If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is essential for 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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is essential for highway safety
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". |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is not about highway safety
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". |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is essential for highway safety
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? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is essential for highway safety
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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is essential for highway safety
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety | proffsl | USA & Canada | 0 | September 17th, 2007 09:50 AM |
Become an Activist for Better Health! Join Bio Pro's Company to promote the Safety Wireless Initiative! safety for Cell Phones & Bio Pro Technology! research Its a WIN WIN! | [email protected] | Asia | 0 | July 27th, 2007 03:41 AM |
Safety for Cell Phones-Mobile Hazards-Cell Phone Safety-Bio Pro Universal Cell Chip, Purchase from a Bio Pro Consultant, Destress EMF Radiation in Australia, South Africa, United States, New Zealand, and Canada!! | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | June 6th, 2007 03:47 AM |
Smart Card BIO PRO, Purchase products from Bio Pro Consultant,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa,Canada,A New Generation of wellness and safety, Safety for Electronics with Bio Pro | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | May 6th, 2007 06:07 PM |
Licensing tellys | [email protected] | Europe | 2 | October 12th, 2004 03:23 AM |