Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

page: 20
88
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I asked you to prove this through credible legislation, not by pointing to some article somebody has written. Laziness is "pretty easy". Now stop being lazy and go about the business of proving your assertions.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Idiotic thread started by a childish gun owner. I cannot believe they let people start threads like this...one thread starts out with the same title ..except this has vehicles in it. Basically saying like a child...if you call me a name I will call you a name back.


Had you taken the time to read the thread before making such a presumption, you would know I do not own any guns, and never have. Deny ignorance!



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


After I made this post I am replying to, the party in question went back to his post where he lazily offered up an article written by a lawyer to finally offer up what he views as "credible" legislation proving his assertions. The legislation this poster offers is Section 511 of the New York Code:


1. Aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree. (a) A person is guilty of the offense of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree when such person operates a motor vehicle upon a public highway while knowing or having reason to know that such person's license or privilege of operating such motor vehicle in this state or privilege of obtaining a license to operate such motor vehicle issued by the commissioner is suspended, revoked or otherwise withdrawn by the commissioner.


When reading this section it is obvious that the poster has failed to prove his assertion. It goes without saying that this poster has no understanding of the law, nor even legality. Let us just take a look at the language quoted above in Section 511:

Take a careful look at the word "knowing" that I've emphasized. I stated earlier in this thread that people become subject to and liable for certain acts of legislation because of their own signature on a contract. That signature on a contract to obtain a license to drive would offer up prima facie evidence that the signer "knows".

Further, the section clarifies "aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle" is in regards to "suspended, revoked, or otherwise withdrawn" licenses. This then makes clear that section 511 is in regards to people who have all ready obtained a license to drive in the State of New York and in no way shows how a person is required by law to obtain a license.

Ignorantia juris non excusat! Deny ignorance!



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I asked you to prove this through credible legislation, not by pointing to some article somebody has written. Laziness is "pretty easy". Now stop being lazy and go about the business of proving your assertions.





What part of my state law is not "credible legislation"? You are being absurd....again. Its really your only defense. For someone who claims that others embrace ignorance, you sure seem to be on a first name basis with it.

Its easy enough to prove that every state in the union (plus DC) has passed legislation regarding drivers licenses. Why dont you PROVE your ASSERTION that driving is a right granted at birth? Because you cannot.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I just posted above you pointing out that the Section 511 you went back into your older post and added does not in any way require people to obtain a license to drive, and only speaks to those who have and subsequently failed to obey the rules set forth by that licensing scheme.



edit on 8-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You know what? Youre right...in a bid to go eat Easter Dinner with my family, I did a quick google search and posted a link. After I skimmed it, I realized you would argue, being the JPZ that you are, so I googled the 511 statue and posted the link here. I should have known that of course, you would build a mountain from a molehill in your grand way. But let me give you credit where it is due, you were right that time. However, here is the statute, as made by my state legislature, it is statute 509, not 511.

codes.lp.findlaw.com...



1. Except while operating a motor vehicle during
the course of a road test conducted pursuant to the provisions of this
article, no person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle upon a public
highway of this state
or upon any sidewalk or to or from any lot
adjacent to a public garage, supermarket, shopping center or car washing
establishment or to or from or into a public garage or car washing
establishment unless he is duly licensed pursuant to the provisions of
this chapter.



Alright, lets see in what absurd direction you can take this. I shouldnt even have to post this "proof", this is common sense and law in every state. It is not unconstitutional. As I stated before, no one is impeding your right to travel. It is your right to operate a motor vehicle that is in question. Please address this, without being absurd.
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Take a careful look at the word "knowing" that I've emphasized. I stated earlier in this thread that people become subject to and liable for certain acts of legislation because of their own signature on a contract. That signature on a contract to obtain a license to drive would offer up prima facie evidence that the signer "knows".


Im sure at this point, a prosecution lawyer could quite easily point out that since it is an obvious fact you need a license to operate a car, a well known and publicized state law, that an absence of that signature on a drivers license application is not proof that you did not know you need a license to drive a car. Again, Im sure that you would be laughed out of court if this was your defense...as you say, ignorance of the law is no excuse!!

