Cody's Right to _____

[Codee]

Originally Posted by theincubus

Well thank you Codee, that is very nice of you.



What if he were to drink before he drove? Would that be different in some way? Is it only legal to drink water or OJ while driving? What about sport drinks or soda? What are you talking about palani? Do you even know?

Are you trying to say that if you don't have a DL it is ok to drink and drive?

What a defamatory statement which adds nothing to this thread.

In California there are three different offenses. two can be charged.

1) Having over a .08 BAC

2) Not maintaining a vehicle as sober person might be capable of (No minimum limit.)

These two can both be charged with no double jepordy issues.

3) Agraved with personal injury to property/body or death.

If you violate 2 or 3 you are going down and there is nothing to save you except a corupt judge.

1 is a bull $h*t charge.

And yes... are you saying it is ok to drink and drive if you don't have a license? Where are you going with all of this Drinking and Driving stuff?

[theincubus]

Originally Posted by Codee

In California there are three different offenses. two can be charged.

1) Having over a .08 BAC

2) Not maintaining a vehicle as sober person might be capable of (No minimum limit.)

These two can both be charged with no double jepordy issues.

3) Agraved with personal injury to property/body or death.

If you violate 2 or 3 you are going down and there is nothing to save you except a corupt judge.

1 is a bull $h*t charge.

And yes... are you saying it is ok to drink and drive if you don't have a license? Where are you going with all of this Drinking and Driving stuff?

I got a lost trying to read this thread. Palani, when you lose an argument in court, do you make reference to the judge being a drug addict? Try it, works every time, he/she will drop the charges! Let me know if it works the same for you as it has for me. I do it all the time.

[palani]

I have to wonder at this time in 'theincubus' might not be a previously recently banned member?

you do understand that the Constitution evolves over years as does all law?

I understand that this is the argument put forth by certain groups, amoung them communists, who would like to see this document vanish. Laws become laws because they are fixed. They don't change.

Bouviers is evidense of the law

sic?

Expatriation existed before the act

Kindly refer to Talbot v Janson, brought to SCOTUS in 1795 as reported in Kents Commentaries, 2nd ed, vol II, 1832, pg 45 :

"The judges of the Supreme Court felt and discovered much embarrassment in the consideration of this delicate and difficult question, and they gave no definitive opinion upon it. One of them observed, that admitting the intention of expatriation had been legally declared, it was necessary that it should have been carried into effect, and that the party should have actually become a subject of the foreign government; that the cause of removal must be lawful, otherwise the emigrant acts contrary to his duty; that though the legislature of a particular state should, by law, specify the lawful causes of expatriation, and prescribe the manner in which it might be affected, the emigration could only affect the local allegiance of the party, and not draw after it a renunciation of the higher allegiance due to the United States; and that an act of Congress was requisite to remove doubts, and furnish a rule of civil conduct on this very interesting subject of expatriation.

The majority of the Supreme Court gave no opinion upon the question; but the inference, from the discussion, would seem to be, that a citizen could not devest himself of his allegiance, except under the sanction of a law of the United States; and that until some legislative regulations on the subject were prescribed, the rule of the common law must prevail.

Codee
I don't have to prove all your rantings incorrect. It is enough to prove a single one.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by theincubus

Is that treason? Are you a Communist? Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Do you associate whith known Communist?

Palani, you do understand that the Constitution evolves over years as does all law? Do you even know what Constitutional Law is? Is your theory something that a judge may understand?

no it's not treason

The 14th Amendment created a body politic of "U.S. Citizens" which were subjugated to Washington D.C.

This amendment was IMPLEMENTED (not ratified) through military war powers IN TIMES OF PEACE AFTER THE CIVIL WAR

Prior to the 14th, states conferred their own "state citizenship"

Now that citizenship has been "nationalized" into one type of citizenship, then such status is communized

so, to possess this centralized "U.S" citizenship emanating out of the singular entity, D.C. makes one part of their communist system

SInce it remains unchallenged, the individual is presumed to be part of such communized body politic

If one does not challenge it, the language of the Expat Act forces the presumption that one has waived their state nationality and has accepted this communized citizenship

However, the expat act allows us to formally cancel/rebut any presumption of "U.S. citizenship" and re-claim statte nationality

incubus, you are coming off like a rookie just blazin', bro


P,S

They threw out a "no valid license" charge out on me using this premise

[palani]

theincubus posted

What a defamatory statement which adds nothing to this thread

Facts entered into evidence by our fellow member Codee. He proudly states he routinely drinks and drives, which coupled with his irrational statements, immature attitude and poor spelling leads me to believe he isn't the brightest bulb in the closet despite being DNA linked to every BAR member in the state.

Codee, want to stay out of California traffic court? Obey their laws. That is the secret for you. I see no better solution on your horizon.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by palani

theincubus posted


Facts entered into evidence by our fellow member Codee. He proudly states he routinely drinks and drives, which coupled with his irrational statements, immature attitude and poor spelling leads me to believe he isn't the brightest bulb in the closet despite being DNA linked to every BAR member in the state.

Codee, want to stay out of California traffic court? Obey their laws. That is the secret for you. I see no better solution on your horizon.

Well you go ahead and think taht driving on on a .09 is irresponsible. I have never been arrested for it even though I have been pulled over tons. I have never even bee suspected of it.

