Driver Licensing not about highway safety

proffsl wrote:
Driver Licensing is very essential for highway safety and has been
repeatedly authorized and found to be constitutional by the people
through their representatives and our courts.

Our public highways were built on our property with our money for the
purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of
Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel, which of course of
necessity fully includes a system of licensing and registration as an
indivisible component.

I have been so wrong in the past to question this with my failed logic,
fualty reasoning, and in one moment of pique, my complete fabrication
of a court "cite" that I tried to pass off as legit. I am a sorry excuse for
one whoi cannot learn from truth and experience, as I prove over and
over again when I post anything contrary to this. I apologize.

Read about it at: http://proffsl.0mb.com/I_am_a _sorry_excuse_for_a_troll.php

I fixed your post again. I note that you repeatedly fail to address
the real issue, which is why you continue to ignore the reality of the
facts and logic that proved you wrong a year ago and continue to
expose you every time you hit "send."

Why did you misrepresent court cases that actually *upheld* licensing
in your false claims that they said no license was needed? They said
the opposite.

Why do you cobble together dicta from disparate and unrelated court
cases into an invalid Frankenstein argument of your own making when
you know that court cases only rule on the specific questions put to
the courts, and that you cannot string together random quotes from
dozens of them into a ruling of your own on a completely different
matter? Packard was a taxicab insurance case having nothing to do with
licensing. Fears had nothing to do with licensing.

Why did you foist a "study" of distracted driving accidents as one
that you falsely claimed spoke to *all* accidents, and continue to
repeat this error a year after you were informed of the truth?

Those questions will do for now. I have more.

proffsl wrote:

You're being absurd. Licensing and Insurance IS NOT an inherent part
of Locomotion. You are grasping for straws.

We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public Right of Ways.

The Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways is Driving the Automobile.

Locomotion can be walking or riding a bicycle, or being a passenger in a
vehicle driven by someone else.

Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

You're being absurd. Licensing and Insurance IS NOT an inherent
part of Locomotion. You are grasping for straws.

We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public Right of Ways.

The Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways is Driving the Automobile.

Locomotion can be walking or riding a bicycle,

And, those are likely the Locomotion Ordinarily used on sidewalks and
on bike trails. But, the Locomotion Ordinarily used for personal
travel on our public highways is Driving the Automobile.

We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public highways.


or being a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else.

Being a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else IS NOT the act
of Locomotion.

Merrian-Websters defines Locomotion as: "to move from place to
place". NOT "to be moved from place to place".

Williams v. Fears ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274 )
defines Locomotion as: "to remove from one place to another according
to inclination". NOT "to be removed from one place to another
according to another's inclination".

When being moved from place to place by someone else, you are being
TRANSPORTED, and you are not exercising the power of Locomotion.

And, you do not have a Right to be Transported from one place to
another according to your Inclination.

Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that laws
against endangerment did not already serve, and instead only serves
fiscal greed.

Our public highways were built on our property with our money for the
purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of
Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel. But, the more our
public highways are made unusable by anything but the automobile, the
more this LIE that Driving is a privilege makes us all prisoners of
privilege behind bars lf blacktop.

Read about it at: http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php

On Sep 26, 6:36 am, Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:
You're being absurd. Licensing and Insurance IS NOT an inherent part
of Locomotion. You are grasping for straws.

We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public Right of Ways.

The Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways is Driving the Automobile.

Locomotion can be walking or riding a bicycle, or being a passenger in a
vehicle driven by someone else.

wrote:

I fixed your post again.

Yea, WE HAVE ALL NOTICED, k_flynn. It's a very cute trick for a three
year old, even if it is the only one you know.

Seriously though, you spoke earlier of how you wonder why people even
respond to me, yet you chase me from newsgroup to newsgroup in order
to disrupt (in your three year old fashon) any thread where I'm
speaking with others. One, or possibly several, does have to wonder
why.


Packard was a taxicab insurance case having nothing to do with licensing.

Regardless, Packard v. Banton clearly recognized the fact that: "The
streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144


Fears had nothing to do with licensing.