But dont take my legal advice....go try it!
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





1. Except while operating a motor vehicle during
the course of a road test conducted pursuant to the provisions of this
article, no person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle upon a public
highway of this state
or upon any sidewalk or to or from any lot
adjacent to a public garage, supermarket, shopping center or car washing
establishment or to or from or into a public garage or car washing
establishment unless he is duly licensed pursuant to the provisions of
this chapter.



Also, you will notice, that this law makes provisions for underage kids that actually are driving farm equipment, or on private property.

Oh, that tyrannical government!!

ETA: also notice all the possible provisions: upon a public highway of this state or upon any sidewalk or to or from any lot adjacent to a public garage, supermarket, shopping center or car washing establishment or to or from or into a public garage or car washing establishment

You know why they have to put that language in? Because there is always some smart arse that says "well, it doesnt say i couldnt do that!!" and now it has to be added as law, requiring our laws to balloon to monstrous proportions. So next time you want to complain about "bloated government", take it up with the butthole that didnt have a license but wanted to drive around a parking lot and then did damage to property or hurt someone, then his defense was "well state law didnt say I couldnt drive around a parking lot! thats my right given at birth!!!"
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


It is beyond ignorance to declare that pointing to the wrong legislation to show how one is required to obtain a license is a "molehill".

Section 509 of the New York Code comes with 12 subdivisions. You provided subdivision 1 only to "prove" your assertion, and in doing so, failed to provide subdivision 1a:


1-a. Whenever a license is required to operate a commercial motor vehicle, no person shall operate a commercial motor vehicle without the proper endorsements for the specific vehicle being operated or for the passengers or type of cargo being transported.


The rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance. It should be clear by the nature of 1a and its clarification, that subdivision 1 alone does not clearly explain who is subject to this act of legislation. The word "whenever" is your first clue. If subdivision 1 were enough alone to require all people who drive a motor vehicle to obtain a license, then there would have been no need for 11 more subdivisions. Let us take a look at subdivision 2:


2. Whenever a license is required to operate a motor vehicle, no person shall operate a motor vehicle unless he is the holder of a class of license which is valid for the operation of such vehicle.


Now let's take a look at subdivision 12:


12. A violation of subdivision two of this section involving the operation for hire of any vehicle as a taxicab, livery as defined in section one hundred twenty-one-e of this chapter, coach, limousine, van


Section 121-e offers this definition of livery:


§ 121-e. Livery. Every motor vehicle, other than a taxicab or a bus, used in the business of transporting passengers for compensation. However, it shall not include vehicles which are rented or leased without a driver.


It is quite clear that Section 509 is in regards to operators of motor vehicles "used in the business of transporting passengers for compensation.

It bears repeating; the rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is quite clear that Section 509 is in regards to operators of motor vehicles "used in the business of transporting passengers for compensation.

It bears repeating; the rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance.



And here we go with the long winded bull crap. It is obvious from the phrasing of the law that the "whenever" they are talking about is clearly laid out in part 1:


Except while operating a motor vehicle during
the course of a road test conducted pursuant to the provisions of this
article, no person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle upon a public
highway of this state or upon any sidewalk or to or from any lot
adjacent to a public garage, supermarket, shopping center or car washing
establishment or to or from or into a public garage or car washing
establishment


Your ridiculous assertion about commercial travel being the only targeted travel is what get you laughed out of court. They are setting aside provisions so that people without licenses indeed ARE ALLOWED to operate a motor vehicle on their own private property. But if you want to


drive a motor vehicle upon a public
highway of this state or upon any sidewalk or to or from any lot
adjacent to a public garage, supermarket, shopping center or car washing
establishment or to or from or into a public garage or car washing
establishment, .


you need a license
Your interpretation is wrong. But again, dont believe me...try it in court. Will it sink in if it quote it again?
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





Your interpretation is wrong. But again, dont believe me...try it in court. Will it sink in if it quote it again?


