Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

Real0ne -> Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/4/2012 1:22:08 PM)

Yeh!

Here is a prime example of syntax terrorism or as one Judge said "verbicide".

As we can see the definition of vehicle could as well mean also your shoes!

So according to the state "WHAT" is officially "motor vehicles"?

quote:

340.01.(35) “Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a combination of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle, which is self−propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail. “Motor vehicle” includes, without limitation, a commercial motor vehicle or a vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated on rails.  A snowmobile and an all−terrain vehicle shall only be considered motor vehicles for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.

340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains. A snowmobile or electric personal assistive mobility device shall not be considered a vehicle except for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.




anyone?






Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/4/2012 5:26:51 PM)

Wow!

Not one response on this???????????????

So much for ignorance of the law is no excuse huh?

Should have been able to rattle this off in a new york second.






mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/4/2012 5:32:25 PM)

not a problem, no takers on this waste of thought,  common footwear does not meet the necessary and sufficient conditions to be called a device.

No more to the story than that.



outhere69 -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/4/2012 7:56:40 PM)

Man, didn't we go through the same argument about 2 years ago?



Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 6:56:49 AM)

Not exactly but it certainly would come into play if we were to go there.

Its really simple and frankly I am shocked that no one has come forward with the correct answer.

It begs the question how anyone can be held accountable for law they do not understand?

I mean since ignorance of the law is after all no excuse



Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 6:58:00 AM)

WTG ron pick the non issue! 

Ignorance of the law is no exceuse!



mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 7:08:44 AM)

You made the totally incorrect statement that the two disjointed paragraphs from some source unknown (but most likely from the cheesehead state) said that your shoes can be construed as a vehicle, now, having had many chances to see your 'legal' conniptions here, and seeing that you do not understand law, I gave you the legal view.

This also revokes the incendental opinion artifact that you brandish unskillfully out here regarding right to travel.  In codified law it is easily discernable that one needs a license to operate a mechanized vehicle on our roads.

Grab up your Blacks and check out the word, device.  You got one, you tell us, alla time. 



Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 7:33:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You made the totally incorrect statement that the two disjointed paragraphs from some source unknown (but most likely from the cheesehead state) said that your shoes can be construed as a vehicle, now, having had many chances to see your 'legal' conniptions here, and seeing that you do not understand law, I gave you the legal view.

This also revokes the incendental opinion artifact that you brandish unskillfully out here regarding right to travel.  In codified law it is easily discernable that one needs a license to operate a mechanized vehicle on our roads.

Grab up your Blacks and check out the word, device.  You got one, you tell us, alla time. 


anything designed, a contrivance etc

r1 = 1
otter = 0

The question is once again what is a "motor vehicle"?







mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 7:38:05 AM)

“Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a combination of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle, which is self−propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail. “Motor vehicle” includes, without limitation, a commercial motor vehicle or a vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated on rails.  A snowmobile and an all−terrain vehicle shall only be considered motor vehicles for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.






for that state.  read what the hell you are having gand mals about and it might not seem so bad. 

the pathetic definition for device is not out of Blacks.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 7:53:10 AM)

its out of the one congress uses LOL

restating the code is not telling us what things are classified as a motor vehicle.  another dodge



Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 7:59:24 AM)

The important thing here is that this shows how the dulocracy was created and how the slaves simply follow the marching orders of the american ruling class, people not with standing



mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 8:10:55 AM)

yeah, i know this is the nietzschean transcend and perish.  

so the definition of a motor vehicle based on the law that congress gives for the motor vehicle definition, is not the definition of the motor vehicle under discussion?   You have some actual title code citations for that incredible bit of legal unconciousness? 



mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 8:43:56 AM)

the self propelled part only narrows it down for their purposes of that statute, meaning that even though shoes could be construed as a vehicle in the general definition it is not construed as a motor vehicle in the more specific definition.
 
Again, 'device' would rule out common footwear in the vehicle definition .
 
So now we are down to nothing, which is what we started with, there is no point, there is nothing of import in these two (separated by some 30 paragraphs redacted) chunks of cheesehead code.    It has no political or religious import.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 8:56:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

the self propelled part only narrows it down for their purposes of that statute, meaning that even though shoes could be construed as a vehicle in the general definition it is not construed as a motor vehicle in the more specific definition.
 
Again, 'device' would rule out common footwear in the vehicle definition .
 
So now we are down to nothing, which is what we started with, there is no point, there is nothing of import in these two (separated by some 30 paragraphs redacted) chunks of cheesehead code.    It has no political or religious import.


the footwear was not part of the question that you continually avoid! but you insist it was THE question.  I never said a shoe was a MOTOR vehicle.

another fail for you!

again what is a motor vehicle based on those definitions provided by the statute.

oh and a shoe is most certainly a device to protect your feet.  LOL

You know like steel toed boots!  welcome to rons wierd wierd world!



mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 9:08:42 AM)

there is no issue to sidetrack.  this is nothing about nothing as usual.

What is the issue? what is a motor vehicle?
in the cheesehead state, it is codified in:

340.01.(35)

Which seems to be fairly straightforward.

Otherwise, I pretty much know a motor vehicle when I see one, and it does not depend on definitions in cheesehead law, which only concerns cheeseheads, and not minnesotans, nor anyone else on the planet.





Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 10:00:08 AM)

tell ya what, I am going to leave it at that as this is the wrong board to argue this matter because while I have plenty of case law, it will end up like last time where case law was given in support that clearly stated the position and you all scoffed it anyway and thi sis considerably more complicate than that. 





mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 10:02:04 AM)

render unto cheeseheads the things that are cheesehead...........and all that.



xXLithiumXx -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 10:04:58 AM)

What the hell is the point of this thread?

I mean, wow.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 1:10:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xXLithiumXx

What the hell is the point of this thread?

I mean, wow.


Lithi. If you EVER figure that out, please let the rest of us know.



Anaxagoras -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 1:44:33 PM)

Hill, as far as I understand it Real0ne is trying to make out even shoes could be vehicles, thereby limiting freedom even more. Early on he says:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the self propelled part only narrows it down for their purposes of that statute, meaning that even though shoes could be construed as a vehicle in the general definition it is not construed as a motor vehicle in the more specific definition.


Then after looking at what a vehicle is:
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I asked for the definition of a device from blacks law, which you claim to own. The 8th edition if I remember correctly. You did not provide it.

So, among other things shoes are not self-propelled, nor are they a device.


...R0 unfortunately doesn't address what the legal definition of a device would be but appeals to the more general use of the word:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
oh and a shoe is most certainly a device to protect your feet. LOL


However, simple reading of the text shows that shoes could not be considered "devices" in the general context of a "vehicle" given in the definition R0 provides:
quote:

340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway…


nor in "motor vehice" given in the definition he himself also provides:
quote:

340.01.(35) “Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a combination of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle, which is self−propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail.


...unless of course in R0's weird world shoes transport people rather than their legs or are somehow responsible for people being drawn across a given highway, and somehow are "self-propelled" devices. [:D]



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125