RE: Common Law and rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/19/2010 9:50:09 PM)

de jure
adj. Latin for "lawful," as distinguished from de facto (actual).

Still, under the constitution, it is only courts or judiciary as established by the congress of the united states.

Grand Jury
n. a jury in each county or federal court district which serves for a term of a year and is usually selected from a list of nominees offered by the judges in the county or district. The traditional 23 members may be appointed or have their names drawn from those nominated. A Grand Jury has two responsibilities 1) to hear evidence of criminal accusations in possible felonies (major crimes) presented by the District Attorney and decide whether the accused should be indicted and tried for a crime. Since many felony charges are filed by the District Attorney in a municipal or other lower court which holds a preliminary hearing to determine if there is just cause for trial instead of having the Grand Jury hear the matter, this function is of minor importance in many jurisdictions. 2) to hear evidence of potential public wrong-doing by city and county officials, including acts which may not be crimes but are imprudent, ineffective or inefficient, and make recommendations to the county and cities involved. Example: a Grand Jury may recommend that a new jail is needed, find that there is evidence of favoritism in the sheriff's office, that some city council members are profiting by overlooking drug dealing by city staffers, or that judges are not carrying a full load of cases to be tried.



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/19/2010 9:53:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

de jure
adj. Latin for "lawful," as distinguished from de facto (actual).

Still, under the constitution, it is only courts or judiciary as established by the congress of the united states.


your point is?



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/19/2010 10:08:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

de jure
adj. Latin for "lawful," as distinguished from de facto (actual).

Still, under the constitution, it is only courts or judiciary as established by the congress of the united states.

Grand Jury
n. a jury in each county or federal court district
well you just answered your provost marshal question

which serves for a term of a year and is usually selected from a list of nominees offered by the judges in the county or district. The traditional 23 members may be appointed or have their names drawn from those nominated. A Grand Jury has two responsibilities 1) to hear evidence of criminal accusations in possible felonies (major crimes) presented by the District Attorney and decide whether the accused should be indicted and tried for a crime. Since many felony charges are filed by the District Attorney in a municipal or other lower court which holds a preliminary hearing to determine if there is just cause for trial instead of having the Grand Jury hear the matter, this function is of minor importance in many jurisdictions.

yeh its only due process who needs it?

2) to hear evidence of potential public wrong-doing by city and county officials, including acts which may not be crimes but are imprudent, ineffective or inefficient, and make recommendations to the county and cities involved.

the foxes gaurding the henhouse

Example: a Grand Jury may recommend that a new jail is needed, find that there is evidence of favoritism in the sheriff's office, that some city council members are profiting by overlooking drug dealing by city staffers, or that judges are not carrying a full load of cases to be tried.



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/19/2010 10:12:11 PM)

Hold on, I thought de jure meant of the day, as in "in the present". Is my Latin at fault ?

T



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/19/2010 10:21:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Hold on, I thought de jure meant of the day, as in "in the present". Is my Latin at fault ?

T



here you go term

it goes without saying I always use law dicts, blk 8th

DE FACTO
de facto (di fak-toh also dee or day), adj.[Law Latin “in point of fact”] 1. Actual; existing in
fact; having effect even though not formally or legally recognized <a de facto contract> 2.
Illegitimate but in effect <a de facto government>. Cf. DE JURE.

DE JURE
de jure (di juur-ee also dee or day), adj.[Law Latin “as a matter of law”] Existing by right or
according to law <de jure segregation during the pre-Brown era>. Cf. DE FACTO; DE GRATIA.

de jure government.A functioning government that is legally established. — Also termed
government de jure.


1791 circa is the last dejure federal constitution


what we have since lincoln is de facto,

A lie can stand as a fact if not challenged and that is what they did essentially.    This government is designed to operate on force.  Anything they do that is not fought over becomes de facto.   (exists in fact, not necessarily in law)

Had the people known they were lied to by deception, the federal reserve, dumb fuckers thought federal meant department of the government after 20 years it becomes institutionalized.  Hence the creation of the federal reserve.  People did not protest it and "insure" it did not come into existence.

