C. Schulte is a College Professor with a Mensa IQ. as far as I know he taught dual courses in History and Literature. I have learned a great deal from him and he is very compassionate. Especially to those who need it.

      This man is a 41 times loser. We do not need Portugal telling us that it’s okay to decriminalize drugs. Now that you know what moral relativism is that is,

      Go to jail learn your lesson. you did wrong. you knew it was.

      1. I see that, like Paul Schulte, you like to evade questions.

        I’ll try again: What qualifies you to judge Jason Brown’s guilt or innocence, even within the parameters of the punishment-based US criminal justice system?

        Is it enough for you that you read somewhere that he has been arrested multiple times? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of police “rousting”? Are you unfamiliar with the judicial concept of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?

        Thanks for the link to the somewhat superficial treatment of moral relativism, but let me ask you this: can you point me to the scripture of any religion that proscribes driving without a license or possessing drugs? If driving without a license or possessing drugs are moral absolutes, shouldn’t we expect to find them in the scriptures of all major religions’ ?

        If not, can you point me to the origin and/or provenance of the universal moral law that prohibits driving without a license or possessing drugs?

        Do you consider the Portuguese to be moral relativists? What about the American states that have legalized marijuana?

        “Medical marijuana is now legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Of those states, Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Colorado’s first retail marijuana stores opened Jan. 1 for sale to people 21 years and older.”
        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/01/06/marijuana-legal-states-medical-recreational/4343199/

        Do you think this country may be going to pot?

        1. Ken Rodgers

          Who cares? It’s not legal in NYC and he is busted 41 times. You accuse Paul Schulte of Straw Man arguments and I guarantee he is looking at his screen and laughing right now.

          He failed his drunk test. Don’t you get it? Who is going to pay for him to go to court?

          I am extremely familiar with this. Go back and read the thread about the young man I helped rehabilitate with Jail time. You are not making any sense. No one in this country is going to waste any time rehabilitating someone whose brain dead.

          1. @happypappies

            “Who cares? It’s not legal in NYC and he is busted 41 times. You accuse Paul Schulte of Straw Man arguments and I guarantee he is looking at his screen and laughing right now.

            “He failed his drunk test. Don’t you get it? Who is going to pay for him to go to court?”

            Paul failed his drunk test? I know there’s nothing in Professor Turley’s blog about *Brown’s* having failed one.

            “I am extremely familiar with this. Go back and read the thread about the young man I helped rehabilitate with Jail time. You are not making any sense. No one in this country is going to waste any time rehabilitating someone whose (sic) brain dead.”

            You’re extremely familiar with *what*?

            As you’re apparently both a jurist and a neurologist, let me ask you if, his being brain dead, you would accept a plea from Brown of diminished capacity.

            What to do with the wretch, then, inasmuch as he doesn’t seem to recognize the moral absolutes which proscribe driving without a license and possessing drugs not prescribed by a state-licensed distributor for Big Pharma?

            Do you really think he’s beyond the pale, rehabilitation-wise? Couldn’t a little “Jail time” be at least therapeutic for us, who have to read about his depravity, if not for him?

            I sincerely hope your “Who cares?” above isn’t in response to my asking you if you think the country may be going to pot.

            That would be pretty unpatriotic.

    2. Ken Rogers – you are like that student in class who half read the assignment but then read something in the morning paper that they thought better answered the question you were asking.

      I asked you a simple question. You seemed to have danced around a lot of things but have not actually answered the question, except to ask me a question. I asked first.

      1. @Paul C. Schulte

        “Ken Rogers – you are like that student in class who half read the assignment but then read something in the morning paper that they thought better answered the question you were asking.

        “I asked you a simple question. You seemed to have danced around a lot of things but have not actually answered the question, except to ask me a question. I asked first.”

        Paul Schulte — It was a simple question, alright. You seem to be like that pushy student in class who needs everything spelled out for him very methodically and explicitly *and* within the framework of his preconceived ideas.

