1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Poll: Drivers Licensing ?

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by BarnacleBob, May 31, 2017.



?

Does Driver Licensing Violate the U.N. Treaty on Human Rights?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you seem to be willfully ignoring again and again is that there is no "driving" for personal recreational use. Legally "driving" means engaged in commerce.

    Why is that simple fact so very difficult for you to understand? ...or acknowledge?
     
  2. southfork

    southfork Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    13,903
    Likes Received:
    11,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lets face it, licenses in any way shape or form are just another tax..
     
    solarion likes this.
  3. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    State and local gumbymint parasites aren't able to just call up their buddies at the not federal reserve to conjure up currency for them. As a result they must find creative ways to fund their own mafia enterprises. Asset forfeiture, corporate security goons posing as peace officers, property tax theft, and licensing theft all help maintain and expand their syndicates.
     
  4. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,866
    Likes Received:
    4,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    You forgot one.

    The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. ..."
    Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872

    Refers to the use of an auto upon pubic highways as being within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. If it is within the meaning of that, then it's a Right.
    ....now, about that bitcoin thread. lol
     
    solarion likes this.
  5. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're grasping at straws, my friend.

    No court in America has ever ruled that a person (or "citizen") can operate a motor vehicle (or a car or a truck) without a valid drivers licence to "travel".

    You certainly have the fundamental right to "travel" without a drivers licence anywhere in America - - provided someobe else with a valid drivers licence is behind the wheel. Or you can be a passenger on a bus...ride your bicycle... be a passenger on a train...walk...go by horseback...be a passenger on an airplane...

    But the fact still remains - - you can't operate a motor vehicle to "travel" without a valid drivers licence.
     
  6. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No worries...bruh. I've been forced to get wise to the repugnant word games exhibited by degenerate lieyers. That most definitely includes the disgusting treasonous parasites that hide behind benches, call themselves "honorable", and then circumvent the highest law of the land through trickery.

    In my book, lieyering is every bit as respectable a professional pursuit as is bankstering, but don't let that stop you from rising on cue like a well trained peasant when your own servant enters his/her mock courtroom to address your own corporate strawman.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
    Mujahideen likes this.
  7. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Did you read the case, my friend? Sure doesn't seem like it.

    Because the Berberian v Lussier case is related to due process - - just as the Escobedo case was.

    Had you made an attempt to educate yourself, you would have discovered Berberian's appeal was denied.

    "It is our opinion that the provisions of the act requiring the registry to suspend licenses and to determine the amount of security to be deposited to avoid suspension does not constitute a delegation of judicial power so as to be repugnant to the constitutional prohibition.

    The complainant's appeal is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings."
     
  8. Silver

    Silver Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've got bigger fish to fry than fighting with cops, courts, and going to jail about driver licenses, license plates, insurance, etc.
    I think we have a right to travel, but the system is so entrenched and the population is willing to go along with it. Nothing is perfect, but I manage to travel without much hassle - it cost modest amounts of money to not be a target, so I pay.
     
  9. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Weren't you the one trying to play word games and insist that operating a vehicle as a driver was somehow different than operating a vehicle as a traveller?

    It's one thing for you to have a limited vocabulary but quite another for you to be a hypocrite with a limited vocabulary.
     
  10. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well now that's a bold claim sir IQ51. Suppose you produce some evidence of said claim? ...or is that too intellectually challenging for you...friend?

    I've no idea to which post you're referring, but I'd not have claimed that "operating" was anything other than engaging in commerce.

    I've nothing against stupid people, but stupid people that don't realize they're stupid are rather annoying.
     
    arminius likes this.
  11. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    All you have accomplished is to subvert & divert ad nauseum answering the question... Where & how is the PRIVILEGE jurally & legislatively created? Is it a privilege because they say it is? Or is there some evidence of legislation that creates the privilege. A privilege must confer a benefit and/or create a right.... If you seek credibility to support your claim then please explain! Our position is supported by 100's of cases, you have only brought the Miller case & that case is from the 9th Cir.... LOL

    Privilege .... its a legal flim flam scam! sheesh.

    DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

    By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

    For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

    http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml
     
  12. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Unfortunately there's always going to be a lunatic fringe of misinformed kooks who insist a centrury of case law should be disregarded based on their laughable interpretations.
     
  13. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truth tellers are always labeled lunatics, misinformed, and kooks in corrupt societies.

    Truth teller Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his so called...lunacy.
     
  14. Silver

    Silver Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My dad was born in 1925 and got his first car at 12 (his uncle bought a new Model A - which he paid for with $600 in silver dimes - and gave my dad the old Model T). Nobody needed a drivers license, but the state (Texas) started encouraging people to get a drivers license as a way to have an ID and to "promote safety". It was voluntary, but it morphed into something less than voluntary.
     
    arminius and BarnacleBob like this.
  15. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Chief of Police Jack McLamb discovered the cold hard truth about the DL & reg. scam! His research & case citations support traveling w/o a DL, registration & tag as a matter of constitutional right!

    Yep, I suppose you think he's one of those dellusional fringe elements with no training in the law!

    http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml

    2017-06-04-16-19-23-77915935.jpeg
     
  16. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Instead of just blindly posting cut and paste articles, take a moment to actually read the cases you're citing.

    The Thompson v Smith case was about delegating legislative power - - revoking the PRIVILEGE of driving - - to an administrative officer - - the police chief.

    If you'd taken a moment to actually read the entire Thomson v Smith case you'd realize the court actually upheld the ability of the state to legislate traffic laws and to revoke ones PRIVILEGE to drive.
     
  17. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Except you're not telling the truth when you insist there case law which rules people can drive without valid drivers licences.
     
  18. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63

    You're trying to use the fundamental right of travel to encompass the PRIVILEGE of driving.

    No court in America has ever held that a person can drive without a valid drivers licence. Or that a person has a fundamental right to drive that cannot be revoked for any reason.

    You continue to post random snippets about "the right to travel" from random cases, but not one of them ever ruled that a person can drive without a valid drivers licence.

    Driving - - or operating a motor vehicle for the purpose of travelling - - is a PRIVILEGE, my friend. It is NOT a fundamental right. Because if it were, no court would ever be able to rule against blind people having the "right" to drive or convicted drunk drivers maintaining the "right" to drive.

    You can argue all you want about how you feel driving - - and driving without a valid drivers licence - - should be considered a fundamental right, but the courts of America have ruled for more than a century that it's not.
     
  19. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again with the false claims. I have not, would not ever have said that and I defy you to prove otherwise. We both know you won't be proving your wild claims.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Show me where in & at law traveling w/o a DL & reg is a privilege. I have already agreed that "driving" a "motor vehicle" is commerce & is therefore regulateable & taxable... this is not in question. However in the absence of operating in commerce or commercial activities associated with carry passengers, or cargo or even wreckers for a profit, fee, fair or any other value how does the state create a privilege from the exercise of a constitutional right? Why are tractors, combines, farm trucks, construction equipment & even bicycles exempt from the privilege & legally operate on the roads w/o a DL, registration & tags???
     
  21. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Reference Post #114 and your attempt to refute my comment that no court in America has ever ruled that people should be permitted to drive without a valid drivers licence.
     
  22. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Your asinine insistence that driving a motor vehicle only occurs when engaging in commerce absolutely defies logic. One of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

    For all intent purposes the courts define "driving" as operating a motor vehicle. As do the traffic laws of each state.

    It makes ZERO difference if you were delivering pizza, going to visit relatives or travelling to the beach - - if you're behind the wheel and operating a vehicle you're ruled to be driving.

    Next time you get busted for drunk driving, try going to court and telling a judge you were drunk travelling not drunk "driving" and see how successful that is.
     
  23. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Just as I suspected, you cannot prove the source of the so called PRIVILEGE you continue to unabatedly reference. Lacking any proof to support your contentions you now resort to acrimonious dialogue.

