RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this?

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

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

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 3:02:45 PM)
Now here is the definitions from blacks that ron was whining about. The definition in the law dictionary for vehicle is correct! The definition in the statute has been expanded to mean literally anything as I said even your shoes. When you go to court they are not going to pull out the law dictionary and use that definition. They are going to use the statute definition and tell you to suck eggs! It would at least be more difficult to take it to that extreme if they stuck with #2. TRANSPORT transport,vb. To carry or convey (a thing) from one place to another. CARRY carry,vb. 1. To sustain the weight or burden of; to hold or bear <more weight than a single person can carry>. 2. To convey or transport <carrying the coal from one state to another>. NOW PAY ATTENTION HERE! THAT STATUTE USED BOTH 1 AND 2 OF CARRY! 2 which is what should have been used is in conformance with federal code. 1 expands it to anything and mo money for them. I do not know how much more clear I can make it for anyone. I am not saying I agree with this fucked up way of doing business but it IS the way the gubafia operates regzrdless how I feel about it. which is why I bring it to everyones attention. CARRIER carrier. 1. An individual or organization (such as a shipowner, a railroad, or an airline) that contracts to transport passengers or goods for a fee. Cf. SHIPPER. [Cases: Carriers 3, 235. C.J.S. Aeronautics and Aerospace § 179; Carriers§§ 2, 385.] common carrier.A commercial enterprise that holds itself out to the public as offering to transport freight or passengers for a fee. o A common carrier is generally required by law to transport freight or passengers or freight, without refusal, if the approved fare or charge is paid. - C VEHICLE n. 1. Something used as an instrument of conveyance. 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air. This definition is not quite as broad in number 1 and more closely matches the federal definition, bot not as broad as the wisconsin definition. 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, except railroad trains. Now I posted the definition for device earlier and a shoe is properly a device as it is man made, you do not grow a shoe. Your feet are in or upon your shoes, the locomotive force is applied by your legs and the combination of locomotive force and your shoes carrying the weight of your body serves to transport your body and convey it from place to place. Did that statute mean shoes? Probly not. Can it mean shoes? Absolutely. I really do not know how much more clear I can be.

ResidentSadist -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 4:03:33 PM)
Being a motor-head from Detroit,I'll be glad to clear this up for ya'. Anything with less that 325 hp is not considered a "real" vehicle.............. it's a hoopie. As far as the gym shoes go, if it's a nice pair and you're in high school, and you don't carry a gun, they are just robbery bait. Hope that clears it all up for ya'.

Casteele -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 6:55:10 PM)
FR Interesting how something so simple can turn in to multiple arguments from multiple sides, many of which are not even on topic, just related in some strange way. In the OP, there were statements made, and only one question posited: quote: So according to the state "WHAT" is officially "motor vehicles"? But the OP answered their own question when they posted the statute by which the state defined a motor vehicle. So I don't understand why the question needed any further answers. It becomes rhetorical. I don't see what the whole shoe thing has to do with the question that was asked; At least not without "stretching" and "twisting" the terms and such to fit, but one can stretch and twist almost anything to fit their needs. However, I am going to address the whole shoe issue, anyhow.. How is a shoe (or pair of shoes) considered a device which transports? Again, if you want to stretch/twist things, you can say it is the shoes which transport/convey your body from point A to point B. But then we could also say that it's not the engine nor the containing frame and body that transports a car from point A to point B, it's the tires that do the transportation. Therefore, you can try getting out of a DUI by arguing that the tires are not self-propelled, and therefore you were not operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. It's be interesting to see someone get out of a DUI making such an argument. So really, can someone clearly and irrefutably show that shoes are a form of transportation/conveyance, rather than just protective coverings of the feet? It's the legs and feet which I believe most would agree are the method by which transportation occurs, and they do not classify as "device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn".. unless, again stretching things, that you are a man-made device because your mom and dad did the dirty to "create" you and are therefore man-made. See how easy it is to stretch things in to absurdity?

RexDarcy -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 7:23:12 PM)
If I were in a car accident and was the one charged at fault, I doubt a judged would over turn the charge if I argued, "Your Honour, since I was wearing shoes, the accident is not My fault. Because My Nikes transported My foot to the gas pedal instead of the break."

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 4:16:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Now here is the definitions from blacks that ron was whining about. That is typical of your tinfoiling, it is not what was asked. I asked for the definition of device from Blacks. You by your refusal to answer this question, and point out in detail the accusation that you made (which wasn't there) regarding the upside down usage of words in the opinion, is proof of your dishonesty and proof that you lie.

Lucylastic -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 5:28:55 AM)
HAH I knew his trolling of P&R had to do with you calling him out! dammit to hell

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 6:00:11 AM)
dont get your panties in a twist now. Ddevice blacks [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/device.jpg[/image] yep exactly what I said it was. oh and the part that yoiu want to concern yourself with is "ANY RESULT OF DESIGN"

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 6:01:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic HAH I knew his trolling of P&R had to do with you calling him out! dammit to hell show me one thread that is not trolling? hmm?

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 6:07:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RexDarcy If I were in a car accident and was the one charged at fault, I doubt a judged would over turn the charge if I argued, "Your Honour, since I was wearing shoes, the accident is not My fault. Because My Nikes transported My foot to the gas pedal instead of the break." he would think you were insane (and so would I) trying to use it to get out of an accident, likewise a DUI etc LOL

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 6:08:41 AM)
when you want to find out what a word means you usually have to look up all the words from the definitions it references as well.