Few people realize that this country was designed in such a manner that you have to be willing to give up your life for what you believe or just pay pay pay because they will rape you laugh and rape you again.  (as they have and continue to do)

so now when you do the sovereign you exist as a matter of law and of course law always establishes the fact at law and trumps the "this is the way we do it"

I have said it many times that if people study the law you can get them for fraud at every turn because its all based in fraud but you cant do that if you dont have standing.

An attorney wont do it because he wont shit where he eats any more than anyone else would.  Neither will the grand juries unless they have their asses backed so tight in a corner thay cant move.

Exactly why judges will tell people the constitution has no place in their court.  according to the defacto rules they are right too.



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/19/2010 11:13:04 PM)

"A lie can stand as a fact if not challenged and that is what they did essentially"

Now that is the main point Ken will never understand re challenging jurisdiction. I can demonstrate it in one paragraph.

Just about every state has mandatory insurance, and let's not even get into that fact that they can only enforce that on people who have a contract with the state ala a driver's license. Let's just ignore that for a moment.

Now let's say someone from a foreign country is here driving on an IDP. In their country certain aspects of the insurance are bult into fuel prices. One of the reasons they pay so much for "petrol". So they go to Iowa for example and get into a minor fender bender. Whatever municipality they are in, and even the state of Iowa cannot imprison them. Why ? What's more a state cannot even suspend an IDP. This is what I should have used arguing with Ken, silly me, I thought the truth would be better than a hypothetical situation. What was I thinking ?

So obviously jurisdiction is at issue and once challenged must be proven. What's more the preponderance of the last paragraph pretty much proves that it is not as simple as drawing lines on a map.

Now see how easy I made that look ? No cites, no quotes, just an arraingement of facts in the proper order. You need that kind of guile to make this shit work for you, and really I have found that there are so many other ways around things that I just don't need to jump off that cliff.

T



DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/19/2010 11:47:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"A lie can stand as a fact if not challenged and that is what they did essentially"

Now that is the main point Ken will never understand re challenging jurisdiction. I can demonstrate it in one paragraph.

Just about every state has mandatory insurance, and let's not even get into that fact that they can only enforce that on people who have a contract with the state ala a driver's license. Let's just ignore that for a moment.

Now let's say someone from a foreign country is here driving on an IDP. In their country certain aspects of the insurance are bult into fuel prices. One of the reasons they pay so much for "petrol". So they go to Iowa for example and get into a minor fender bender. Whatever municipality they are in, and even the state of Iowa cannot imprison them. Why ? What's more a state cannot even suspend an IDP. This is what I should have used arguing with Ken, silly me, I thought the truth would be better than a hypothetical situation. What was I thinking ?

So obviously jurisdiction is at issue and once challenged must be proven. What's more the preponderance of the last paragraph pretty much proves that it is not as simple as drawing lines on a map.

Now see how easy I made that look ? No cites, no quotes, just an arraingement of facts in the proper order. You need that kind of guile to make this shit work for you, and really I have found that there are so many other ways around things that I just don't need to jump off that cliff.

T

International driving permits do not include vehicle registration. Liability insurance is tied to the vehicle registration not to the license. I could own 2 cars and only register and insure 1. The other wouldn't be legal to drive but my license would have nothing to do with that. A person driving here on an IDP still needs a legally registered car, such as a rental.

This still has nothing to do with challenging jurisdiction. You are wrong and you have been shown to be wrong repeatedly and you persist. Why?



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 12:17:17 AM)

Ken, do you have a perceptual difficulty or what ?

OK, my name is Joe Kirk and I am here from England. I am relatively well to do and however it happens I am visiting you. You have a spare car that you don't drive nor insure because you have a bunch of cars, and you keep license plates on it because there is no more room in your garage. I need a car, I got money. You say, OK and hand over the keys. I put some gas in it and after getting directions go to the store and get refreshments and some meat for a cookout. On the way back I get into a little fender bender, neither driver is cited, it is simply a dangerous intersection. Of course I do not have insurance but I have plenty of money and pay the damages off if at fault.

They tow YOUR car.
YOUR license is in jeopardy for wrongful entrustment.
If I don't pay, I still have the DL in my own country and my IDP.
If I don't pay YOU must pay or lose YOUR DL.
If I do pay YOU might still take a charge for wrongful entrustment because you didn't call your insurance guy at 11:00PM on a Friday night.

