Cody's Right To Travel

[Shoonra]

I see a shift in your interpretations. When it says "No person shall drive without a license" You interpret as No one HAS to drive, but may at his option drive without a license. But with the Third Amendment, not a soldier may be quartered without consent but positively NEVER.

The traffic laws should be interpreted the same way: No person shall drive without a DL means A person who doesn't have a DL is NEVER permitted to drive.

[Codee]

1) The US constitution was written 200+ years ago. It was written in another jurisdiction then California. The constitution was written so everyday men could understand it.

2) Since the adoption of the US constitution the state of California came into being.

3) Since the arival of California, the sate has created statutes. These statutes sometimes define words with a different meaning then their everyday meaning for their use in that code or code chapter OR previous meanings. These definitions are more specific in definition and application so they overide the general definition.

4) I found the word "shall", which might have meant "may" at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the US, to be defined in every code to mean "Mandatory." I don't write these laws Shoonra.

Man this is stupid.

A) Leave out may. The whole thing says no soldier MUST be housed in house. Like a soldier saying "We are staying here out of necessity. We must." And I say "I'll shoot you. You do not HAVE to stay here." Shall can work in this case. I put may in there because that was how I though shall might have been used 200+ years ago by the FEDERAL GOVERNEMNT!!!

I did not interpret crap. Its not a shift in interpretations it is a shift in how the legislative powers of different jurisdiction define the words. A shift in definition! And not my shift, it is the state's shift

Every definition I used for shall came from the code in which I was analyzing.

Are you suggesting I use the California Vehicle Code definition to analyze the Federal Constitution.

DUH!!!! Shoonra. There is no stupid court opinions in my argument. Don't go around over interpreting everything.

And further I do not interpret that it says "but MAY drive at his choosing." Do you enjoy reading extra words into laws. I don't. I simply say that the law says "No person must drive w/ out a license."

By the way I have a whole thread on shall. Hope it is not too long of a read for you.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by charlesa6

You are right on the money. They are not forcing you, you want it you have to abide by the law govern the license that required you to drive "Shall".

Not quite charlesa6. The license does not make you abide by anymore laws then not having it. The only thing which limits my driving is if I am a state employee. Other than being an employee the only other limitations are for OPPORATORS. I can carry a license and be a person but those speeding laws still haveno apllicability to me. That is what this argument is saying.

Originally Posted by Codee

Yes drive is future tense.

Actually, "drive" is present tense.

Originally Posted by Codee

That has nothing to do with this argument.

Agreed. I never entered it into this "argument."

Originally Posted by Codee

All good laws are in the future tense.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

OK, You want to explain how I have a present obligation to obey a future duty?

I'll wait for you on that one, and when I die, and my grandchildren come around, I'll try to remind them to ask you if you came up with that explanation yet.

Originally Posted by Codee

It is unlawful to pass an ex post facto law and it wuold realy be non-ingenious to make a law that only applied for the instant moment it was passed.

You haven't read Mastery of the Universal Legal Technology yet, obviously (It's in the download section on this site), so I need to go easy on you, but you are duped if you think a future tense law applies to you presently.

I encourage you to read the above mentioned article, and you will see that there is a way to write in the language of the truth.

Originally Posted by Codee

The big thing to realize is that shall is mandatory and all "No person shall..." means is that you are are not obligated to do such. Like... "no person shall drive a motor vehicle without a license." Means, if you don't have a license,,,, you don't HAVE to drive."

Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither does this bar card holder (click the link to read the whole write-up):


The crux of the problem with "shall" and "may" is that they each mean many different things (that is, they are ambiguous). Even if every drafter follows the convention--using "shall" only to command and "may" only to allow--the convention doesn't work unless courts and other readers follow suit. Courts do not always follow suit; they sometimes decide that "shall" in a particular statute really means "may," and vice versa. (See Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 432 n.9 (1995).)



You really don't know unless they prove it to you, do you? Yet, you continue to insist. I am going easy on you. A "judge" would eat your lunch with your logic in this thread.

Again, I encourage you to read Mastery of the Universal Legal Technology.

[Codee]

Dear short bus rider,

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

Actually, "drive" is present tense.
And "shall drive," what is that?


