The State Shouldn't Be Able to Require Driver's Licenses

I presented case law where the same sort of idiotic nonsense you keep spewing was shot down. You are going to the crackhead websites where people post this nonsense. Are you so incredibly dense that the fact eludes you that they cannot provide their readers with even one documented case of this drivel convincing a court of anything but their imbecility?

Yes, it's true, the drivel you have read has been passed around for long enough that some idiots believe it. And you're right, that doesn't make it true. But apparently you're unable to connect the dots.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You come on back and let us know how that works for you then. Of course, actual proof will be required if you are to be believed as as you suggest, anybody can say anything on the anonymous internet, even if it isn't true.



actually, it's a TOLL road and toll roads are not private roadways. They are merely highways the state has decided to charge for each use. While the administration of some of the toll roads has been taken over by private entities (the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana 80/90 highway as a couple examples), the road itself remains in the ownership of the government entity that has always owned it. Even with those types of situations, most tollways remain owned and controlled by the state they are located within.



then go ahead and provide some citations of his winning court battles.


and that is meaningless. A cop is not obligated to write a ticket but even if they don't, it does not support the argument no law was broken. Only a court can make that determination.





and here is a Google search for UFO witnesses who claim they have first hand experience with aliens.


https://www.google.com/search?q=ufo+...hrome&ie=UTF-8


without proof, neither charlie's claims nor the ufo whacko's claims mean anything.


who believed it to be true? There was never any proof to support the claims so the claims of such weapons are a lot like Charlie Sprinkle's claims; unfounded

btw; the claim of weapons of mass destruction were never the reason we went to Iraq. At best, it was an excuse to enter for the actual reason which was to depose Hussein.

---

Yes, it was a lie to get america to do something. Why would they raise such a stink about wmd's vs getting that t-bag out of there.... anyways

I take it you didnt watch the videos so the comments you make about them dont mean much to me, even though you creatively brought in UFO's just to make things sound even more conspiracy like and yet had no comment about what i said about the ohio constitution and so forth so im assuming you agreed with what i said based on your silence, which even in law, silence means you agree without speaking... look that up.

So now i wonder if i should even bring proof because you people will just dismiss it and say something kooky about ufo's and how pigs fly.

http://www.dismissticket.com/Testimonials.html shows some tickets that were dismissed. as far as their validity, i have no idea.


And as far as toll roads (sorry for the misspelling) there are private ones. else they would be public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privat..._United_States
In what may serve as a "test case" for the privatization of other major highways in the United States, on June 29, 2006, the state of Indiana received $3.8 billion from a foreign consortium made up of the Spanish construction firm Cintra and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, and in exchange the state ceded operation of the 157-mile (253 km) Indiana Toll Road for the next 75 years to these outside corporations. The consortium will collect all the tolls.[3]

I actually watched one of the Charlie videos. What a joke. He has nothing but unproven claims of what happened. He tells a tall tale that has no substance just like so many other folks that enjoy the notoriety it brings them.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I presented case law where the same sort of idiotic nonsense you keep spewing was shot down. You are going to the crackhead websites where people post this nonsense. Are you so incredibly dense that the fact that they cannot provide their readers with even one documented case of this drivel convincing a court of anything but their imbecility?

Yes, it's true, the drivel you have read has been passed around for long enough that some idiots believe it. And you're right, that doesn't make it true. But apparently you're unable to connect the dots.

---

i dont care what the government and so forth have conditioned us to believe we have to follow. if i feel with my own intellect, that it violates something, im going to act on it. I dont take everything at face value. But with reading the definitions and reading some of the case laws and watching some of the videos, reading the constitution time and time again as well as my states constitution, i firmly believe that it is a violation of our rights that I SWORE TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT. I took that oath, did you? I put my life on the line for that oath, lost some friends because of it, so maybe it just means more to me than you. And its not anarchy, its making sure that the rules and rights are fair, equal, and being followed so we arent being duped like Hitler did to his people.

Blacks Law Dictionary 9th edition:
ANARCHY. Absence of government ; state of
society where there is no law or supreme power ;
lawlessness or political disorder ; destructive of
and confusion in, government. People v. Mintz,
106 Cal.App. 725, 290 P. 93, 98.

