|
Jumpingmanjim posted:https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/777944131007938561 Paging Peter Watts, world's third most nefarious fish biologist.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Oh hey I pawed through all of your poo poo at the refuge, I feel like I've known you for years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:So why exactly do they think there is a difference between 'driving' and 'traveling'? It's an arbitrary distinction that just exists so they don't have to abide by the rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:So why exactly do they think there is a difference between 'driving' and 'traveling'? Because someone got their license suspended and wanted to keep driving, I mean, travelling by motor vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/777926725925638144 Linda Beck owns. https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/777943785581846528 "Your honor, how can we be sure that the FBI didn't poo poo in that ditch?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:So why exactly do they think there is a difference between 'driving' and 'traveling'? Long story short, there's some language in the Constitution saying that you're not allowed to force people to stay in only one state or town or whatever. Wikipedia posted:For much of American history, the right to travel included the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice, and courts occasionally struck down regional regulations that required licenses or government permission to travel on public roadways. With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways. So they're once again using outdated laws to claim that they don't have to do what the government says, like, say, pay for licenses or insurance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Bobulus posted:So they're once again using outdated laws to claim that they don't have to do what the government says, like, say, pay for licenses or insurance. One Weird Trick For Not Needing To Register Your Car Or Get A Driver's License Discovered By A Sovcit! The DMV Hates It!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:So why exactly do they think there is a difference between 'driving' and 'traveling'? A "driver" is a professional. I think it goes back to some old law dictionary definition about a guy driving a team of horses in an occupational capacity. Travelling represents basic freedom of movement, which is protected. Somehow the fact that you are still free to walk wherever without a license doesn't count. Yeah, I was close. http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml quote:The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license. Not sure how all that combines with the other common sovcit idea that the USA government, state governments, etc., are actually private corporations and not legitimate governments at all. If the government is actually a private corporation just pretending to be a government, then all supposedly public property owned by that private corporation must actually be private property, right? A private company has the right to set whatever rules it wants for traveling on it's own private property.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:A "driver" is a professional. I think it goes back to some old law dictionary definition about a guy driving a team of horses in an occupational capacity. Travelling represents basic freedom of movement, which is protected. Somehow the fact that you are still free to walk wherever without a license doesn't count. So basically, words and concepts only mean what is most convenient to them at that particular moment. Internet Webguy posted:
I pity the lawyer that has to have defending these morons using the arguments they demand on their record.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
berth certificates
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
I'm not really sure how they think that operating a motor vehicle is a right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I'm not really sure how they think that operating a motor vehicle is a right. Yes your honor, technically this is a stolen car, however I had GREAT NEED to return to my domicile and the fact that I am a Free Traveller does not take into account the conveyance. Or gently caress you guys I can use my milsurp tank down the highways it's travelling
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:berth certificates  Mors Rattus posted:I'm not really sure how they think that operating a motor vehicle is a right. Their concepts of rights aligns more or less directly with "I get to do whatever I want."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
This is pretty much the best way to sum up sovcit beliefs:
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
This was one of my favourite moments of insanity, Franklin Graham in a bearcat coming along to coax David Fry out. https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/778028336853331968
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Knight posted:I didn't see this referenced, but Ammon tried to motion for a mistrial because when his lawyer was cross-examining Sheriff Ward he asked about his decision to close the refuge during the takeover. As part of his explanation, Ward mentioned researching the Bundy's and finding out about the couple who murdered two police officers after being forced off the Bundy ranch and draping the body in the Gadsden flag and swastika. The remarks were eventually disregarded. Lol at asking for a mistrial after testimony that you have elicited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I'm not really sure how they think that operating a motor vehicle is a right. 1) The Constitution is an absolute guarantee of any and all rights contained therein and any law or rule that limits, constrains, or makes them abrogate their rights is automatically invalid and thus they do not have to obey it. 2) Any reading of the Constitution or the law that is semantically coherent is inherently valid. Taken together, it mean that they can do anything they want because the Constitution guarantees them virtually unlimited freedom. Neither belief, at least in such non-extreme forms, is all that uncommon. Plenty of folks think that the Second Amendment means that they can own nuclear, biological or chemical weapons or that the First Amendment means that Twitter can't ban them for being reprehensible shitlords. At work, I have to occasionally tell people that we can't do something because Legal thought that the risk was too great. The conversation typically goes like this: Me: "We can't do that because Legal says there's too much risk." Them: "But what if we do the exact same thing, but describe it using these different words?" Me: "That's the same thing." Them: "Okay, so I know that Legal says we can't do it, but what if we say [crazyass interpretation of the relevant laws, statutes, or regulations]" Me: "Sorry, but our lawyers don't agree with your crazyass interpretation of the law". Them: "You need to get new lawyers." Me: ... A lot of people seem to view the law as being without interpretation and that a judge is just an impartial arbiter of legal fact and that the law covers all circumstances clearly, so when there's a disagreement in court, all that the judge does is consult the relevant Big Legal Book and communicate the perfect and correct ruling. The idea that the judge could disagree with them or rule against them just doesn't factor in. Take both of those mindsets to the extreme, and you get the sovcit mindset. Subterfrugal posted:Lol at asking for a mistrial after testimony that you have elicited. Azathoth has issued a correction as of 04:30 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Meads v. Meads[/i] Is it very common for Canadian judges to turn their opinions into weird information pieces like this? I've never seen anything like this in American law, where it is strange and alarming (and sometimes unconstitutional) for a judge to do more than is necessary to decide the case at hand. I mean at most you get some dicta about hypotheticals. Never a hundred pages of in depth background on an entire category of arguments. I mean for god sakes it has an epigraph. Ogmius815 has issued a correction as of 07:18 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Your right to travel takes magical precedence over the method. I mean it fits right in with their inability to see rights as anything other than a binary yes/no and therefore right to bear arms means they should be allowed to own nuclear weapons or whatever