I get on a plane next Thursday and absolutely nothing has happened to me.

I just can't make it much more fucking plainer than that.

T



pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 5:22:11 AM)

Want to confuse them?

Slap an Albaniun license plate on your car.



DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 7:24:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Ken, do you have a perceptual difficulty or what ?

OK, my name is Joe Kirk and I am here from England. I am relatively well to do and however it happens I am visiting you. You have a spare car that you don't drive nor insure because you have a bunch of cars, and you keep license plates on it because there is no more room in your garage. I need a car, I got money. You say, OK and hand over the keys. I put some gas in it and after getting directions go to the store and get refreshments and some meat for a cookout. On the way back I get into a little fender bender, neither driver is cited, it is simply a dangerous intersection. Of course I do not have insurance but I have plenty of money and pay the damages off if at fault.

They tow YOUR car.
YOUR license is in jeopardy for wrongful entrustment.
If I don't pay, I still have the DL in my own country and my IDP.
If I don't pay YOU must pay or lose YOUR DL.
If I do pay YOU might still take a charge for wrongful entrustment because you didn't call your insurance guy at 11:00PM on a Friday night.

I get on a plane next Thursday and absolutely nothing has happened to me.

I just can't make it much more fucking plainer than that.

T

Driving a car without a valid registration is the issue. He would immediately lose the IDP. He wouldn't be able to get another one valid in the US until he paid all the fines and damages, I would be civilly liable as it was my property involved but I wouldn't be cited for driving ithout registration since I didn't. Wrongful entrustment is a novel idea and some research shows its an ohio only thing. If I was an Ohio resident in the situation involved I could be charged with a very minor misdemeanor, i.e. get a ticket. No where in Ohio law does it say wrongful entrustment would affect my DL. The vehicle could be impounded for 30 days for the first offence but that's it.

This still has nothing to do with jurisdiction. The foreigner driving on our streets is subject to our laws. They can't just drive as they please and get out of the inevitable traffic stops by claiming the local LEO's have no jurisdiction over them.



pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 7:28:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Ken, do you have a perceptual difficulty or what ?

OK, my name is Joe Kirk and I am here from England. I am relatively well to do and however it happens I am visiting you. You have a spare car that you don't drive nor insure because you have a bunch of cars, and you keep license plates on it because there is no more room in your garage. I need a car, I got money. You say, OK and hand over the keys. I put some gas in it and after getting directions go to the store and get refreshments and some meat for a cookout. On the way back I get into a little fender bender, neither driver is cited, it is simply a dangerous intersection. Of course I do not have insurance but I have plenty of money and pay the damages off if at fault.

They tow YOUR car.
YOUR license is in jeopardy for wrongful entrustment.
If I don't pay, I still have the DL in my own country and my IDP.
If I don't pay YOU must pay or lose YOUR DL.
If I do pay YOU might still take a charge for wrongful entrustment because you didn't call your insurance guy at 11:00PM on a Friday night.

I get on a plane next Thursday and absolutely nothing has happened to me.

I just can't make it much more fucking plainer than that.

T

Driving a car without a valid registration is the issue. He would immediately lose the IDP. He wouldn't be able to get another one valid in the US until he paid all the fines and damages, I would be civilly liable as it was my property involved but I wouldn't be cited for driving ithout registration since I didn't. Wrongful entrustment is a novel idea and some research shows its an ohio only thing. If I was an Ohio resident in the situation involved I could be charged with a very minor misdemeanor, i.e. get a ticket. No where in Ohio law does it say wrongful entrustment would affect my DL. The vehicle could be impounded for 30 days for the first offence but that's it.

This still has nothing to do with jurisdiction. The foreigner driving on our streets is subject to our laws. They can't just drive as they please and get out of the inevitable traffic stops by claiming the local LEO's have no jurisdiction over them.


Do you have an International occupancy permit for your home?

Under cap and trade you need one.



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 8:36:41 AM)

"He would immediately lose the IDP"

So you're saying that a traffic cop can revoke something issued in another country ?

Granted there is a culpability factor, but that's preposterous. They would have to sue (or whatever) across international borders to get that over, otherwise it just ain't happening.

