Cody's Right To Travel

[FreeFromContract]

He was able to drive to and from the courthouse on multiple occasions without risking, killing or crippling anyone else. He is no more a risk than a licensed driver. However, according to your logic, if he were to get a license the next day, magically, he becomes much less of a risk to the general public than if he were not licensed.

Right there is the big lie that you and supporters of the police state like to perpetuate; by the act of getting a license it makes you and everyone around you safer. That is PROPAGANDA.. You introduce nothing but speculation and subjective criteria to support your position.

So, if getting a license make one fit to drive, then why are licensed drivers constantly involved in auto accidents with other licensed drivers (occasionally on the same day the license is issued)?

Still waiting for a response with substance Bernieeee.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The US Supreme Court has held that the DL requirements are for the purpose of public safety, not for revenue.

Tell you what, you provide proof that the public will be safer tomorrow if I were to have a license than they are today with me on the roads without a license and I'll go get one.

Offering statistics of a general nature is not proof. I'm talking about me, not general figures concerning certain manipulated data by those benefiting from the revenue scheme.

[Mystic666]

When doing refusal for cause one must remember, you must have the pending case number to file in the misc. case jacket with the clerk of court from a "defensive standpoin"t in setting up the notary protest..

From an offensive standpoint... A case number is not needed in R4C, if its just a target letter and no claim has been made in any court.. However, one should refuse the presentment to company only. Then subquently,File judgement against presenter, documented by notary, server, and magistrate, in case presenter tries to railroad the procress into a default judgement without first filing an official complaint with corresponding case number.. However, from this offensive standpoint, you can not file a judgement, until it is reviewed by a magistrate which you can pay the court to review. Once , the magistrate approves and seals your judgement, Then you can keep a copy of this judgement in case the suitor tries to file a lawsuit (formal complaint) against you.... Now you have documented evidence of the interaction to show a company and/or District Court.. The very worst case scenario being that you have to (counter complain). $350.. Welcome to the Court of Competent Jurisdiction as Article 3 Judge.....


PS: Why does the server always redirect and have error message, it isnt until navigating all the way back that it lets you enter forum as signed in.. Furthermore. what has happen to the forum page.. How do i post new threads???

[ss_stealth]

I love this thread.

I hate my DL.

[Shoonra]

He was able to drive to and from the courthouse on multiple occasions without risking, killing or crippling anyone else.

Courts have held, or at least they did in the first half of the 20th century, that driving a car is an inherently dangerous activity. Everytime this unqualified driver got behind the wheel he put people at risk -- both people in other cars and pedestrians.

It's enough for me that the Supreme Court has said that the DL laws are for public safety. I don't know, or care, what other sort of proof you want.

Perhaps you think it's OK for scofflaws to gamble with the lives of law-abiding people. I think someone who thinks traffic laws don't apply to him should not be allowed behind the wheel.

[ss_stealth]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Courts have held, or at least they did in the first half of the 20th century, that driving a car is an inherently dangerous activity. Every time this unqualified driver got behind the wheel he put people at risk -- both people in other cars and pedestrians.

It's this sort of thinking that leads to tyranny. Seriously. I'm not directing this at you, Shoonra, as much as I am at a large portion of the population (the majority even, or so it seems). LIFE is a 'dangerous activity'. What do the courts say to that? If it's not one thing it's another. If someone is afraid to be on the road with me or anyone else they can either stay home or grow a pair. Why should their fear of the uncertain be grounds to interfere with my ability to travel? The predators will capitalize on these weaknesses to ensure that their thirst for power is quenched (temporarily) and tyranny ensues.

It's enough for me that the Supreme Court has said that the DL laws are for public safety. I don't know, or care, what other sort of proof you want.

It's not enough for us however. The government's authority comes from the consent of the people.

If you will feel safer with a DL then you can have it but why do you all feel you have the right to force on on us?

Perhaps you think it's OK for scofflaws to gamble with the lives of law-abiding people. I think someone who thinks traffic laws don't apply to him should not be allowed behind the wheel.

If traffic was less predictable we'd all be more alert when traveling through it.

"I think someone who thinks..." Your opinion of someone else's opinion is just as unimportant as the opinion you are so opinionated about. What? I lost myself there too.

As I stated earlier in this post, life is dangerous, if it's not one thing it's another. My walking on the same sidewalk as someone else is similarly dangerous. If I don't pay attention to where I'm going I might run into that someone else and knock them into a woodchipper... or something. So what does that mean? Should we all have "Pedestrian Licenses"??? We all need to be responsible enough to maintain control and act with care. If we don't we run the risk of injuring something/one and then we'll be in trouble.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Perhaps you think it's OK for scofflaws to gamble with the lives of law-abiding people. I think someone who thinks traffic laws don't apply to him should not be allowed behind the wheel.

Boy are you dense Bernie. There are millions of people each year with licenses who don't think traffic laws apply to them. Do they get their license taken away when they get a traffic ticket? Most don't, do they? They get right back behind the wheel. How about explaining why repeat DWI/DUI offenders get their license's back?

To anyone but an apologist for this broken system it is obvious: It's about revenue.

Again, you completely avoid the questions. Proof Bernie, where's the proof? You can't provide any.

Keep diggin that hole you're in...keep diggin.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.

(including motor horse-power)

2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.

(including the self-employed)

Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence

The attorner-conflation is: driving test= m.v. operator license.

I guess flour=cake, and bread=bakery

We need to stop using this neologism, "DL", which confuses the mind- its a license to operate a motor vehicle, an LOMV, issued not by a 'Dept of Drivers', but of course, the Dept of Motor Vehicles, and not under a "Driving Code", but the Vehicle Code.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

AKA Codee
AKA Little Brother 192

AKA Everyone and his Ownbrother

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

All of my traffic research is updated and current in my new research essay. Please click on "PART 1" in my signature line to access my current research.

Thanks you all who contributed.

Cody James of Roberts
AKA Codee
AKA Little Brother 192

Cody:

Sorry I have not been able to comment on your traffic law research. I have two trials (both minor level cases, thankfully!) this week to prepare for, one criminal and one civil.

I will say this: I think you're right about half the time. Which makes you a lot better than DiM aka David Merrill, or the mindless repeater of gibberish, who are wrong 99.9% of the time.

Anyway, have a good week and I will try to give you some feedback next weekend.