Agreed. I never entered it into this "argument."
I was talking about the written argument I made. not members talking back and forth. I would like to see you "enter" cyberspace and place yourself "within" the argument.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

OK, You want to explain how I have a present obligation to obey a future duty?
Did they charge you with a crime when they passed the statute in future tense. NO. That is because the MOMENT the legislature enacted the law they have no intention of it applying to the moment. Statutes do not go into effect unti Jan. 1st. So it is impossible to legislate for the current moment. Do you mean "if any one is found..." type of crap. That is past tense. You going to argue that to. "I killed someone yesterday so back off, its legal."
I'll wait for you on that one, and when I die, and my grandchildren come around, I'll try to remind them to ask you if you came up with that explanation yet.
I'm suprised a woman did not kill herself when becoming pregnate with your kid. Please keep your kids in West Virgina or wherever they are from. We got a good gene pool going over here.

You haven't read Mastery of the Universal Legal Technology yet, obviously (It's in the download section on this site), so I need to go easy on you, but you are duped if you think a future tense law applies to you presently.
Oh I got it and read some of it. I wasn't terribly impressed. Wrong again. I do own, did read.

I encourage you to read the above mentioned article, and you will see that there is a way to write in the language of the truth.


Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither does this bar card holder (click the link to read the whole write-up):


The crux of the problem with "shall" and "may" is that they each mean many different things (that is, they are ambiguous). Even if every drafter follows the convention--using "shall" only to command and "may" only to allow--the convention doesn't work unless courts and other readers follow suit. Courts do not always follow suit; they sometimes decide that "shall" in a particular statute really means "may," and vice versa. (See Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 432 n.9 (1995).)


Yep. Shall sometimes means may. ESPECIALLY IN WASHINGTON which is where your "link" takes me. Here is how we spell my state,,, pay attention C-a-l-i-f-o-r-n-i-a NOT W-a-s-h-i-n-g-t-o-n. OK? NO S*&T judges eat your lunch. They should make you wear a football helmet to walk on pavement. I guess they probably don't get a lunch from you as you probably only have you mommies lunch money with you, or whoever your shepard is. Next are you going to point out some totally worthless definition from the Feds. Why not incorporate Norway's laws and definitions into this topic about California? What was that favorite word of yours,,, that big one that you use.... oh yeah "DUH!!!" as in the above is obvious. sorry, still not going to give you metal scissors this year Hennry.
ROFL!!! still laughing!!!!!! STILL!!!!!!! HAHAHA!
That is why I showed that shall was defined as mandatory in EVERY CODE I CITED. Not just in the collection of codes once... BUT IN EVERY CODE. That is to make sure that the court does not get it wrong. Why don't you look for a court case where a man was sent to jail for an administrative infraction anf then argue that is the law. You can suck off the judges for their oppinions all day long. The seven bar holders I Emailed this to including two judges have not had anything along those lines to say. What bar-card holder do you have. Do you hold the card. Are you just "holding it." Try holding a hand of an adult, cry-baby. Maybe I should take you over to the "I need a judge to tell me how to read and interpret" corner which is right next to the "whinig" corner.


You really don't know unless they prove it to you, do you? Yet, you continue to insist. I am going easy on you. A "judge" would eat your lunch with your logic in this thread.
Where is the insisting? You seem to be full of opinions about being right such as A "judge" would eat your lunch with your logic..." and then say "well you will not know until they prove it." But some how you know you are right without proof. So you think a judge is going to smile and pat you on the back for coming up with a "nugget" like "you are duped if you think a future tense law applies to you presently." yeah, feel way more confident with that argument,,, I always love arguments that rest on the logic of "I'm right, and you know it if you read so and so's book." Man! Judges love that crap too. Why don't I just go into court and say "well judgy, you just have not read "HE-MAN and the MASTER of the UNIVERS" yet. I'm sure he will know that he is out classed. And when he asks me for citations... I'll point him to another state's laws. YEAH that will work. You're like a male Shoonra. So much trivia,,, so little application.
I cited every definition and source. You quote nothing and then ask me to re-read a 100+ page article in order to understand you.
Again, I encourage you to read Mastery of the Universal Legal Technology.

Again I have. I just do not think like you. Bah Bah Bah where is my sheperd to tell me what words mean... Bah Bah Bah...

