11-16-2006, 10:42 AM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,745
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ice
There is, cited somewhere within this forum, a S.C. case that states the right to travel exists with ANY FORM of CURRENT TRANSPORTATION. (which totally rebuts your above statement).
But, as Codee points out, it is useless to argue with "evidence" such as this because THERE ARE TOO MANY CONTRADICTORY DECISIONS handed down.
Best stick to SMJ.
|
If you find it, that South Carolina decision was not on point, was issued almost a century ago, and since then South Carolina law and court decisions on DL resembles every other state.
There are not "too many contradictory decisions". The decisions from every state, at least since 1930, ALL uphold the authority and responsibility of the state to limit driving privileges to people who qualified for, and have, current DLs.
Subject matter jurisdiction is even less helpful. The subject matter is the public road within the court's geographic reach, not the residence of the driver or any other details. |
11-16-2006, 11:05 AM
|
 |
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 302
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Subject matter jurisdiction is even less helpful. The subject matter is the public road within the court's geographic reach, not the residence of the driver or any other details.
|
Shoonra, what are your thoughts on Cody's continuous dismissals of traffic violations? Correct me if I'm wrong Cody, but the basis for your dismissals is that a formal complaint has never been filed in any of your cases.
Shoonra, is that just a "flaw" in the system? How would you explain his consistent dismissals?
Thanks in advance for humoring me.
__________________
Peace,
-Gabe
For educational purposes only, not to be construed as legal advice.
No liability assumed, no value assured, without recourse.
He who does not assert his rights, has none.
Oh, and in case you're wondering - the profile picture is really me.
|
11-16-2006, 11:06 AM
|
|
Mental Jujitsu
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ct
Posts: 534
|
|
Quote:
|
Subject matter jurisdiction is even less helpful. The subject matter is the public road within the court's geographic reach, not the residence of the driver or any other details.
|
Then the Judges should be hauling those public roads into their make believe Court. |
11-16-2006, 12:55 PM
|
 |
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Freedom. some call Cal.
Posts: 2,330
|
|
|
No. That is not what Subject Matter Jurisdiction means at all Shoonra. What you are talking about is territorial jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority for a court to hear the matter. In california courts simply do not have jurisdiction. The DMV does and they are supposed to be giving administrative hearings. The court has usurped this function when a hearing has been requested and one not provided.
SMJ requires the filing of the formal complaint in California. If you want to argue this I will. I need you to clearly state what you think SMJ means. Then I will tell you why it is wrong.
__________________
Educational and entertainment only. Nothing posted intended as legal advice. Nothing is legal advice. All responses are general in nature even if responding to a specific question. Nothing in my posts pertains to ANYONE else but me.
Hire an Attorney. 
|
11-16-2006, 01:26 PM
|
 |
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ALASKA
Posts: 435
|
|
Shoonra will never get it, she has nothing at stake in her life to need the understanding. If she were to comprehend she would run away from the knowledge for fear her livelihood would be challenged. This is the same reason no one in the law game would want an understanding of SMJ. 90% of the law business would crumble into dust. The fraud would be over. Dare we envision a country where the people once again would be willing to fight for freedom? Where in people loved freedom more than money? Remember our forefathers believed ever man was King! |
11-16-2006, 02:16 PM
|
 |
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois Republic
Posts: 3,411
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ice
Quote:
|
There is, cited somewhere within this forum, a S.C. case that states the right to travel exists with ANY FORM of CURRENT TRANSPORTATION. (which totally rebuts your above statement).
|
There is this also:
Quote:
The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
|
(I cannot find the hard copy of the case, so cannot verify the accuracy of the cite, or if it is even a cite from the case itself.)
Quote:
The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.
See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123
|
(Could be worthless BS, though, as per Codee below):
Quote:
|
But, as Codee points out, it is useless to argue with "evidence" such as this because THERE ARE TOO MANY CONTRADICTORY DECISIONS handed down.
|
I have seen opinions; decisions though....?
(This fact seems to lead to quite an interesting aspect of the "lawyer game.")
I have continually requested Shoonra provide, with full enacted Title, as required when used in lawful judicial process, exact, specific, and precise lawfully empowered acts of lawfully convened and sitting legislature, with definite and definitively relevant citations of LAW, upon which the plethora of "legal" opinions Shoonra obssessively tenders prove decisive substance requisite for legitimately lawful judicial action and proceeding, much less published opinion, upon which any non-arbitrary, and (thus) valid and lawful "ruling" may issue for executive enforcement.
Rights have absolutely nothing to do with any constitution!!!!
Rights are endowment by birth and engender responsibility to two "common" Laws:
Do no harm.
Keep your word.
For transgression of LAW, there is common law remedy in trial by jury.
Show me in "... this Constitution for the United States of America," or any State Constutution, judicial power vested with the privelege of interpretation of that expressed within this constitution.
Any power not specifically, explicitly, and expressly vested in government ( government is constitution, not by constitution) by Nature adheres to the people.
The constitutional "judicial Power," of "judges" is limited.
Of which body is a jury composed?
Creature within "... this Constitution for the United States of America," or creative authority without?
Where, precisely, exactly and specifically, within "... this Constitution for the United States of America," is the term "judge" in any specific and direct way, shape, or form party to "trial by jury?"
For an inferior tribunal, regardless of the fancy title it presumes to hold, to arbitrarily, and without definitive express power, of its own volition, usurp what is specifically reserved to the people is to war upon the constitution, which invokes perjury per oath of office, and is treason.
|
I am here studying.
Anything I write could be wrong.
Last edited by mrg : 11-16-2006 at 02:20 PM.
|
11-16-2006, 02:53 PM
|
 |
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,866
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
If you find it, that South Carolina decision was not on point, was issued almost a century ago, and since then South Carolina law and court decisions on DL resembles every other state.
There are not "too many contradictory decisions". The decisions from every state, at least since 1930, ALL uphold the authority and responsibility of the state to limit driving privileges to people who qualified for, and have, current DLs.
Subject matter jurisdiction is even less helpful. The subject matter is the public road within the court's geographic reach, not the residence of the driver or any other details.
|
"S.C." does not stand for "south carolina".
Try "Supreme Court" as on SCOTUS.
And it was very much on point. Any modern conveyance... whether it be horse and carriage or automobile.
And the Supreme Court decision voids your statement.
I note also that you say "limit driving privileges". Well, if my auto is my property and I have a right to travel... guess what?
Ice
|
11-16-2006, 03:03 PM
|
|
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,866
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrg
I am here studying.
Anything I write could be wrong.
|
I stand corrected -- "opinions"... which the "decision" is based upon.
Ice |
11-16-2006, 05:10 PM
|
|
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ALASKA
Posts: 435
|
|
Only the dumb a$$ public and the media think court decisions are law. Please let us remember, that court decisions can at that the vary best, ONLY be indications of the law! |
11-16-2006, 05:29 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 302
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Big Al
Only the dumb a$$ public and the media think court decisions are law. Please let us remember, that court decisions can at that the vary best, ONLY be indications of the law! |
OK then, lets see if we can't get back on track and post some statutes in favor of the right to travel.
Cody has got us off to a good start, let's see what we can dig up.
__________________
Peace,
-Gabe
For educational purposes only, not to be construed as legal advice.
No liability assumed, no value assured, without recourse.
He who does not assert his rights, has none.
Oh, and in case you're wondering - the profile picture is really me.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
|
|