        In the first place, don’t you recognize as being a bit authoritarian your demand that I answer a question you pose whose context or subtext you’re not even willing to clarify or acknowledge?

        In the second place, I thought it obvious, when I cited the decriminalization of drugs in some American states and in Portugal that my favored alternative solution to punitively incarcerating people for drug possession, including Jason Brown, is either to leave people of age to their own devices with regard to what they choose to ingest, with the proviso that their drug use in no way endangers others, or help them overcome any addiction they think they have, as is the case in the states and country I referred to, respectively.

        In the third place, are you completely unfamiliar with the notion of “trying someone in the media”? Do you seriously purport to know enough from having read Professor Turley’s brief description of Brown’s alleged behavior to make an even remotely judicious determination, or expect me to, regarding the best disposition of his case, even within the narrow parameters of New York drug and motor vehicle law?

        Do you just *feel* you know what should happen to Brown?

        1. Ken Rogers

          I am going to make a stab in the dark here and see if you know what an ad hominem attack is

          I think you are using the pain reducing drugs that Brown is “Allegedly” using

          In the third place, are you completely unfamiliar with the notion of “trying someone in the media”? Do you seriously purport to know enough from having read Professor Turley’s brief description of Brown’s alleged behavior to make an even remotely judicious determination, or expect me to, regarding the best disposition of his case, even within the narrow parameters of New York drug and motor vehicle law?

          Do you just *feel* you know what should happen to Brown?

        2. Ken Rogers – unless you have information the rest of us do not, JT has only told us that the license has been suspended 41 times. We do not know what for. I am not a Liberal, so I do not have any “feelings” about what should happen. I do have the first comment for this thread and that is what I think should happen.

          Tent City has worked in Maricopa County, Arizona and it would work in New York or any other state. It has withheld federal attack. I realize that members of the Democratic Party think we should neither follow the law nor the Constitution, but I think we should follow both.

  5. Ken Rogers, Paul never supports his assertions, probably because they are unsupportable. Ken, Paul does this little act with many commenters here. Makes an assertion, then runs off or tells the other person to go research the assertion. Don’t waste your time.

  6. Paul C. Schulte

    “Ken Rogers – still no solution. Just blather.”

    I asked you, “Does your question by any chance presuppose the moral legitimacy of anti-drug possession laws and the licensing of drivers by the government, and if so, are you prepared to defend that presupposition?”

    Your suggestion that my question is “blather” clearly indicates that you are not prepared to defend your presupposition.

    Have you given any thought to how much your thinking informs your opinions and judgments as opposed to how much you just go by your feelings?

    1. Ken Rogers – my thinking is that you do not have a solution to the problem and therefore are spending all your time attacking other people. My feelings are not involved at all, I am not a liberal.

  7. nicky:

    “Mespo has been noticeably absent since his aiming problem on the Georgia death sentence, and In Cold Blood, attempted “gotcha.”

    ******************

    I’m around … just working for a living. Don’t worry though, you still make me laugh!

  8. “Ken Rogers – you have yet to offer a solution, just statistics. What, specifically, is your solution for Jason Brown?”

    Paul C. Schulte — Does your question by any chance presuppose the moral legitimacy of anti-drug possession laws and the licensing of drivers by the government, and if so, are you prepared to defend that presupposition?

      1. @happypappies

        “Ken Rogers

        “How guilty does he need to be???

        “Seriously — presuppose the moral legitimacy of anti-drug possession laws and the licensing of drivers by the government, and if so, are you prepared to defend that presupposition

        “The moral relativism of this purported argument is absurd.”

        What qualifies you to determine Jason Brown’s legal guilt, even within the parameters of the current, aptly named criminal justice system?

        How guilty does he need to be in order for what?

        Are you sure you know what moral relativism is?

    1. Ken Rogers

      How guilty does he need to be???