My "interpretation" of a section of the code that I actually took the time to read in its entirety, unlike you who once again used fallacious reasoning and "cherry picked" a very limited and narrow portion of that section in order to convince others of a "requirement" to surrender their rights. If I believed you actually knew what you were talking about I would accuse you of fraud, but it is clear you are just plain ignorant, and willfully so.

I recently read an excellent post made by a moderator explaining that the motto "deny ignorance" is not a call to declare other people ignorant and leave it at that, but rather to instruct them so they do not remain ignorant. I have done my best to do this, but if you insist on remaining ignorant this is...well hell, it's your right to do so.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





Your interpretation is wrong. But again, dont believe me...try it in court. Will it sink in if it quote it again?


My "interpretation" of a section of the code that I actually took the time to read in its entirety, unlike you who once again used fallacious reasoning and "cherry picked" a very limited and narrow portion of that section in order to convince others of a "requirement" to surrender their rights. If I believed you actually knew what you were talking about I would accuse you of fraud, but it is clear you are just plain ignorant, and willfully so.

I recently read an excellent post made by a moderator explaining that the motto "deny ignorance" is not a call to declare other people ignorant and leave it at that, but rather to instruct them so they do not remain ignorant. I have done my best to do this, but if you insist on remaining ignorant this is...well hell, it's your right to do so.





Whatever...I hope no one follows your ridiculous advice. Its one thing to believe these things yourself, its quite another to spread it as factual information in a public manner like this. It would be nice if you could address facts and actually prove to me legally what you are saying instead of just calling me ignorant.

You claim that I ""cherry picked" a very limited and narrow portion of that section" which is exactly what you did in your post by quoting only a portion of the law that you deemed relevant, and anyone following the links and reading the statute will see this. But I guess you believe it is your right to spread libelous information about me because I, along with about 99.999% of the legal world, believe in the correct interpretation and not yours.

If what you say is true, open a law firm offering this defense...I am sure you will make millions saving Americans the fees and hassles associated with getting a license and obeying the rules of the road.
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





Whatever...I hope no one follows your ridiculous advice.


I am not, nor have I been in this thread, advising anyone. You have, and have a few times advised members to ignore my posts, but I haven't made any advise and have merely made arguments as to why you are wrong. It follows that a poster who openly declares the vast majority of people outside he as being "idiots" would hope that no one reads my posts. You are quite content in selling the idea of maintaining an ignorant populace.

Further, I have not done any "cherry picking" at all, and screaming I have doesn't make your assertion any truer. That you clearly "cherry picked" is further demonstrated when you foolishly dismissed my pointing to subdivision 1a, 2, and 12 (that which you call "cherry picking") as being long winded bull crap. Section 509 is not subdivision 1 alone. If it were, it would not be a subdivision. You cannot use 1 subdivision alone to arbitrarily impose your own personal beliefs.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Have you ever used this defense successfully in a court of law?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Have you ever used this defense successfully in a court of law?


Yes, and I indicated as such when I countered your argument earlier that I would be laughed out of a court of law. Judges - even those employed by an administrative agency and sitting on the bench of a kangaroo court - do not find it amusing at all when their perceived authority is being lawfully challenged...at least not the judge I dealt with. He was outraged, he was apoplectic, and he huffed and he puffed and flustered and blustered, and ultimately demanded I leave his court and never return, but what he did not do was inextricably bind himself to criminality by declaring me "guilty".

Of course, he couldn't have done so since I refused to plea. Before he could have criminally declared me "guilty" he would have had to criminally impose a plea of "not guilty" on me in order to push this to a trial. Instead he attempted to - through reification - "prove" he had jurisdiction, and he invited me to say something, anything, that would have bound me to his jurisdiction, but he failed to do so, so he dismissed the charges against me, which was the only lawful authority he had.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
As the kids say, pics or it didnt happen. Or maybe a court transcript, which is public information.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
As the kids say, pics or it didnt happen. Or maybe a court transcript, which is public information.


