It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Got a Moving Violation ? want to plead not guilty?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


Who said they don't lie? You said you won't access a government website because they lie. I'm pointlessly, apparently, trying to determine some source material for YOUR thread. Government lies aren't the topic of this thread. I certainly never made a claim the government doesn't lie.

You're getting even more confused, if that's possible.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


look, Oui wood b in da woulds...
your mincing language to form a LAW is not LAW. and the Source is the SUPREME COURT> the Law.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Now this is off Topic but show the power of We The People

An update from Oklahoma :

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.


Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102

Guess what........ Oklahoma did it anyway.


Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas , Montana and Utah as the only states to do so.

More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia,Mississippi, Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the criminals. The Liberals didn't like it -- But ....
Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver's license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma , you must read and write English. Really simple.

By the way, the Liberals don't like any of this either.

Guess what...who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by ISRAELdid911

your mincing language to form a LAW is not LAW. and the Source is the SUPREME COURT> the Law.


And I'd like to see it. Any mincing of words has been done by you, "their on" indeed. So, you have nothing then?
I thought so.

Israel did 911

yeahright


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
and I might have made a Typo. but the Gov't site is open and you have everything I have. will you please post what ever it is you think, I've stated why I dont visit Gov't WebSites... I can edit logs as good as the next administrator.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


I think until I have a Source with the original material, in context and in total, there's nothing to have an opinion on. As I've said repeatedly.

When you bring in external material, it should be accompanied by a >LINK< and the quoted material should be in an external quote box


like this


What you've provided in your opening post is unsourced at best and suspect at worst. A link to a Google search including your search terms is, if I may, lazy if not irrelevant. If I have everything you have on this, then we've got a grand total of nothing. "It's in here somewhere. YOU find it", is not the way to go. Now you can continue down that path, and reap what it reaps. Which will be calls for better sources, and the occasional supporter who doesn't get it any better than you do. If that's what you want, there you go. You think those Freemen sites and whatnot aren't as capable of pulling your chain as the government is? Okay then, good luck with that. Take THEIR word for it. No point in reading the actual source material, because those random sites have the answers.

I've wasted enough time. Thus endeth the lesson.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 4/20/2011 by yeahright because: Fix tags



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ISRAELdid911
and I might have made a Typo. but the Gov't site is open and you have everything I have. will you please post what ever it is you think, I've stated why I dont visit Gov't WebSites... I can edit logs as good as the next administrator.


The problem is (and what you are getting so defensive about) is that you have provided no source for the actual law you are attempting to cite. You posted a blog. Did you know that the Weekly World News also has a blog? This makes the blog you site about as credible as the Weekly World News.

Batboy... it is the LAW!



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by YourPopRock
 


that is the title is the source. its in a book...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


Are you drunk?



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Well I did the legwork and found the case that the dingleberry OP wasn't willing to provide. The case is from the 1930 Virginia Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court.

For anyone interested, it can be found on Google Scholar.
Click for ruling

The applicable section as quoted by the dingleberry OP is section 5.
edit on 21-4-2011 by ViperChili because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ViperChili
 


thank you, I knew someone here would have enough gonads to find it and post it.

S&F, (I'll flag a thread you start)
edit on 21-4-2011 by ISRAELdid911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


Why didn't you find it to back up your own post?

Next time do your own work and don't act like a petulant child.
edit on 21-4-2011 by ViperChili because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 





U.S. SUPREME COURT, is the source. AKA LAW of the Land.



Um..no. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the US Supreme court just enforces/interprets the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ISRAELdid911
 


I have been beating tickets for over 22 years now for driving w/o a License and all other traffic tickets. It works because it it the LAW and you Rights, if you know them. A Drivers License is a Contract with the STATE giving up Natural Rights in place of Jurisdiction and regulation. This of course is done secretive and by lies. You also must know the words, WORDS HAVE DEFINITIONS. Never ask do I need a Drivers License to Drive replace Drive with Travel. Under legalese Drive is someone who makes money on the public roads and States can control corporate activity on the public roads. They CAN NOT control private use of public roads until there is a Damaged Party.

I have the 29 page document I used everytime to have my tickets removed, dismissed and kaput! I have actually just pulled my website, for updates and moving to another host but I have the thing posted on my Facebook and here is a link to it...

Filing

The spacing sucks in FB, but copy and paste and make the space changes, change the info to your ticket and file it. DO NOT LET THEM SCARE YOU, THEY WILL TRY! STAND YOUR GROUND AND IT WILL BE DISMISSED. DEMAND A JURY TRIAL AT THE TRAFFIC COURT, IF THEY SAY YOU DON'T GET ONE THE NEXT WORDS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH ARE 'IS THIS CRIMINAL OR CIVIL" This will put the Judge in a bad mood but also he knows a civil action would go to federal Court and Criminal Actions have the Right to a Jury. I have taught this to many of my friends and none of them have lost. Some did get put in a holding cell for a couple hours while the Judge cleared the courtroom of other tickets (they don't want people to see you walk) then they bring you out and you walk...



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by YourPopRock
 


My link above in my filing provides every Case Citing from every local Court all the way to State Supreme Courts to the U.S. Supreme. It really all boils down to knowing WHO you are UNDER THE LAW. And of course the DEFINITIONS of the words used.

Driving is a legal term, and very few of you would fit that definition...

I would be happy to help anyone with questions, just U2U me...



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ISRAELdid911
Thompson v Smith. 154 SE 579
"The Right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property their on, 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."

Let us know how it turns out.
edit on 18-4-2011 by ISRAELdid911 because: (no reason given)


Of course you do. You can do all that but if you're not a licensed driver then someone else has to be on the wheel.
edit on 21/4/2011 by PsykoOps because: forgot "driver"



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Not everything is online you realize? I have access to a giant library of lawbooks and medical reference in my office, and the majority of it is not online. I'm not sure if the Supreme Court has every ruling on some database or not.

Here is a better quotation, and an additional source:


"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

Another blog source

Here is A Link for a search on the official Supreme Court site. Apparently the case has been used as a precedent and cited in several other cases, so I didn't read through them all, but it appears to be a legitimate quotation.

Even so, quotations are nice, but interpretations are the key. Any judge could find differently, they would just open themselves up to overturn on appeal, but what are the chances of someone appealing a ruling on a traffic citation?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 21-4-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by getreadyalready

Not everything is online you realize?


Why, yes, I was aware of that. Since my reading ability predates the Internet by a few decades, I do have some familiarity with print. But thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide a link to the thread on posting work written by others. From the link:


If the work you are posting is not on the internet, from a book for example, you MUST give a credit for that Book ( the title), its Author and Publisher.


Sources and quotes are not only acceptable, they're valuable. However without the ability to access the source material by link, or library, there's no way to substantiate the information and the value approaches -0-.

In this case, as it turns out, there IS a link on line. And lo and behold, the source isn't the US Supreme Court at all. I haven't read the case, but at least now thanks to a diligent member, we have a source document to reference for anyone who cares to review it.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


No offense intended, there is a generation of folks that don't realize many things are not yet on the internet.

As for me, I thought the case name and number was sufficient as a source. Turns out I was wrong, we also needed at least the correct state to look it up in. I spent the last hour searching the USSC website for no reason, because the case was in the Virginia Supreme Court.


I think it is also relevant to note that this ruling was in 1930, and it is quite possible that the court would have a different opinion today, or that perhaps the court has already had a different opinion, and a prosecutor would be more than willing to bring out a more current case law precedent.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join