      Seriously — presuppose the moral legitimacy of anti-drug possession laws and the licensing of drivers by the government, and if so, are you prepared to defend that presupposition

      The moral relativism of this purported argument is absurd.

  9. paper tiger, I will not get into a discussion w/ someone who is so uninformed as you. Anyone who did what you said[look in the Yellow pages] or I said[Google], saw that you were absolutely wrong. There are MANY attorneys who make claim to specializing in both criminal and injury law. I am more refined than to say you “lied” as you did to me. It seems you and another barrister are obsessed w/ that. You were simply flat ass wrong. But, the fact that it is such a fundamental issue on which you are wrong is mystifying. You are embarrassing yourself, paper tiger. If you had a true friend, they would pull you aside and say so.

  10. Inga (Annie) wrote:

    “Alan Tiger, thanks. I thought that assertion didn’t sound right. Some folks say things that eminate from ‘guess work’ and expect everyone else to believe them, lol.”

    of course it isn’t right. it is as ridiculous as asking your ob/gyn to perform cataract removal surgery on your eyes. or asking your orthopedist about your diabetes.

    the junior assistant gofer claims to have identified a “boat load” (sic – two words) of attorneys in new york whom he claims are experts in both criminal law and negligence law. did anyone notice that none in the boat were identified by name? did anyone notice that none in the boat were identified by their attorney registration number? did anyone notice the complete absence of any internet hyperlink to identify any of these “experts”???

    lies, lies and more lies. lots of bluster; lots of argument; no real facts.

    why should we expect anything else from a junior assistant gofer?

  11. In my last post, I inadvertently omitted the heading “State Prison Populations” preceding the following paragraph, to distinguish it from the information on federal prisons and county jails:

    State Prison Populations
    “Treatment patterns play a direct role in understanding the process by which drug offenders are sentenced to prison. As we have previously seen, three-quarters of the drug offenders in [state] prison have no history of violence, but a substantial majority (53.6% of the 74.4%) have had prior drug or non-violent convictions. Thus, while some drug offenders have been sentenced to prison only after repeated convictions for drug offenses, from a policy perspective one needs to examine whether appropriate resources had been devoted to treatment alternatives or other offender services and supervision on these prior occasions.”
    http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/dp_distortedpriorities.pdf

  12. Darren – great story on the debt bondage cycle of license suspensions.

    This might be addressed by using either a sliding scale, based on financial hardship, or allowing people to work off their fine with something like community service.

    That way, they still receive a punishment for their violation, making it more than “just a suggestion” but the price is relative to their financial situation.

    1. Karen

      It does not work. I guess you did not read my comment or think I don’t know what I am talking about. I lived around people that had that mentality for a long time. Usually they are drug dependent or mentally ill and need treatment. For whatever reason, they have hung around the lower echelons of society and they are unable to follow any sort of schedule of payments. they will eventually need to be institutionalized. People that are Liberals think this is cruel and it is not. It is a part of the process of rehabilitation if it is possible and it is in some cases.

  13. Bill – “just curious how everyone here decided this guy was an illegal?” The topic of driving on a suspended license segued into the massive problem of illegal aliens driving without a license. It was not meant to question the citizenship status of the driver in the actual post.

    randyjet – thanks. I will check out the Jordan commission.

  14. “Birth tourism is big business. An estimated 40,000 babies are born to couples posing as tourists each year. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that automatically grants citizenship to any child born here, regardless of the parents’ nationality. While it is not against the law, lying to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. under false pretense is illegal. Companies offering to help foreign nationals give birth in the U.S. operate openly on the Internet, promising a U.S. passport, birth certificate and Social Security number for their newborn. Prices range from $8,000 to $80,000, depending on the services. Wealthy couples from China, the Middle East, Africa and South Korea predominate the trade.”

    1. Karen, This has been going on for centuries. Most South American wealthy have at least one child if not more born in the US so that when the peons rise up and throw the crooks out, they will have easy entry into the USA. It is only recently this has become more common in the lower classes.

Comments are closed.