I believe a government is needed, but it is a servant of the people and should not hinder my rights in their process without due process, which means they would have to add it to the THE US CONSTITUTION.

.

Quote:

---

And as far as toll roads (sorry for the misspelling) there are private ones. else they would be public.

---

please show me a private tollway in the US. If you think it is the Indiana toll road, you are wrong.

Quote:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privat..._United_States
In what may serve as a "test case" for the privatization of other major highways in the United States, on June 29, 2006, the state of Indiana received $3.8 billion from a foreign consortium made up of the Spanish construction firm Cintra and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, and in exchange the state ceded operation of the 157-mile (253 km) Indiana Toll Road for the next 75 years to these outside corporations. The consortium will collect all the tolls.[3]

---

From it's creation and dedication in 1956 until 2006, the roadway was owned and 100% controlled by the state of Indiana. Indiana still owns the roadway. They have sold the rights to operate the roadway as noted above. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I actually watched one of the Charlie videos. What a joke. He has nothing but unproven claims of what happened. He tells a tall tale that has no substance just like so many other folks that enjoy the notoriety it brings them.

---

I agree, no documented proof or video of what went on in the court room or transcript provided. so i take what he has to say with a grain of salt. as well as that dismiss ticket,i question their validity as well, but they show pictured of tickets dismissed but i question that as well because how easy these days would it be to just make one up.... I share the same suspicions as you all do, but im merely going off what the definitions have to say by legal dictionaries and constitutions and case laws as my proof of understanding. And with seeing cops not giving tickets for something that is a violation, makes me even more mad if in fact it is not a violation of our rights as i think it is.

Quote:

---

but im merely going off what the definitions have to say by legal dictionaries and constitutions and case laws as my proof of understanding

---

when you find a case that supports your claim, not merely a definition of a word, then you'll have something.

Quote:

---

And with seeing cops not giving tickets for something that is a violation, makes me even more mad if in fact it is not a violation of our rights as i think it is.

---

Well, Hell.

I've been stopped about 4 times for speeding and not given a ticket. I guess that means I really wasn't breaking the law but alas, I actually was. The cops just felt it would not serve justice or they just wanted to be nice and didn't write a ticket. Not being ticketed does not mean there wasn't a law broken. There are many reasons a cop may not write a ticket.

You have intellect? Where? You certainly aren't showing any signs of it here.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

.

please show me a private tollway in the US. If you think it is the Indiana toll road, you are wrong.









From it's creation and dedication in 1956 until 2006, the roadway was owned and 100% controlled by the state of Indiana. Indiana still owns the roadway. They have sold the rights to operate the roadway as noted above. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

---

In the mid to late nineteenth century, private toll road building was particularly active in the West including California and Nevada. In Nevada, over 100 private toll roads were laid out between the 1850s and 1880s, some of them nearly 200 miles (320 km) long. The owners included stage companies, miners, and ranchers who built the roads, at least in part, to attract business for their primary investments.[1]
By the turn of the twentieth century most toll roads were taken over by state highway departments. In some instances, a quasi-governmental authority was formed, and toll revenue bonds were issued to raise funds for construction and/or operation of the facility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_r..._United_States

Regardless to whom claims they "own" it, it was private with specific interests involved. Notice it says "for the privatization of". Indiana claims ownership of it but borrowed money from other sources than taxes which they have to pay back to those private companies. Just because the "state" owns it doesnt mean it cant be private. If it were public, then they wouldnt be allowed to charge a toll for us to travel on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

You have intellect? Where? You certainly aren't showing any signs of it here.

---

How so, definitions, case laws, and some videos, which i agree are questionable to there validity as i dont have the papers in my hand of what they talk about, arent enough for you to pursue looking into it yourself? You dont question the very "law" itself with this information i have brought before you because some need proof that it worked. Like the guy of the last video i posted where they couldnt prove beyond a reasonable doubt lol. common man. do you need a hot pan to hit you in the head for it to be proof that it holds its own ground.

I'd like to get ahold of the case where this was stated:

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

But you see, you haven't even begun to convince me that there's anything to look into. I don't have time enough to waste looking into nonsense, which is all you have spouted so far.