    There has been a tremendous amount of cases to support the position that driving is only a privilege when engaged in commerce, and the contention that the state issued certificate of title creates the legal nexus to the privilege... You havent even offered up any source or legal theory to support your use of the word PRIVILEGE. Sorry, just because the drivers handbook says its a privilege doesnt make it so! Your arguments are baseless & hollow...
     
  24. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah yes...I see the problem now.

    You can't Fn read. LOL
     
  25. Silver

    Silver Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    2,952
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good point!
     
  26. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,921
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    kid banty.jpg


    i'm having this vision.

    in this vision there is this banty little rooster, that despite being small of stature and having the worlds smallest cock, secondary to his imperious never give in psychopathic nature, and clucking words of art designed by other roosters of his ilk to subjugate the other barnyard animals, made his basic small stature insecurities feel like the worlds biggest and most powerful prick, as he was able, at least on the interwebs where his smallness couldn't be seen,and squeeky voice couldn't be heard, and a bad ass scary name put fear in the hearts of anyone (the goal) who would listen to him and believed his cluckins enough to give him pickins, which was his ultimate goal behind the campaign...
    kid 2.jpg

    i'm sure this can be expanded with more words of art...
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
    TRYNEIN and solarion like this.
  27. edsl48

    edsl48 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,212
    Likes Received:
    1,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again travel was at one time a right until the people let the various Governments enact regulatory laws based upon the old "public safety" ruse.

    Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. However, this was not always the case. When automobiles were first introduced around the turn of the twentieth century, drivers relied on common law traditions that protected the right of every person to travel upon public roadways without a license. Courts repeatedly wrote of an individual's "right to travel" by automobile and struck down regulations aimed at limiting the liberties of automobile drivers on constitutional grounds. With the passage of time, however, automobile regulators generally prevailed in legislative halls and courtrooms. Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans. This paper analyzes this change in common law and suggests that even if most Americans are unaware of it, the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.
    Roots, Roger, The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950 (July 2005). Oklahoma City University Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 245, 2005. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1772042

    From the cited Maryland case "
    Kansas & Texas Ry. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, 233 U. S. 648, and cases cited.

    The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves.

    Once again rights were changed into privileges via the old public safety scam that has created the over regulated mess we are in today.
     
    Joe King and Silver like this.
  28. edsl48

    edsl48 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,212
    Likes Received:
    1,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As for the next time you get busted on a dui remember that DUI started out at .15 and now is down to .08 BAL due once again to the assorted nany staters and Governmental agencies needs for fine monies. Today we see a picture from the 1960s of an apparent drunk being equated with a driver at .08. I would suggest rather than talking to the Judge refusing to take the breathalyzer test and even more important do not take the field sobriety tests that are designed so that 35% of totally sober individuals can not pass.

    Note how a former US Attorney handled his DUI arrest just last week

    The former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Illinois is facing a driving-under-the-influence charge after being in a single-car accident in Troy.

    Stephen R. Wigginton, 54, of Troy, was charged with driving under the influence, faulty headlight, failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident and leaving the scene of an accident on May 23.

    “The reports and charges have been forwarded to the Madison County state’s attorney for further action,” Troy Police Chief Brad Parsons said in an email.

    Wigginton was not immediately available for comment.

    Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Gibbons said he would ask that a special prosecutor be appointed to the case. Before he became U.S. Attorney, Wigginton worked part-time as a Madison County state’s attorney.


    Troy Police Department responded to a single-vehicle crash involving a 2009 Cadillac in the eastbound lane at the 400 block of U.S. Highway 40, Parsons said.

    “The driver left the scene of a property damage accident where his vehicle left the roadway. The driver smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage and his eyes were red and glassy in appearance,” according to a sworn report filed May 24. “The driver admitted to drinking an alcoholic beverage. The driver was unable to complete the field sobriety testing.
    Wigginton refused to take a Breathalyzer, according to the report. He posted $100 bail and was released.

