Is "searcher" a "Subject"?

[searcher]

Hi,Famspear,
You,Famspear say: "It was obviously a revenue-generating enterprise for the government."
PLEASE !! That sounds like something I would conclude. You should be ashamed of youself. Your statement sounds like some of the sovrunt mentality has found a way to get inside your head. Hey !! Thanks to webhick, I think I now know how to get a Smilie to my comment.

[searcher]

pottapaug,
You say in pertinent part: >Leaving aside the issue of whether or not you do indeed have those cases -- which, I doubt,....
I do, & for starters to "see" how it WAS, not,IS,of course that depends on what your definition of is,IS, but let's start with, > "City of Chicago v. Collins 175 ILL. 445, especially Pgs. 456, 457."

I have more cases on the way it was, & the way it IS now, but the case above is enough for now.

[Pottapaug1938]

pottapaug,
You say in pertinent part: >Leaving aside the issue of whether or not you do indeed have those cases -- which, I doubt,....
I do, & for starters to "see" how it WAS, not,IS,of course that depends on what your definition of is,IS, but let's start with, > "City of Chicago v. Collins 175 ILL. 445, especially Pgs. 456, 457."

I have more cases on the way it was, & the way it IS now, but the case above is enough for now.

That's the best you can do -- an opinion in one state from 1898? Since all fifty states have licensure and registration requirements for drivers and for motor (and other) vehicles, all enacted after 1898, you need to come up with something which is much more current, and which has not been modified or overturned by a subsequent law or decision.

[searcher]

I have many more cases from many other states, but as I said, that one is "just for starters." Didn't want to overload you with too much at one time. I sign in, write out my response,click to submit the response, & instead of my response being posted, the site takes me back to sign in & my response is lost. I have spent the last 7 hours responding for nothing, which I guess is the same difference if my comments were posted. I will now try one last time.
Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P. 2d. 136, 140; People v. Nothaus, 363 P.2d. 180,182; Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645; Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kansas, 671, 674; Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P. 2d 721, 725 [8], 728; and, Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144, Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S., page 264;Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43; Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 540.

[searcher]

That one,my last response went through ok. I guess my responses,before, were too long for them to be posted. I wanted to include the "pertinent part excerpts" from the last post that did go through but maybe that is what made my responses not capable of being posted. I did include the pertinent part excerpts at that time.
Will you be so kind,if you can & provide the City of Chicago v. Collins 175 ILL. 445, "link?" I had the entire case saved, but somehow that got lost too. I am trying to go back to the beginning, how it was, & see the "gradual changes" that took place. Everything has a beginning, middle, & end. People don't seem to care enough to cut & paste what I submit to have an exact order of what I submit. Trying to piecemeal events ,etc. is difficult for me. It is impossible for me to summarize over 150 years of stealthy enchroachments,& the reversal of the original order of things in a couple of paragraphs.

[ashlynne39]

searcher, after re-reading your posts it seems to me that the only things you are searching for is a group of people who will give you the answers you want to hear and people who buy into the same theories you do. Unfortunately for you, we tend to operate on common sense, case law and facts, not unprovable hidden meanings of things.

If you're not willing to listen to reason, unwilling to debate your point of view properly and wish to continue to throw out random and unfounded accusations of mistreatment, then I would suggest you find another site - one which is willing to put up with such nonsense.

Yes but dear heart famspear won't be on another site

This is the same old nonsense just a different person spouting it. Personally I love a good case from the 1800s and made sure to throw one in to all my moot court arguments. But this line of discussion "supported" by an 1800s cas is going nowhere fast.

[searcher]

ok, pottapaug, explain this. The State Trooper WROTE: "I advised the "subject" of his rights, per Miranda." No, English is not my 1st language but,is the subject matter as you call it, a male?e.g. HIS RIGHTS. Per Miranda? Does subject matter need to be given a miranda warning? Who was the deputy sheriff refering to when he told the dispatcher,> Subjects are everywhere, I estimate betwen 250 & 300." 250 & 300, WHAT ?

[searcher]

Re:You also haven't addressed, with any specificity, which unalienable rights you are trying to discuss (and as I said before, I suspect that the "right to travel" is involved).

I HAVE addressed this too !! TWICE !! BUT when I click on the SUBMIT button, I am taken back to "SIGN IN" which I had already done, & when I sign in AGAIN, I am taken back to a blank page to comment again, & the same thing happens again. I click on the submit button & after that, the next thing I see is a page that gives me the PRIVILEGE of signing in again. FUNNY AIN'T IT !

[searcher]

webhick,> then I would suggest you find another site - one which is willing to put up with such nonsense.
Any suggestions on other sites? Other than, Alfred Adask? I'm not interested in,"Adask "Law."
I would like to know of a Common Law site, but we don't have Common Law, no mo. We have Statutory Law, & Statutory Courts. I have learned this much & know this much & you know this too !! Statutory Courts of Record.

[wserra]

FUNNY AIN'T IT !

The adjective I'd go with is "pathetic", but to each his own.

webhick is a site admin. If you want to stick around, I'd listen to her. Hopping about like a rabbit on meth is neither the best way to frame an argument nor to contribute to a board.

[Pottapaug1938]

ok, pottapaug, explain this. The State Trooper WROTE: "I advised the "subject" of his rights, per Miranda." No, English is not my 1st language but,is the subject matter as you call it, a male?e.g. HIS RIGHTS. Per Miranda? Does subject matter need to be given a miranda warning? Who was the deputy sheriff refering to when he told the dispatcher,> Subjects are everywhere, I estimate betwen 250 & 300." 250 & 300, WHAT ?