Look I am not completely siding with the people who invoke the name YHWH on their court documents and think that there is some silver bullet that indemnifies them from any legal action whatsoever.

The point I am trying to get across is that jurisdiction is not as simple as drawing lines on a map. If you can't grasp the concept, why are you even in this thread ? You're a bigger waste of time than all the "crazoids" in here put together.

Really, you don't agree, you will never agree, and if you think you are some sort of a guardian you can plainly see that people are not heeding your advice to tow the line and be good little sheeple so what is the point ? Do you just have that much time on your hands or what ?

I said "I get on a plane next Thursday and nothing happens to me". How the fuck do you know better ?

Interesting though that other states do not have unlawful entrustment laws. But in Ohio, since it is handled in traffic court you can lose your DL if you don't satisfy the court. You can lose your license in this state for damnear anything, and that's why the movement was so big here partly. In fact I am pretty sure you can lose your DL for anything here, it's called a warrant block. Ironically that means you can possibly lose your DL for jaywalking. How's them apples ? You like the people who made it that way ? You side with them, you support them ?

There are no loopholes built into the law ? That seems to be your contention. Is it really ?

Ohio is getting to the point where the cops are afraid to stop people, because so many are under suspension. The jails are full and they just don't want the paperwork. That's why alot of people just don't bother. There are people here driving for decades unlicensed and uninsured. It isn't worth it. They snatch is so fast that it is no longer a joke. People can't afford it. Now people try to fight back and all you can do is put them down. Thanks a fuckin lot.

Oh, and I forgot one thing, wrongful entrustment here carries the same weight as drunk driving, it is a first degree misdemeanor which means a $1,000 fine AND six months in jail max. Not all that minor is it ?

T



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 9:10:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Driving a car without a valid registration is the issue.

This still has nothing to do with jurisdiction. The foreigner driving on our streets is subject to our laws. They can't just drive as they please and get out of the inevitable traffic stops by claiming the local LEO's have no jurisdiction over them.


Me thinks he is playing tricks on you T.

You see when the word driving which is a commercial activity is used in that claim he is correct, nothing more then legalese fucking word games he likes to play.

He wont ever use the word travel in its place hoping no one will pick up on his slight of hand, precisely how the guv does it and does it so well.  ALL smoke and mirrors.

Buillshit Ken, I am a foreigner in my own state to the guv (dont let that blow yer lil mind tho), and not only did I operate an automobile on the hiway but the cop who threatened to kidnap me by means of armed assault no longer works there.

I know thats beyond painful for you gatekeepers.







Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 10:48:18 AM)

Your turn Real. You operated a vehicle ? The hell you say. I prefer to travel by conveyance. I know that means little, but since we are splitting hairs.........

How much is a license and insurance for a horse and buggy ? Wait now, we can't have these Amish people thinking they can do whatever they want now. What's the difference ? A car runs on gasoline using an internal combustion engine for propulsion. In Ohio if it is over five horsepower you "need a license". Well if you have a buggy pulled by four horses you better hope they're not too strong. After all horses eat hay, that comes from the ground. The buggy is not a bicycle because it has more than two wheels. It is capable of killing if misused. Pollution control is in effect as well, as now you must pick your horse's shit up off the road. You can be cited for an equipment violation for various things even in a buggy.

They will protect you no matter what you do, even walking. How long do you think it'll be until they require a license to walk ? I talked to a guy from RUSSIA who had never before heard of a fishing license. Ken would probably argue tht the income derived from fishing licenses help maintain nature somehow, as if the government invented it. Perhaps you don't need a fishing license in Russia because all the fish died due to neglect. Amazing how some species' can survive for millenia and just drop dead because we didn't maintain them properly. Russia must truly be a backwards country, I bet all their TVs ar black and white and all their cars are stick shift. Actually do they even have cars ?

A license for walking. Well a few years ago on TV I saw an interlude between the boys in blue and someone who was walking down the street. They recognized him as someone who was wanted and said "Hey, we're offering a special today, a free warrant check" so the guy produces ID and gets hauled off to jail for a warrant. You zee his paperes vere not in order ! He must've jumped bail for murder or something huh ? Fucking criminal.