You should read my my thread on SHALL. That should roll you over in your grave once more after your kids pay me money to get their sorry butts out of jail.

VERY FUNNY HOW MANY WINS I HAVE!!!! VERY FUNNY! And I eat my own lunches. Do you share more than lunches with judges? Do you share little bonding stories and have them over to tell you how to read? OOOhhhh can I come too. PLEASE!!!!!!

I am related to two judges and have appeared as a defendant about one hundred times. You're going to tell me what a judge will do to me? ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL. I can't get up,,, help ROLF ROFL. (My brother: "Do you need help?" Me: "Turn off the comedy routine quick,,, I can't breath!") ROFL ROFL ROFL

As far as "I'm being easy on you"... F' that. You got a problem we can take it to the thread Akira started. Show up and post and I'll see you there. The invitation never expires. Then you can match wits all you like instead of picking on Beeboah and Charlesa6 who speaks English as his second language. (Henry at his best HERE) I also speak English as a second language as Legalese is my first. See ya there, go warm it up with the biggest original thought you've ever had. well see if you can do more than point to someone elses article or post the ultra lame "resulting trusts, POWERFUL" and then have nothing realy to say about it.

Have good day

Originally Posted by Codee

Dear short bus rider,

Again I have. I just do not think like you. Bah Bah Bah where is my sheperd to tell me what words mean... Bah Bah Bah...

You should read my my thread on SHALL. That should roll you over in your grave once more after your kids pay me money to get their sorry butts out of jail.

VERY FUNNY HOW MANY WINS I HAVE!!!! VERY FUNNY! And I eat my own lunches. Do you share more than lunches with judges? Do you share little bonding stories and have them over to tell you how to read? OOOhhhh can I come too. PLEASE!!!!!!

I am related to two judges and have appeared as a defendant about one hundred times. You're going to tell me what a judge will do to me? ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL. I can't get up,,, help ROLF ROFL. (My brother: "Do you need help?" Me: "Turn offf the comedy routine quick,,, I can't breath!") ROFL ROFL ROFL

As far as "I'm being easy on you"... F' that. You got a problem we can take it to the thread Akira started. Show up and post and I'll see you there. The invitation never expires. Then you can match wits all you like instead of picking on Beeboah and Charlesa6 who speaks English as his second language. I also speak English as a second language as Legalese is my first. See ya there, go warm it up with the biggest original thought you've ever had. well see if you can do more than point to someone elses article or post the ultra lame "resulting trusts, POWERFUL" and then have nothing realy to say about it.

Have good day

Whatever you want to believe, is not my issue, so have at it.

Keep smoking whatever it is you're smoking.

Your bitter response shows you wear your ego as a badge.

I have no original thoughts. Everything I have has been given to me.

[Codee]

You were going easy on me now you are all done

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

Your bitter response shows you wear your ego as a badge.
I have no original thoughts. Everything I have has been given to me.

You want to start a poll on who began being bitter?

I cannot believe your arrogance when talking with newbies. How dare you. Does the following ring a bell from about two months ago?

Originally Posted by Hennry Bowman

Me: You are telling me that if I do not show you a license, you are going to take me to jail?

Him: Yes

At this point, I ask him what law requires it. He said 20-29.

I show him the license.

He thanks me and tells me to have a nice day.
For acting like a good sheep!
What did I learn?
Not much accept how open up and grin for the money
If you are going to go, go all out.
Which you are not capable of
I went into this half knowledgable and half (if that) prepared.
Which you still are, despite being arrogant
When I change my status, I will know better how to respond.
Still thinking of how to impress the sheppard with you response huh? Response,,,ooops i mean bleat,,, BAH BAH BAH BAH
I am working on it, but today, I got bolder.
No, you proved you are a coward who will use an ID you profess does not id you just to please mister shepard

Granted. Your issue is picking on heart broken newbies. Not eduacated PERSONS.
I accept your explanation of your above rude post. [HENRY PICKING ON HEART BROKEN HERE]

It is like you did not even understand how much of argument hangs on "person." You read what, half of it? So little is dependent on "shall" yet... "A judge will eat your lunch with that logic." Oh please. You rebut as good as JRB and Shoonra.