Regardless, Williams v. Fears clearly recognized that: "Undoubtedly
the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another
according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the
right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of
any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other
provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270
(1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Even you have recognized the fact that we have the Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways.

I fail to see why you object to me using two court cases that also
recognize our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public highways.

And, now I suppose it's time you once again use your tired circular
oxymoron, where you presume "it should be the law because it is the
law" and "it's a Right if you must obtain permission".

wrote:

I fixed your post again.

Yea, WE HAVE ALL NOTICED, k_flynn. It's a very cute trick for a three
year old, even if it is the only one you know.

Seriously though, you spoke earlier of how you wonder why people even
respond to me, yet you chase me from newsgroup to newsgroup in order
to disrupt (in your three year old fashon) any thread where I'm
speaking with others. One, or possibly several, does have to wonder
why.


Packard was a taxicab insurance case having nothing to do with licensing.

Regardless, Packard v. Banton clearly recognized the fact that: "The
streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144


Fears had nothing to do with licensing.

Regardless, Williams v. Fears clearly recognized that: "Undoubtedly
the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another
according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the
right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of
any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other
provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270
(1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Even you have recognized the fact that we have the Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways.

I fail to see why you object to me using two court cases that also
recognize our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public highways.

And, now I suppose it's time you once again use your tired circular
oxymoron, where you presume "it should be the law because it is the
law" and "it's a Right if you must obtain permission".

On Sep 26, 7:44 pm, proffsl wrote:

Driver Licensing is very essential for highway safety and has been
repeatedly authorized and found to be constitutional by the people
through their representatives and our courts.

Our public highways were built on our property with our money for the
purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of
Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel, which of course of
necessity fully includes a system of licensing and registration as an
indivisible component.

I have been so wrong in the past to question this with my failed logic,
faulty reasoning, and in one moment of pique, my complete fabrication
of a court "cite" that I tried to pass off as legit. I am a sorry excuse for
one who cannot learn from truth and experience, as I prove over and
over again when I post anything contrary to this. I apologize.

Read about it at: http://proffsl.0mb.com/I_am_a _sorry_excuse_for_a_troll.php

I fixed your post again. I note that you repeatedly fail to address
the real issue, which is why you continue to ignore the reality of
the
facts and logic that proved you wrong a year ago and continue to
expose you every time you hit "send."

Why did you misrepresent court cases that actually *upheld* licensing
in your false claims that they said no license was needed? They said
the opposite.

Why do you cobble together dicta from disparate and unrelated court
cases into an invalid Frankenstein argument of your own making when
you know that court cases only rule on the specific questions put to
the courts, and that you cannot string together random quotes from
dozens of them into a ruling of your own on a completely different
matter? Packard was a taxicab insurance case having nothing to do
with
licensing. Fears had nothing to do with licensing.

Why did you foist a "study" of distracted driving accidents as one
that you falsely claimed spoke to *all* accidents, and continue to
repeat this error a year after you were informed of the truth?

On Sep 26, 8:15 pm, proffsl wrote:
wrote:

I fixed your post again.

Yea, WE HAVE ALL NOTICED, k_flynn.

Apparently, all but you. You keep changing it back to the wrong
version.

It's a very cute trick for a three
year old, even if it is the only one you know.

It isn't, but as you note of its audience target level, I assumed it
was the only one you might finally grasp.

Now, your second warning to not engage again in personal insults. Got
it?

Seriously though, you spoke earlier of how you wonder why people even
respond to me,

I did? Where?

yet you chase me from newsgroup to newsgroup in order
to disrupt ...

I am neither chasing nor disrupting. You post your disproven theories
in groups that I read. I don't have to go anywhere. You don't want a
reply from me, don't post where I read. Otherwise, tuff.

(in your three year old fashon)

Hardly. Actually it is quite amusing and provides the only
intellectually interesting aspect of the thread, since your positions
have been thoroughly disproven; actual discussion on the issues
couldn't possibly resurrect them.

any thread where I'm speaking with others.