Looking at the title of this thread I am starting to think that we are concentrating on driving a bit too much and not getting down to the core. Some people live their whole life without ever driving a car. It's rare now but both of my Grandmothers did it. One had five kids to drive her around and the other took the bus. There is more to life than that.

If we keep poking Ken around with the driving issue (pun anyone ? ) he's probably going to crash the findlaw website, and if he is not a subscriber to that he better shut the fuck up. Of course even findlaw is fallible. But the point is rights, not specifically driving. 

The driving factor (different sense) behind the movement is the realization that none of us own anything. If the can take your house for nonpayment of taxes it is not much better than renting. I met a guy paying $12,000 a year in property taxes. This is in Ohio, here you can easily rent a nice place for a thousand a month. Are the roads and sewers that much better in his neighborhood ? I think not. Because he has a bigger fancier house in a histoical district the taxes are very high. Let me put it another way, THEY have a big fancy house in the right area so the rent is higher. Is the crime lower ? No. Is the crime lower because of superior city services ? Not in that area as far as I can tell. Because of the square footage, type of construction and area, the rent is high. Does he use the sewers and roads more than I ? I don't think so and if you want to talk about sewers, I get a bill for that every four months. He only has one car, I have had as many as five at a time. The taxes he pays allows me to drive over the bridges and roads in his area, why is he paying for my convenience ?

I can play both sides of this game, but for now it's _______'s turn. There is so much. There are so many points but one thing is common. People are polarized on this issue to the point that we might as well just run this thread to eternity, there is no sense in starting another. Actually you probably know where those proerty taxes go. They do not go directly to a contractor to build the roads, bridges, city hall and schools. In some communities it augments federal money, which was our's in the first place. They just get control of the money, which is what is really important. The take it and if we're good they will give some of it back. This is the worsest, nastiest business in the world and what it amounts to is a bully taking your lunch money and only giving you back enough for a bag of chips, while he eats a nice steak. Be nice to the bully, or you won't even get the bag of chips. Just shutup and realize that's the way it is.

Modern government in a nutshell. Some people seem to like it. I think most of the sheeple would make good subs, they are already servants, working only for the bully. Given a scrap now and then to keep them going. Living just enough for the city.

You don't understand Real, that you have only scratched the surface, this situation extends much farther than most can even imagine. People are used to it, and that is one of the reasons they are so easy to manipulate, especially now that the feds have control over our progeny's indoctrination. And as long as people go too far and antagonize the bully, rather than insidiously usurping their indocrination nothing we do means a goddamn thing. That means that AT BEST, with everyone convinced and on the same page, it will be a generation before anything significant is achieved to abate this situation. Fuck, it'll take two generations just to get to that point.

Get this, all this shit is a reason for great consternation for me. I have completely lost my lust for life. Perhaps in a way that makes me truly free, which is of little consolation. I am just free to observe the injustice and inhumaniy. I would like to go out in a blaze of glory but for two reasons. For one, there is no one target who's elimination would do any good for the world. I can't gather the pack of bullies up and try the suicide bomber thing. And just going off in any way will just result in the curtailment of more fredoms for those who are left. But now that I think of it maybe that isn't a bad idea, and I have considered it. But what will happen is the next generation will be born into it and accept it just like the sheeple of today.

You go ahead and give the bully a black eye, or a bloody nose and make his eyes water. But if you get you head slammed into the asphalt in the playground don't say you were not warned. More power to you, best of luck. I'll be here. So will our resident bully representative. You know who that is.

Dig deeper and find out more. Learn until you find out that all this shit is a manifestation of human traits, lust for power over others and wealth. When you really do find the root of the problem you will see it as I do. We as a race are a bunch of kids. Wants outweigh needs, no matter who's. The fact that until people change, nothing will change. In time they will close all the loopholes and resort strictly to selective enforcement and there will be no out. No opting out, no redemption, no nothing.

And when you finally realize this, you will know something much more ugly. This country is composed of people who mainly ran away from their problems, not realizing that it is impossible. The problems followed and we will be just like countries where you need a license for a fucking TV set, but people will be born into it. They will think it is the way it should be. They will tell you that the TV tax supports the TV stations and shit like that, just like a fishing license here. People will think that the government actually put the fish in the lake. The government will be their God. If there is a real God who gives a fuck, he wouldn't like it too much. Maybe our follies do somehow cause earthquakes and floods, but I don't think it's because of Gays in the military or Iranian Women showing their hair.

