George Mercier's: Invisible Contracts
Quote:
|
remember that the question of damages...is a Tort Law factual setting question and ... not relevant when you are out on those state highways: Because a contract is in effect whenever you use those highways, by your acceptance of benefits offered for your use conditionally.
|
(enjoyment vs use. Various conditions apply.)
Quote:
|
The relational non-Commercial, non-Resident, and non-Citizen status of the operator off of the highway is irrelevant in attaching contract liability by accepting the use of the benefit of Government highways.
|
(but does impact which sub-section of liability applies)
Quote:
|
the States have the standing jurisdiction required to force, under penal statutes, a regulatory jurisdiction such a contract creates, when tension is in effect between the existence of that contract, and the substantive RIGHT TO TRAVEL interests
|
(defined by same as "transportation"- its a license to operate a motor device used for 'carriage': not a "license to drive")
Quote:
|
Yet... an honest assessment of the total factual picture...would result in the conclusion that merely driving a car down a street without a license does not ascend to the minimum threshold requirements that characterize legitimate criminal incarceration standards...
|
(USA only place w/ criminal enforcement for petty offenses- violates "cruel and unusual punishment" standard)
Quote:
|
penal highway statutes exist by virtue of Special Interest Group sponsorship and pressure, and judges are diminishing their own stature and violate the restraining mandates inherent in the REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT CLAUSE
|
(another constitutional question- private commercial interest opposed to the "general welfare" using criminal enforcement to gain monopoly advantage. However, if 'private transit' w/o 'carriage' is excluded, then this is moot)
Quote:
|
other highway drivers have no assurance that another approaching car is not being driven by an unlicensed Citizen of France, who by virtue of his political status would not have an unlicensed motor vehicle operation penal statute thrown at him.
|
(so much for "DL = safety": many exceptions available and different standards applied to various status)
Quote:
|
is literally legally impossible, and...for Foreign Relations reasons not related to preventing vehicular accidents, to maintain a perfect expectation of motorist licensing compliance.
|
(anybody can get behind wheel and drive. States can't interfere with foreign commerce. No such thing as a "U.S. DL")
Quote:
|
there is an inherent ASSUMPTION OF RISK among all highway users that some drivers will necessarily have to be unlicensed...ASSUMPTION OF RISK, is ...a negligence defense argument
|
(further proof the local domestic "DL" is for other purpose, safety only incidental)
Quote:
|
This Doctrine is related to a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that mandates ... that requires ... taking some responsibility ... as they knowingly entered into risk environment situations [like driving on highways]
|
Take responsibility... Now thats where we lost the jury of co-dependent drug-addled hypnofied American sheeple!
