[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by ndusa

I'm sorry, is that what the Supreme court said? I don't think so! If you are behind the wheel, you ass is grass in Montana. People like the "freeman" tried this crap, and it never has, and never will hold up in MOntana, no judge thinks like you, nor will you find any jury to buy this crap.

Now, instead of giving your "theory" which doesn't mean a damn thing in law, show us a case where I'm wrong in Montana. (I won't be holding my breath thats for sure!) NOBODY HAS EVER, I DO MEAN EVER, WON THIS LOONY THEORY IN MONTANA AND NEVER, EVER WILL.

Without Prejudice.
What you probably dont see published are the situations cases where the traveller or sojourner knew his or her stuff. The cases you are pointing out are ones were the 'defendants' had obvious flaws in logic.

Originally Posted by ndusa

All the loony theory's have been tried, look it up, you can't even get them to read that junk anymore. The Montana Supreme's just don't buy into these 100 year old cases, and in one case they point out, the state has a right to regulate the roads.

So, you can tell me I'm wrong all the live long day, doesn't matter. You can tell the Montana Supreme court and every jury thier wrong, but I would step back and think"what do you call someone who is right, and everyone else is wrong".

Last, your quotes and what not don't mean a thing. These judges interpret the law, not YOU. I'm just an average joe, and I have to agree with them. Of course, you can continue to think your smarter than these judges, but opinions are like AH, everbody has one, and perhaps you should keep yours to yourself.

You seem to feel very...passionate about this. However, your statement about opinions could be ...reciprocated. Thing is though...who is actually even coming close to asserting the right to drive without a license?