Then you can be like me, and want no part of the larger part of humanity ANYWHERE. That is your destination, like it or not.

T



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 11:19:32 AM)




well in the old days it was we push they push back and they always won.  Now days we understand the game and when they push we pull.  Using exactly their methods that they have used on us all these years right back on them.  Needless to say they are not happy. 



DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 12:56:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"He would immediately lose the IDP"

So you're saying that a traffic cop can revoke something issued in another country ?

An IDP is simpy an official translation of a DL. They're recognized in some places and in those places they're treated just like a DL. In the US if you commit a serious driving offence the officer takes your license. The LEO would also take the IDP if that was being used as proof of licensing. The same US laws about driving on a ticket would likely apply.

quote:

Granted there is a culpability factor, but that's preposterous. They would have to sue (or whatever) across international borders to get that over, otherwise it just ain't happening.

Not even remotely true. The officer who cited them would have their DL and IDP and they would be required to pay the fine just like anybody else before getting them back.

quote:

The point I am trying to get across is that jurisdiction is not as simple as drawing lines on a map. If you can't grasp the concept, why are you even in this thread ? You're a bigger waste of time than all the "crazoids" in here put together.

Really, you don't agree, you will never agree, and if you think you are some sort of a guardian you can plainly see that people are not heeding your advice to tow the line and be good little sheeple so what is the point ? Do you just have that much time on your hands or what ?

No. I have plenty of time to humiliate bigots and tell the truth.

You're now not even still aerguing that 'challenge jurisdiction' is some magic bullet for getting away with breaking the law which was your original claim. Why do you not simply acknowledge you had no idea what you were talking about or at least slink away to some other topic?



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 1:03:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You're now not even still aerguing that 'challenge jurisdiction' is some magic bullet for getting away with breaking the law which was your original claim. Why do you not simply acknowledge you had no idea what you were talking about or at least slink away to some other topic?



dooooooood you dont even know what breaking the law is.  This has all been gone over with you how many times but you still just dont get it.



jlf1961 -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 2:23:14 PM)

Real, most people acknowledge the fact that the state and federal governments and court systems have jurisdiction and authority to enforce laws.

The fact that you do not, which sooner or later will bite you on your ass, IF what you say is true. Personally I am beginning to believe you are either 1) an idiot, or 2) a troll.

Again, why dont you just hang around boards where your brand of ignorance is accepted and appreciated.



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 2:27:54 PM)



I prefer hanging around boards where your brand of ignorance is accepted.  You cant even properly state my position.  You couldnt get it right if you tried because its major beyond your comprehension.



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 3:07:04 PM)

"The LEO would also take the IDP if that was being used as proof of licensing"

This is another point where we simply can't seem to make one another understand.

The LEO would most probably confiscate the IDP, I do not argue that point especially if, as you say it was the proof of licensing. That was never in dispute. However neither the officer nor the state can suspend or revoke it whatsoever. It would be a simple matter to get a copy, but it might take a trip back to the "old country".

They CAN however declare it null and void in their jurisdiction, and that is where drawing lines on the map comes in. But they lack the legal authority to invalidate the IDP, and I would bet that they would have to return it, and it most likely would be made known that it is no longer valid, THERE. But they did not issue it. It will be perfectly valid anywhere else.

This is where the finer points of jurisdictional challenge comes in. I am not going into that because it seems like hell will freeze over before we even can put this ad hoc argument behind us. You cannot go beyond that which you cannot pass. In fact if people kept that in mind while driving we would have no need for insurance.

As far as the olman goes, I'll see if my Mother might have the actual letter from the state of Iowa stating that NO license from anywhere in his name would be considered valid there. That would date it. You might find yourself to be wrong buddy, because it is not inconcievable that only certain counties had the requirement. It was certainly before reciprocity. And that would go a long way to explain why the statie would not allow the arrest to take place. I'll see if I can find out for sure. Hopefully it will be archived somewhere as a public record, lest you call me and my family liars again. Stand by.

T

To add. I just talked to her and she is almost sure she doesn't have it, but told me it happened in 1969 or 70.

T



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875