Well, if English is NOT your first language, then I will explain it one last time. In the police report, you were the "subject", just like you are the subject of this post. In other words, YOU are what we are talking about. In the case of a "Subject", as in the United Kingdom, the citizens of that kingdom have no sovereignty, in any individual or collective sense, but are the "subjects" of the Sovereign who does. In the United States, there are no "subjects" of that sort, and you will find no law or court decision which says otherwise.

[webhick]

I HAVE addressed this too !! TWICE !! BUT when I click on the SUBMIT button, I am taken back to "SIGN IN" which I had already done, & when I sign in AGAIN, I am taken back to a blank page to comment again, & the same thing happens again. I click on the submit button & after that, the next thing I see is a page that gives me the PRIVILEGE of signing in again. FUNNY AIN'T IT !

Logins time out after a specified period of time (5 minutes, IIRC). If you take longer than that to make a post, then you will lose your post. There is a way around this: If you check off "Log me on automatically each visit" when you log in, it will be a lot less likely that your posts will be lost if you take too long to make them. If you don't want to check that box, then you'll have to copy and paste your post into a program like Notepad before you submit so that you won't lose it if you have to log back in

[webhick]

webhick,> then I would suggest you find another site - one which is willing to put up with such nonsense.
Any suggestions on other sites?

We are a scam-busting site, not a referral service for scam sites. If you can't play nice here, then it is up to you to find a site where you'll fit in better.

[The Observer]

I have spent the last 7 hours responding for nothing, which I guess is the same difference if my comments were posted.

I wish to commend you on your deep insight and honesty in recognizing this about your posts.

[Pottapaug1938]

Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P. 2d. 136, 140; People v. Nothaus, 363 P.2d. 180,182; Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645; Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kansas, 671, 674; Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P. 2d 721, 725 [8], 728; and, Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144, Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S., page 264;Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43; Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 540.

Okay -- we have raw case citations. Now, for two more questions: what was the holding in each case; and given that all 50 states now have laws requiring licensing of drivers and registration of motor vehicles, why have none of these cited cases overturned any of these laws?

[The Observer]

Now, for two more questions: what was the holding in each case; and given that all 50 states now have laws requiring licensing of drivers and registration of motor vehicles, why have none of these cited cases overturned any of these laws?

Why do you insist on getting to the heart of matter? Can't we just linger on the fringes and debate irrelevancies instead?

[Pottapaug1938]

Now, for two more questions: what was the holding in each case; and given that all 50 states now have laws requiring licensing of drivers and registration of motor vehicles, why have none of these cited cases overturned any of these laws?

Why do you insist on getting to the heart of matter? Can't we just linger on the fringes and debate irrelevancies instead?

We can always do that in the Saving to Suitors circle-jerk.

[grixit]

I remember one case involving a state where the traffic tickets said "Violator". One person refused to sign it, on the grounds that they were not a violator, that was just the opinion of the cop and if they contested the charge then the principle of innocent until proven guilty applied. The court agreed and the wording on the tickets was changed.

[Dr. Caligari]

I have many more cases from many other states, but as I said, that one is "just for starters." ****
Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P. 2d. 136, 140; People v. Nothaus, 363 P.2d. 180,182; Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645; Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kansas, 671, 674; Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P. 2d 721, 725 [8], 728; and, Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144, Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S., page 264;Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43; Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 540.

Searcher:
1. Do you have a point?
2. If so, what is it?
3. Do these cases have anything to do with your point?
4. If so, what do they have to do with it?
5. Have you read these cases?
6. If so, what do you think they say, and how does this relate to your point, if any?

[Pottapaug1938]

I have many more cases from many other states, but as I said, that one is "just for starters." ****
Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P. 2d. 136, 140; People v. Nothaus, 363 P.2d. 180,182; Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645; Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kansas, 671, 674; Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P. 2d 721, 725 [8], 728; and, Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144, Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S., page 264;Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 14; Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 540.

Searcher:
1. Do you have a point?
2. If so, what is it?
3. Do these cases have anything to do with your point?
4. If so, what do they have to do with it?
5. Have you read these cases?
6. If so, what do you think they say, and how does this relate to your point, if any?

I looked at a selection of cases; and to say the least I was not at all surprised to find that none of the cases had anything to do with anything significant. The Schecter case has to do with a law requiring automatic suspension of drivers' licenses, after an accident, unless the parties involved posted a security bond to ensure compensation of damages. The Swift case is from 1890, and deals with riding bicycles on sidewalks. The Foster's case is quoted in a case having to do with the constitutionality of parking meters. the Packard case, from 1924, deals with mandatory liability insurance for taxicabs and such. The Davis case has to do with regulation of speech on Boston Common.

I'm not going to bother with the others, because since each of the cases cited has no relationship to any asserted right to travel, free of licensure or registration requirements concerning the operation of motor vehicles, it is clear that "searcher", like Harvester, Van Pelt, "lorne" and so many others, has offered us nothing more than a word salad of case citations, probably gleaned from some Internet source without any effort being made to read the cases and find out what their holdings are.

I would still like searcher to answer #1 and #2 above; but as far as I can see he need not answer #3 through #6, because I can see no rational point which could be made using these case citations as persuasive authority.