Your not paying attention! I have stated all ready that these are kangaroo courts, that the judge serves as prosecutor, and that there is no court reporter available. When you walk into an area presenting itself as a court of law and there is not stenographer there to record the proceedings, this is just one of many clues this is not an actual court of law.

I have no idea what the flag looked like in that court, as I didn't pay attention to any flag, and could care less if it was a flag with tassels, frilly froo-froo crap, or dancing ballerinas on top. This is just your fantasy.

edit on 8-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kman420
 


Your flap-jawed hateful ignorant assumptions would get you in a rather nasty situation if you said on the streets I live on. I really do get sick of ignorant foreigners who watch too much CNN and talk trash about a country they probably caqnt even find on a map. America is not a perfect place, many of us Americans know this, like anywhere else in the world there are ignorant ones who live in la la land. Yeah, perhaps you're statistics are right, that doesn't make you any better than I, and I am no better than you. Or are you? I don't know where you live but I can guarentee i'm not prejudice against your people. Me hating you would be like me hating china because of their government, I could never hate china, their food is delicious. I hated Kim Jung Il because he was a psycho, but I have nothing against North or South Koreans.

This has got to be the thousandth time i've had to say this to a foreigner. We as Americans do not control the government, according the the constitution we should. The case is our government has become a very powerful bully, it has broke off into it's own entity. One would say "well, why don't you rebel?" by God I would kneel town with my tongue in the dirt should I ever be lucky enough to see that. Unfortunately the US government is like a very big tree, very big trees are hard to knock down because it's roots reach everywhere. For us to ultimately help the world and change our country and thus every other for the better. We would require a second revolutionary war, only this one would be much more complicated, and in consequence require every able bodied American on the front lines. I personally believe it's the only way, but it'll never happen.

All I can say is I wish you the best in life, and hopefully your future is happier as you seem to be a bit of an angry person.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

I can control myself just fine. However, alot of the other population cannot. This has been proven time and again. Like I said, one bad apple...the one guy who wants to let his 10 year old drive down the interstate while he takes a nap, and causes a 72 car pileup has just now made it illegal for 10 year olds to drive.

Absolute Freedom is a wonderful ideal. However, it is a pipe dream due to the condition of humanity, namely stupidity. Some idiots need rules, it is unfortunate, but true.



I'm terribly sorry. I do not recognize your jurisdiction which allows you to dictate to others on the basis of YOUR declaration of THEIR "stupidity".

There's not a very large gap between that and sending them off to the gulags because YOU declare them "insane".

Can you establish the superiority of your credentials to dictate to others and your competence to declare them "stupid"? What if they just turn it around and declare YOU "stupid" and begin dictating to YOU on strength of that assessment?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles


So, when you started driving at nine, you never made a mistake, or pulled out in front of someone, or anything?

Good sir, I call you a liar. Anyone who has driven for any amount of time makes those mistakes. And a 10 year old does not have the physical skills to control a 5000 lb car in an emergency. Has the wheel ever turned on you?

Furthermore, drunk drivers endanger people every day....but you think that should be allowed too as well? Suuuuure buddy.


You can call me whatever you want, it does not change the facts which I presented, simply because you decide arbitrarily to apply an erroneous label.

I must say, in all fairness however, that if you HAVE made those mistakes - and you must have, since you have declared that "everyone does" - that you should be declared incompetent to drive.

You sir, are a danger to everyone around you on the road, with your reckless disregard for their safety as demonstrated by your careless operation of a motor vehicle.

Why would you pull out in front of another moving vehicle? Are you suicidal, or do you have a vision problem?

The car I drove at that age was a Volkswagen Square Back Sedan. It did not weight 5000 pounds, it weighed around 2500. I got it stuck in the mud once, but it wasn't much of a problem to rock it out, and no persons were endangered thereby. I did learn to favor better roads from that.





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join