Can you not get anything correct? This is false. I noted that you
posted this same untrue and thoroughly disproven theory in several
other groups I read less frequently, and I did not post in them.

One, or possibly several, does have to wonder
why.

Only for someone who can't grasp the picture.

Packard was a taxicab insurance case having nothing to do with licensing.

Regardless, ...

There is no "regardless." Packard had nothing to do with licensing and
therefore cannot be used to support a position that licensing is
unconstitutional. *A court only rules on the issue put before it in
the case at the time. Manhattan taxicab liability insurance was a
commercial case; nothing to do with the personal right to drive. Your
wishing otherwise cannot make it so.

Packard v. Banton clearly recognized the fact that: "The
streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
-http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

Correct. And as I have proven irrefutably more than a year ago, the
"ordinary way" the public used those streets was as properly licensed
drivers. You need to recall that the Hendrick case preceded Packard
and established licensing as proper and constitutional.

That was checkmate on this point in my favor over a year ago.

Fears had nothing to do with licensing.

Regardless, Williams v. Fears clearly recognized that: "Undoubtedly
the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another
according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the
right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of
any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other
provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270
(1900) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Correct. And again, there was nothing inconsistent with the obligation
to obtain a license. Your wishing that a pig can fly won't make this
porker of an argument airborne.

Even you have recognized the fact that we have the Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways.

Correct... and as I repeatedly proved to you, that way is with licensing
and registration.

I fail to see why you object to me using two court cases that also
recognize our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public highways.

I don't object to your use of them; I object to your misuse of them.

Again, you cannot cobble together random sentences from the dicta of
unrelated court cases, and string them together in a Frankenstein type
creation of your own to fashion your own imaginary case law.

It does not work that way. You failed to answer my previous
challenges: One of the cases you cited in the thread last year where I
thoroughly dismantled all your claims was a Boise, Idaho, case that
you propped up to claim licensing was unconstitutional, yet *that very
case you cited* actually was *on point* about licensing and *upheld
it.* That case established that licensing was legal and proper. Yet
you ignored that, pulled out a quote you could apply out of context
and tried to make it say the opposite. Can you not concede, even now
in the face of this, that your tactic was highly improper and in fact
insulting to those who tried to make you see the light last year?

And, now I suppose it's time you once again use your tired circular
oxymoron, where you presume "it should be the law because it is the
law" and "it's a Right if you must obtain permission".

You put straw man words in my mouth. I never said either.

What we have established, though, is that your practice of collecting
random unrelated dicta from court cases not even related to licensing
somehow create a magic "right" to violate all previous case law and
precedent long established to be firmly constitutional.

As I told you more than a year ago, if your position were that we
*ought to* have the right to drive without a license, I could pat you
on the back and say go try to get it passed. It is only in your ill-
formulated and completely dismantled position that we already have
such a right and that tens of thousands of citizens through the
decades have purposely lied to us about it in some grand conspiracy to
enslave us. That is simply utter nonsense.

On Sep 26, 8:16 pm, proffsl wrote:
wrote:

I fixed your post again.

Yea, WE HAVE ALL NOTICED, k_flynn. It's a very cute trick for a three
year old, even if it is the only one you know.

Seriously though, you spoke earlier of how you wonder why people even
respond to me, yet you chase me from newsgroup to newsgroup in order
to disrupt (in your three year old fashon) any thread where I'm
speaking with others. One, or possibly several, does have to wonder
why.

Packard was a taxicab insurance case having nothing to do with licensing.

Regardless, Packard v. Banton clearly recognized the fact that: "The
streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
-http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

Fears had nothing to do with licensing.

Regardless, Williams v. Fears clearly recognized that: "Undoubtedly
the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another
according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the
right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of
any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other
provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270
(1900) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Even you have recognized the fact that we have the Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways.

I fail to see why you object to me using two court cases that also
recognize our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public highways.

And, now I suppose it's time you once again use your tired circular
oxymoron, where you presume "it should be the law because it is the
law" and "it's a Right if you must obtain permission".

See previous response to this duplicate posting.