    Wigginton resigned as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 24, 2015, to work for a private law firm.

    Wigginton became U.S. attorney in August 2010 after former U.S. President Barack Obama nominated him to serve as the top prosecutor in the state’s southern 38 counties. Wigginton, a Democrat, replaced Republican Courtney Cox, who was appointed to the position in 2007.

    Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Gibbons said at the time: “Steve has been extraordinary. With his leadership, the U.S. attorney's office has grown into a nearly unstoppable force for justice at all levels in our region. They are tremendous partners with all of us and they work directly with everybody to make sure we get the best results on cases and make sure we can do the greatest amount of good for the community. He will be missed.”
    http://www.bnd.com/news/local/article153608214.html
     
    Silver likes this.
  29. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really. You've agreed to an impaired contract when you agreed to be licensed. IOW you're already a licensed "driver".
     
  30. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Reference Post #105. But for your benefit, I'll explain it again.

    Since there's no mention of driving in the constitution - - obviously since it pre dates the automobile by more than a century - - the powers of licensing and traffic law falls to the individual states as per the 10th amendment.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    There is not one single instance of case law to support the nonsensical idea that driving is a fundamental right. Not one in more than a hundred years.

    Courts freely acknowledge that travel is indeed a fundamental right, but are quick to rule there's many other means of transportation besides automobiles for travelling.

    I've provided you with the Miller v Reed aWe law where the appellate argued he shouldn't require a licence to drive/travel.

    "Miller contends the DMV violated his fundamental right to interstate travel by depriving him of the use of his primary means of travel, driving an automobile.   Miller provides no precedent supporting his contention that, absent a lack of due process, denial of a driver's license is tantamount to denial of a constitutional right."

    "We conclude that by denying Miller a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself-the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller's right to interstate travel."
     
  31. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Don't bother getting your drivers licence renewed and when you get pulled over and charged for driving without a valid licence, you can try your luck in court arguing that you weren't actually driving without a licence you were just "travelling".

    That argument has been unsuccessful for more than a century but you never know, maybe one day there'll be a precedent setting case.
     
  32. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That is 100% correct.

    I give you credit for acknowledging that fact of law, even though you may not agree with it.
     
  33. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude you're so full of brown stuff. More than a century eh? So like 1916? You talk about black dress wearing lieyers like they're freaking deities.

    BTW I'll wait while you tell Silver he's a liar...
     
  34. edsl48

    edsl48 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,212
    Likes Received:
    1,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is only a privileged because the public gave up their right to drive based upon the fears instilled upon them by the politicians with the usual public safety scare.
    Please don't quote me out of context.
     
    Silver likes this.
  35. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,866
    Likes Received:
    4,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Thanks for that post, very informative.

    As for the safety excuse they used, most States didn't even require any type of test until years after licenses were instituted, so even the excuse of "safety" was doubly bogus. Ie: its all about them Benjamin's.
     
  36. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes, more than a century. That's why I've been telling you to read the cases - - educate yourself so you've got an understanding of the matter.

    Hendrick v Maryland - - US Supreme Court ruling from January 1915
    "In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."

    Kane v New Jersey - - US Supreme Court ruling from December 1916
    "The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and broadly sustained."
     
  37. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,095
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is pretty simple there is a law for people engaged in commerce and no law for private use by people traveling in an automobile.

    Driving and motor vehicle are commercial terms.
     
  38. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63

    That's not what the courts have ruled for more than a hundred years, but feel free to believe whatever misguided interpretation you may have.
     
  39. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,095
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
  40. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...and I've been telling you the exact same thing everyone here has been telling you for page after page, but rather than respond to what others say, you just keep regurgitating the same lieyer trickery. We all know what the fascist black dress wearing lieyers have said. I said this way back at post #92, but here you are again regurgitating the same nonsense and pretending like everyone else has a reading comprehension problem.
     
    Bigjon likes this.

Share This Page