Lucylastic -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 6:09:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic HAH I knew his trolling of P&R had to do with you calling him out! dammit to hell show me one thread that is not trolling? hmm? of yours? yeah you have a point, very true. What was I thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19u8-0Hxr04

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 6:19:14 AM)
anyone who thinks that the exact interpretation of words have no meaning in law needs to get on meds. Likewise anyone who thinks that the general meaning of a word is the same as its meaning in law is smoking some really good shit.

stellauk -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 8:30:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Now I posted the definition for device earlier and a shoe is properly a device as it is man made, you do not grow a shoe. Your feet are in or upon your shoes, the locomotive force is applied by your legs and the combination of locomotive force and your shoes carrying the weight of your body serves to transport your body and convey it from place to place. Did that statute mean shoes? Probly not. Can it mean shoes? Absolutely. I really do not know how much more clear I can be. A shoe is a device? In what language? When you walk you are travelling on foot, you are a pedestrian.

RexDarcy -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 9:03:34 AM)
RealOne, if that arguement was used by Me or anybody else, I surely hope insanity IS considered and driving privaleges are forever suspended.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 9:25:35 AM)
well like many people (myself included many years ago), you are combining everything and mixing it all up in one big bucket without distinction. The problem with that is that ya fail to see the fine distinctions that law makes in nearly every situation. In other words I can make laws, (as they have) that completely circumvent your rights while at the same time when read in the vulgar you would swear you have them intact. You frankly demonstrated my biggest gripe about law makers, it is too complicated for someone to simply at a glance understand it in the common vlugar. Not to mention ignorance of the law is no excuse does not matter there are well over 60,000,000 of them and growing! we are expected to just shut the fuck up and take it, or hire an attorney to first interpret that shit mess they call law and then pay them 5000 bucks per document over the most simple shit you can think of as a result of government incursion on your lives. If you ever get the opportunity to see the way these people in the gubafia can abuse their powers under the radar of courts system you would shocked. Most people fighting for rights wind up broke and destitute and simply bowled over by the system. But thats america!.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 9:29:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Now I posted the definition for device earlier and a shoe is properly a device as it is man made, you do not grow a shoe. Your feet are in or upon your shoes, the locomotive force is applied by your legs and the combination of locomotive force and your shoes carrying the weight of your body serves to transport your body and convey it from place to place. Did that statute mean shoes? Probly not. Can it mean shoes? Absolutely. I really do not know how much more clear I can be. A shoe is a device? In what language? When you walk you are travelling on foot, you are a pedestrian. that does not negate any other definition from standing unless positively coded and enacted by the legislature and even that will not, at least in an honest court, (good luck finding one in america), that is will not trump rights of nature. (usually referred to as common law now also bastardized into statutes) By that you are also human, you are also transporting your body I am not sure what your problem is with show being a design? Like I said earlier unless it grows naturally off of your body the only other option is that it was designed and added as an accessory to or for your body. Shoes certainly come under that category

outhere69 -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 10:10:49 AM)
Say RO, why don't you just go send all this stuff to all your local representatives. They may care more than we do. For that matter, why do you argue these threads here? Surely you'll get more of a reception with Alex Jones, prisonplanet, etc.

stellauk -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 10:16:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Now I posted the definition for device earlier and a shoe is properly a device as it is man made, you do not grow a shoe. Your feet are in or upon your shoes, the locomotive force is applied by your legs and the combination of locomotive force and your shoes carrying the weight of your body serves to transport your body and convey it from place to place. Did that statute mean shoes? Probly not. Can it mean shoes? Absolutely. I really do not know how much more clear I can be. A shoe is a device? In what language? When you walk you are travelling on foot, you are a pedestrian. that does not negate any other definition from standing unless positively coded and enacted by the legislature and even that will not, at least in an honest court, (good luck finding one in america), that is will not trump rights of nature. (usually referred to as common law now also bastardized into statutes) By that you are also human, you are also transporting your body I am not sure what your problem is with show being a design? Like I said earlier unless it grows naturally off of your body the only other option is that it was designed and added as an accessory to or for your body. Shoes certainly come under that category Ah so it's a design now? Are you a lawyer? Is this how you argue in court? If so, all I can say is .. wow.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 11:18:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: outhere69 Say RO, why don't you just go send all this stuff to all your local representatives. They may care more than we do. For that matter, why do you argue these threads here? Surely you'll get more of a reception with Alex Jones, prisonplanet, etc. we are on a first name basis fortunately they take it seriously when all else fails scream tinfoil, alex jones, anliens and lizards! why study law? It has nothing to do with you right?

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/9/2012 11:23:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Now I posted the definition for device earlier and a shoe is properly a device as it is man made, you do not grow a shoe. Your feet are in or upon your shoes, the locomotive force is applied by your legs and the combination of locomotive force and your shoes carrying the weight of your body serves to transport your body and convey it from place to place. Did that statute mean shoes? Probly not. Can it mean shoes? Absolutely. I really do not know how much more clear I can be. A shoe is a device? In what language? When you walk you are travelling on foot, you are a pedestrian. that does not negate any other definition from standing unless positively coded and enacted by the legislature and even that will not, at least in an honest court, (good luck finding one in america), that is will not trump rights of nature. (usually referred to as common law now also bastardized into statutes) By that you are also human, you are also transporting your body I am not sure what your problem is with show being a design? Like I said earlier unless it grows naturally off of your body the only other option is that it was designed and added as an accessory to or for your body. Shoes certainly come under that category Ah so it's a design now? Are you a lawyer? Is this how you argue in court? If so, all I can say is .. wow. No its been design since several pages back. As I explained to rex, when you desire to understand what a word means you need to look up all the words for the defintion as well. You may want to take note that its ALL ABOUT WORDS face lifts and paint jobs! Your kingee ole boy stood up one day and proudly declared that the UK no longer is a fuedal nation! WOOHOO! What he forgot to mention is that subinfuedination was given a new paint job and is now called substitution by grantor grantee. same shit new paint and that system came to the states.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875