I do not try to stay out of court. As a matter of fact I go bck for passing a cop an a double yellow this month.

I do obey all the laws.

I simply know which ones apply to me.

On the federal level I would not want to be a fed employee IF I was dealiing with a Fed law,,, which we are not.

You whole argument has still not ben presented in a form to be presented to authority so as to get a remedy.

I also got a driving without a valid dropped as well as carrying a concealed .45

I still see no ARGUMENT over my method nor do I see an easier or more effective way produced by anyone.

There is talk and now Wies has joined of this 14th stuff BUT KNOW ONE has related it to local traffic law and Weis has not provided the pleading either. Maybe Weis will step uip for Palani and sew it together....

[Codee]

Originally Posted by palani

theincubus posted


Facts entered into evidence by our fellow member Codee. He proudly states he routinely drinks and drives, which coupled with his irrational statements, immature attitude and poor spelling leads me to believe he isn't the brightest bulb in the closet despite being DNA linked to every BAR member in the state.

More attacking on spelling eh?

AUTO LOSER.

Your research is pathetic against mine. You will never gather anywhere close to the number of wins my method generates.

Why not pressent an argument.

I never said I drove drunk. Drinking and driving is not even illeagal in my state. Only driving while drunk and under the infuence. And on top of that that is a law relating to the driving of a vehicle to boot.

Your argument is obviously someone elses and you cannot site it at all.

You have gone off into the law of nations and never explained that. You cited the 14th and never tied that in... you have yet to explain how to implement it. You have yet to show a success beyond Weis who has not straight out agreed with you. Even if he does he has not given the implementation.

You are the dimmest bulb I have met in while.

While you are standing in closets looking for bright bulbs (I guess this is what you do) try picking up a law book.

HOW DO I IMPLEMENT YOUR ARGUMENT?!?!?

[palani]

'Win' all the cases you like. I never will because the justice system cannot and will not deal with me.

win (v.) fusion of O.E. winnan "struggle for, work at, strive, fight," and gewinnan "to gain or succeed by struggling, to win," both from P.Gmc. *wenwanan (cf. O.S. winnan, O.N. vinna, O.Fris. winna, Du. winnen "to gain, win," Dan. vinde "to win," O.H.G. winnan "to strive, struggle, fight," Ger. gewinnen "to gain, win," Goth. gawinnen "to suffer, toil"). Perhaps related to wish, or from PIE *van- "overcome, conquer." Sense of "to be victorious" is recorded from c.1300. The noun in O.E. meant "labor, strife, conflict;" modern sense of "a victory in a game or contest" is first attested 1862, from the verb. Breadwinner (see bread) preserves the sense of "toil" in O.E. winnan. Phrase you can't win them all (1954) first attested in Raymond Chandler.

argue 1303, from O.Fr. arguer, from L. argutare "to prattle" freq. of arguere "to make clear, demonstrate," from PIE *argu-yo-, from base *arg- "to shine, be white, bright, clear" (see argent). Colloquial argufy is first attested 1751. Argument "proof, evidence" is from 1382; sense of "debate" is from 1494. Argumentative "fond of arguing" is from 1667.

Continue to argue and win, Codee. I don't have to. And at the end of the day all you will have discovered is that with all your 'wins' you are still a criminal awaiting a judge who makes his decision based on contracts and not the tort law arguement of unfairness. But go ahead and practice all you like in the meantime.

HOW DO I IMPLEMENT YOUR ARGUMENT

Work.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

no it's not treason

The 14th Amendment created a body politic of "U.S. Citizens" which were subjugated to Washington D.C.

This amendment was IMPLEMENTED (not ratified) through military war powers

So what? What does this have to do with driving?

IN TIMES OF PEACE AFTER THE CIVIL WAR

So what?

Prior to the 14th, states conferred their own "state citizenship"

And they still do.

Now that citizenship has been "nationalized" into one type of citizenship, then such status is communized

says who? Where is the citation in law for this?

so, to possess this centralized "U.S" citizenship emanating out of the singular entity, D.C. makes one part of their communist system

So what? What does this have to do with driving? Again where is your citation in law for this?

SInce it remains unchallenged, the individual is presumed to be part of such communized body politic

Where is your citation in law that says that this presumption arises?

If one does not challenge it, the language of the Expat Act forces the presumption that one has waived their state nationality and has accepted this communized citizenship

Where does the language FORCE this? Again what dos it mean to my traveling

However, the expat act allows us to formally cancel/rebut any presumption of "U.S. citizenship" and re-claim statte nationality

What does this accomplish in my driving case? How does this work on state law?

incubus, you are coming off like a rookie just blazin', bro

You have not cited much here weis nor expanded how anyhting would be applicable if cited.
P,S

They threw out a "no valid license" charge out on me using this premise

What premise? That you are not a 14th citizen? So what? How does it relate to travel in the states.

Hmmm... I would still like to see the implementation.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by theincubus

I got a lost trying to read this thread. Palani, when you lose an argument in court, do you make reference to the judge being a drug addict? Try it, works every time, he/she will drop the charges! Let me know if it works the same for you as it has for me. I do it all the time.

Well when he loses an argument against me I am a drunk who cannot spell so I do not see this accusation as being too far off.