quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

They actually changed the game, tilting the playing field in their advantage.

Let's take that one. They ruled that driving on the public roads, no matter what you call it is a priveledge. Why did they have to do that ? Obviously someone had a pretty damn good case I would think. The Ohio supreme court involved in a traffic case ? There must be good reason no ?

So now most of us just knuckle down, get plates and shut up. The fight is not worth it at this time. Repression, it sure is. For the the greater good, public safety and all that ? Ostensibly. A big money game ? Definitely.

So I could make copies and you could go get a BIG P.O. box. Or I could scan and send everything in email, which would save me a ton of paper. It'll probably take 200-300 MB of harddrive space. Which do you prefer ?

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Driving, Vehicle, Passenger, Hire is ALL commercial.
Traveling, Automobile, Guest, No Hire, are ALL NONCommercial.

Not in New York.  I had to get commercial plates simply because I had a shell on the back of my truck.  No matter how I swore up and down that it was just my own transportation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

This pretend lawyer is good he can know the outcome without reading the case.

I say you are wrong and I put forward the case of J.L. Woodbridge versus the state as precedent.

There that'll take up some Google time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Happy to DK, but I need a bit of advice on just how to do that as it is easier said than done. Most of the most important material I have is in four file cabinets, or they are the destination. I just moved. After finding everything I will scan it, and leave it in JPG format to ensure some degree of authenticity. I might have to dig up a floppy disk reader as well because that's where my UCC files are. At that point then I can send attachments via email. This includes statutes, trial transcripts and other things that are just about impossible to find on the net. So what am I to do ? Ignore the people I personally know who have won this game as if they never existed ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The statutes say 'operate a motor vehicle' not drive or travel. Claiming one is commercial and one isn't is irrelevant. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle as defined by statute on the public way then you have to be licensed and the vehicle must be registered and insured.

So where is your superior knowledge on thesubject? Facts only please not handwaves or bald assertions that you know facts you cannot produce.

really? 

Just like when someone is claiming YOU owe a for a bill and you claim its not your liability.

Completely irrelevant!

Can you hear me LMAO

(who are you trying to snag with your play on words or is this like a really personal argument with yourself?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The statutes say 'operate a motor vehicle' not drive or travel. Claiming one is commercial and one isn't is irrelevant. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle as defined by statute on the public way then you have to be licensed and the vehicle must be registered and insured.

So where is your superior knowledge on thesubject? Facts only please not handwaves or bald assertions that you know facts you cannot produce.

really? 

Just like when someone is claiming YOU owe a for a bill and you claim its not your liability.

Completely irrelevant!

Can you hear me LMAO

(who are you trying to snag with your play on words or is this like a really personal argument with yourself?)

I'm calling you out then. Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any styatute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The statutes say 'operate a motor vehicle' not drive or travel. Claiming one is commercial and one isn't is irrelevant. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle as defined by statute on the public way then you have to be licensed and the vehicle must be registered and insured.

So where is your superior knowledge on thesubject? Facts only please not handwaves or bald assertions that you know facts you cannot produce.

really? 

Just like when someone is claiming YOU owe a for a bill and you claim its not your liability.

Completely irrelevant!

Can you hear me LMAO

(who are you trying to snag with your play on words or is this like a really personal argument with yourself?)

I'm calling you out then. Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any styatute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.

When all else fails demand that I prove up "your claim" on a completely false premise!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The statutes say 'operate a motor vehicle' not drive or travel. Claiming one is commercial and one isn't is irrelevant. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle as defined by statute on the public way then you have to be licensed and the vehicle must be registered and insured.

So where is your superior knowledge on thesubject? Facts only please not handwaves or bald assertions that you know facts you cannot produce.

really? 

Just like when someone is claiming YOU owe a for a bill and you claim its not your liability.

Completely irrelevant!

Can you hear me LMAO

(who are you trying to snag with your play on words or is this like a really personal argument with yourself?)

I'm calling you out then. Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any styatute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.

When all else fails demand that I prove up "your claim" on a completely false premise!

So you can't actually prove that the supposed legal distinction you base your entire claim upon even exists. Why didn;t you say that this was pulled out of some nutjob's ass and had no basis in reality 7 pages ago?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The real question is why are you in this discussion in the first place since you have already shown us that you are incapable of comprehending the cases posted on the previous pages?  you dont even understand the basis and framing of the OP.

quote:

Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any statute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I think he'll take that as a "No."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The real question is why are you in this discussion in the first place since you have already shown us that you are incapable of comprehending the cases posted on the previous pages?  you dont even understand the basis and framing of the OP.

Actually the real question is:

quote:

Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any statute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The real question is why are you in this discussion in the first place since you have already shown us that you are incapable of comprehending the cases posted on the previous pages?  you dont even understand the basis and framing of the OP.

Actually the real question is:

quote:

Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any statute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.

yeh I fully comprehend what you are saying man.

you dont.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
Not in New York.  I had to get commercial plates simply because I had a shell on the back of my truck.  No matter how I swore up and down that it was just my own transportation.

what do you mean by had too?

Someone told you that you had too and you most likely believed them.

You would be shocked at how much shit they tell you that you "have" to so thats not even in the code in stat land and you certainly dont in common law.  (unless you are operating commercially then of course you owe it to the public)