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

I have no original thoughts. Everything I have has been given to me.

No. You probably bought them in a book [He Man and the Masters of the Univers] and then waited for the supreme court to verify them for you before you would eat.

Good bye.

Originally Posted by Codee

I ... ... have appeared as a defendant about one hundred times.

This proves your superior knowledge?

What an imagination.

I have never appeared as defendant.

Go figure. I must be stupid or something.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

This proves your superior knowledge?

What an imagination.

I have never appeared as defendant.

Go figure. I must be stupid or something.

And you proved your superior knowledge over Beeboah? Want to settle it? Go start up a post in the correct forrum like "You got a problem buddy." I'll be there quicker then then I can "appear" in court.

Yeah no kidding. I "appear" specially. Often as a defendant. Call my self a person, a citizen, and use a NAME and still win all the time. You go all wierd, lose, and then parade around like your S don't stink.

What have you ever done for yourself that is "remarkable?" I have only read lame theories and not much else. Any wins on record with DOCUMENTS in a file to support that you are anything more then sheep?

I have free long distance so I would love to call up your county court house and ask for these GROUND BREAKING arguments you use.

The number of my local superior court house is 1-530-265-1311. call them up. refer to me by first name only! Don't even spell it. Just say, "I know a guy named Cody, who the judges and clerks are supposed to know." then request all my filings. You will want to talk probably with Terri. She is nice and will speak so that even you can understand her.

You can talk to Robert L. Tammietti who has dissmissed case after case of mine.

Or former John Darrlington who now retired but still "enjoys remembering my cases" as he told my mother in a supermarket.

Or you can talk to "Kathlene Buttz" who presided over a three day trial for a $45 loitering ticket, who now sits on the state circut of appeals. Maybe she can tell you how proud she is of me and that she is "horored" to have known me. Oh I'm sorry Hennry, Judges don't call you "honerable." You probably call them that. Have you ever been to court? Probably just pay your fines...

Or you can talk to Police Chief John Foster and he can relate to you "I always wanted to be Cody's friend" after I kicked his A$$ in court over and over. His number is 1-530-477-4600.

Or Judge "Mc Mannus" at nevada county.

Or judge Dowling, who ruled that I proved all Grass valley perking tickets invalid infront of.

Or former mayor Linda Stevens who gave me a job recomendation after proving the police of G.V had no authority to arrest on Municiple Code violations and the city had to re-write its city charter.

Or you can contact Barbra Coffman who sits now as City Council woman in the sister town Nevada City. She will tell you how I forced Grass Valley city attorney into vountary retirement.

OR Any youth under the age of 30 on how I have stopped searches of dozens in local parks.

Or you can talk to ANY sergent or captin (Dave Remelard, Mike Heart and Jarod Johnson are the names.) in grass valley who can tell you there is a free dinner on my head for the first succesfull prosecution of me,,,, and then will also tell you that they will not arrest me on less then a felony.

Or maybe Judge Earsle Edwards.

Or judge Carl Briant.

Or the head building department clerk, Her name is Beth. She watches all of my filings and admitted that for a while G.V. was having special "Cody" meetings to discuss how to get their laws in line with my writings to them.

Or Ron White, who I proved was the enforcing authority and he left to after I pointed out he failed to do his job some 5,000 times each a technicall misdemeanor.

How about Oliver Pong the Da that has lost EVERY motion and case against me.

Or... crap you get it. I do not look for verification from you! I have all I need.

You're arguments of "never having appeared as a defendant..." who cares. I appeared a hundred times by the age of twent one. I have abated more than your arrogance can dream little Nor Cor. man. Debate for any type of remedy? You want to venture into Cal law and post dumb links to washington websites? I can work a mop!

[Codee]

Well back to the thread...

NOW,,, If the Judge wants to rule against me on my "interpretations" even though I pulled them right out of the statutes, THEN I start to pull out my EVIDENCE. Case law is evidence of law. But first you must state the law and THEN our supreme court cases in suport of the law will be valid as evidence. But first you must get into a case. You must dismiss the tribunals and get into a court of general jurisdiction. You want it to move and shake... get the judges oath and file it your self into the case... watch the recourse.

BTW, I am done explaining myself. If you have a question about my posts, fine. About me.... PM me.