Wren-

I haven't failed to notice that through all your name-calling and antagonism, you haven't once pointed to or found a single flaw or error in my logic, argument, or case.

Fallacious? Then prove it.

If you can't (and trust me, you cannot), go away and leave this issue to those interested in actually solving problems and preserving their self-determination.

What part of evidence of your consent to be regulated in the form of a driver license is it you don't understand?

Here's a clue! Ask your political science instructor why challenges to asset forfeitures in Federal District Court use the Rules of Procedure for Admiralty and Maritime law. That jurisdiction, recognized by the US Constitution, would normally only apply at the high-water mark, yet is being applied inland.

From the Declaration of Independence:

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution..."

What happened in this country to bring Admiralty and Maritime law inland? If the Political Science department at UVU is not teaching this, then there's a serious problem with the curriculum.

DonCarlos wrote:
Wren-

I haven't failed to notice that through all your name-calling and antagonism, you haven't once pointed to or found a single flaw or error in my logic, argument, or case.

Fallacious? Then prove it.

If you can't (and trust me, you cannot), go away and leave this issue to those interested in actually solving problems and preserving their self-determination.

Name-calling? I'm not seeing any name calling from Wren. S/He has been completely civil and is only pointing out that your case has problems. If you plan on publicly fighting city hall in the future, you're going to have to develop thicker skin than your exhibiting right now.

DonCarlos, the main problem with your argument is that you assume that you have a right to drive your car wherever you want, and park it wherever you want. You don't. Driving, and parking, on city streets is a privilege. Your friend does not own the street in front of his house, the City does, and it can control who parks on it, when.

By restricting you from parking there, Provo is not restricting your freedom of association--you are still free to associate with whomever you wish, you just need to walk there, have someone drop you off, or park legally to do it. The Constitution says nothing about a right to convenient travel.

Is that a good enough argument, or are you going to demand "proof?" I can cite some cases if you wish.

I'm sure Wren is "interested in actually solving problems and preserving... self-determination" but S/He is trying to tell you that you are just plain wrong in your approach. Local residents voting in their neighborhood committees is the way the permit program got implemented, that's the way to get rid of it. Tell your friend to get active and vote.

DonCarlos wrote:
I haven't had time to comment on what has been written here recently.

I will answer all of what has been misinterpreted, or simply misunderstood in the next few days. Some people have made some very informed arguments for my side and I appreciate that. Unfortunately, some others have been very short-sighted and have made comments that demonstrate that their writers simply do not understand the issue.

I will say that I have received several phone calls from people who I'm not comfortable naming here, who stated emphatically that Professor Gedicks, though he may wholeheartedly believe what he said about my case, simply does not understand my argument, interpreted the law far too narrowly, and simply does not know to what he is speaking in this case. If necessary, I will call upon those people in court.

Also, I have received a phone call from Channel 2 news requesting an interview. I don't know how I will handle that because quite honestly (despite the picture here in the paper) I'm not entirely comfortable sitting down in front of a camera.

I would love to take the time right now to let people know what kind of person I am- what kind of person would "make such a big deal out of $10" to sum up some people's thinking, but it's late and I want to go to bed.

I'll address people's arguments later- I hope everyone can keep things on a positive and logical level and avoid personal attacks because they don't further discussion at all. I hope I have kept up my end.

In closing, I came across a video today that completely sums up my view on this whole issue. In the interest of fair disclosure- it's a campaign video from a third party candidate. I hope that everyone will watch it with an open mind because I feel that it will lead to valuable discussions of important political issues in our daily lives.

Thanks everyone, especially those supporting me.

DonCarlos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxPrULE6dUU

PS: one final thought- if you do follow the above link, please, please, PLEASE do not think that I am trying to compare myself to those great men. I'm not. I simply believe what they believed.

Thanks again.

So how does a parking law prevent your freedom to assemble?

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
None of those other issues are relevant. Don's only basis is his Constitutional right of freedom to assemble is being violated. Since the street isn't closed to the public. Since he isn't banned from having his assembly; car pool, walk, bike, hop, skip or jump to his assembly that right isn't violated. In other words, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in the Telestial Kingdom of winning, based on that argument.

I know what a snowballs chance in hell would be. But what would be it's chances in the Telestial Kingdom?

Now don't quote me on this, I think it's south of the border. I hear it's very hot down there.