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Is it very common for Canadian judges to turn their opinions into weird information pieces like this? I've never seen anything like this in American law, where it is strange and alarming (and sometimes unconstitutional) for a judge to do more than is necessary to decide the case at hand. Comparative international law isn't my thing, but my understanding is that this is an exceptionally extensive version of a not-uncommon system of practice in Canadian courts, that owes to conventions of UK law. My very broad impression is that the judiciary has greater breadth of power there. Poking around, the English common law concept of "inherent jurisdiction", which is not a part of US legal systems, is a likely factor. If I'm reading it right (and I may well not be), the court in that case has the ability to basically select and rule upon cases it's interested in, and create common law doctrines on their selected decisions to fill in gaps in the jurisprudence. The judge is also the second highest in seniority on the court. In other words, the decision was likely agreed upon by the court, possibly in collaboration with the larger Canadian legal system, as a major project to address sovcits. Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 08:22 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:This is pretty much the best way to sum up sovcit beliefs: Didn’t Ron actually have the authority to issue himself a permit, though? He just went about it in a way that wasn’t very convincing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Didn’t Ron actually have the authority to issue himself a permit, though? He just went about it in a way that wasn’t very convincing. Ron was hardcore libertarian, but oddly functional in his life despite it. He'd probably carry around such a "permit" regardless but in this case yeah he'd pretty much be able to rubberstamp himself doing whatever the gently caress he wants in Pawnee's parks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
quote:The Malheur refuge trial is entering its second week, and the government is well into making its case right now. We’ve heard from FBI agents and government employees. On our new episode of “This Land Is Our Land,” we have a piece of evidence the government wants the jury to hear but the defense doesn’t. https://soundcloud.com/thislandisourland/update-refuge-employees-testify-and-contested-bundy-interview
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Ryan Bundy thought Vanilla ISIS was funny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Well, that OPB reporter is getting subpoenaed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:berth certificates You know I have looked high and low for that video recently and cannot find it. Does anyone have a link to it? Guy with glasses and a disturbing turtleneck rambling about docks/docs is all I remember
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Zebulon posted:Ron was hardcore libertarian, but oddly functional in his life despite it. He'd probably carry around such a "permit" regardless but in this case yeah he'd pretty much be able to rubberstamp himself doing whatever the gently caress he wants in Pawnee's parks. Not to nitpick the relevant law in comedy show, but I don't think he could issue himself a license to slaughter a pig in the park (what he was trying to do). I imagine he could issue himself a license to do anything that wasn't illegal in the park though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Zebulon posted:Ron was hardcore libertarian, but oddly functional in his life despite it. He'd probably carry around such a "permit" regardless but in this case yeah he'd pretty much be able to rubberstamp himself doing whatever the gently caress he wants in Pawnee's parks. It's possible to be hardcore libertarian in your beliefs, but still be pragmatic enough to comply with laws and regulations that you believe are unjust but aren't going to be changed by your individual defiance. I used to work with a guy who sincerely believed that drivers licenses shouldn't be a thing and drunk driving laws were unjust, because you should only be punished after you've hit someone, and also said he had "no sympathy" for the office manager who got killed when some nutjob flew a Cessna into an IRS office building. He was actually pretty decent to work with, and seemed to be living a pretty functional life. It was really interesting the couple of times I managed to corner him; I got him to admit that even if his preferred regime of "no drunk driving laws" resulted in more people maimed and killed, he'd still choose to live in that world instead. I also got him to admit that he really identified as an anarcho-capitalist, but that "anarchy" was a loaded word and "libertarian" was much more publicly acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Most important tweet today https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/778312152163639298
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Is it very common for Canadian judges to turn their opinions into weird information pieces like this? I've never seen anything like this in American law, where it is strange and alarming (and sometimes unconstitutional) for a judge to do more than is necessary to decide the case at hand. no, american judges do it, too. dude includes photos of murdered civil rights pioneers inside the decision pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/778392959129497600 https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/778393254609821697 HAhahahaha I am so incredibly glad that this cowboy cosplay tactic is what their entire defense hinged on
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:no, american judges do it, too. dude includes photos of murdered civil rights pioneers inside the decision pdf You have more leeway with a dissent though because it isn't, you know, the law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Capntastic posted:https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/778392959129497600 https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/778414214478123008 haha the prosecution is like "more cowboy than thou".
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
And for a change of pace, Here is Blaine Cooper's wife reading out love letters from Blaine Cooper's mistress. https://www.facebook.com/100012274127458/videos/208011446284658/
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
IIRC, the purpose of that big Canadian judge thing was basically to be the document everyone else in the Canadian legal system could then cite without having to put any effort in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:IIRC, the purpose of that big Canadian judge thing was basically to be the document everyone else in the Canadian legal system could then cite without having to put any effort in. It appears (again, not my area)that English common law systems generally give their courts much greater latitude regarding hearing cases, and the scope of rulings. This lets the judiciary exhaustively settle issues in one decision that might otherwise require decades of caselaw (or good legislation), but greatly increases their political power and creates potential abuse scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:And for a change of pace, Here is Blaine Cooper's wife reading out love letters from Blaine Cooper's mistress. Hahhhh I don't know if it's because it's so far removed from the occupation, but this seems like the craziest poo poo that has come out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EileenParkTV/status/778365363524251648
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
You were free to work somewhere else federal scum 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
If someone says that weren't driving can you take them at their word and book them for not paying due care and attention to the road?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 05:45
|
|
