By: Mike on 12/29/08
The OPP gave him $500 worth of publicity.

By: NoteTaker on 12/30/08

"The OPP gave him $500 worth of publicity."

And your point is ???

Cody is to be applauded for his willingness to take a stand for what he believed to be the right thing.

Good job, Cody! We're proud of you!

By: CRAIGS on 12/30/08
Sounds like Cody gave up his fight and is an idiot.

By: archie1 on 12/30/08
Cody=meatstick

By: Mike on 12/30/08
"Good job, Cody! We're proud of you!"

This "We." For whom are you speaking?

And what, exactly, is that "right thing" "we" are proud of his taking "a stand for"?

By: L080100 on 12/30/08
"Then in October, Hauer asked his case be postponed after he failed to file necessary court documents."

I'd like to know more about that part. Was there something that prevented him from filing the documents?

By: NoteTaker on 12/30/08

The "We" is me and others, and not necessarily you.

"We" are proud of him for taking his stand in support of the First Amendment.

Anything else?

Now, be kind enough to answer my question from my first posting.

By: Mike on 12/30/08
Sure. The publicity for himself and Ron Paul was likely worth the $500 he ended up paying to make the multiple "news" stories. I had thought the point obvious. Sorry.

I believe strongly in the First Amendment, of course. I just don't see this as an example of exercising it.

By: NoteTaker on 12/30/08

Thanks, Mike.

It seems clear that Cody considered it a First Amendment issue in that the article stated as much.

Beyond that, I'm sure Cody could have found a better use of $500 worth of "publicity"; perhaps not. Nonetheless, I personally don't see "publicity" as his intent, especially considering such "publicity" occurred in something less than a metropolitan area and after the election.

Besides, why would you suggest that Cody wants publicity for himself? I'm not sure what he would have to gain from doing so.

By: nolongerinowaotnna on 12/30/08
note taker must not have followed the story from the beginning, it was picked up by major newspapers across the country and the world, it was before the election, it was before both conventions!! It was even run on Fox News Channel on their news ticker across the bottom of the screen.

By: Mike on 12/30/08
Am I remembering correctly that Mr. Hauer himself has expressed political ambitions?

By: NoteTaker on 12/30/08

I did not realize it had such broad, even international, coverage. And, yes, you are both correct in that the four citations occurred well before the conventions and election; my bad.

Be that as it may, I find it hard to believe that Cody had any idea that such broad and extended coverage would be the case and, therefore, was his intent.

(Also, although I don't know, I'm presuming whatever national/international coverage his situation prompted ended not long after it started, say within a week or so. If such is the case then I would think that whatever "publicity" plans Cody might have had (none, I say) were ill-timed and short-lived considering that both the conventions and election were well over 6 months away...plenty of time for the average voter to have forgotten the message.)

It's clear to me that he did what he did because he believed that, 1), he had a First Amendment-protected right to display his "window decal" and, 2) that local regulations did not trump said protection, something which, obviously, has not been resolved by this particular situation.

By: RealMedfordnews on 12/30/08
Yep!! Plead "Not-guilty" and they'll plea-bargain with you!! aka Lower the fine drastically to get you to plead guilty!!

TRIALS COST ALOT OF MONEY!!!!!

I bet he only paid a fraction of the fine!!

I bet the Steele county court system is SWAMPED by the OPD aka "Gestapo" tickets!!

Bravoo!!! Bravooo!!

By: rational on 12/30/08
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This issue has nothing to do with his First Amendment rights. It's simply a defiant rebel trying to use the First Amendment as an excuse for his violation of a clearly stated traffic statute prohibiting obstructed view on automobile windows. Those of you that think his window sticker should be protected because it was political in nature, please check that statute. There is no exception for blocking your view with political stickers. This statute is obviously there for safety reasons. Being able to see out your windows can avoid striking other vehicles or pedestrians etc. Can it be any more easy to understand than that?

I'm guessing he decided to pay the fines and quietly get beyond this, saying he has no more time for it. That's far less embarassing than having a court tell him he was wrong and still pay the fines. I can't imagine any court ruling in his favor. The statute is clear. M.S. 169.71 sub 1 (3)