You rock my world Don Carlos. I freaking love it.

Just Reading wrote:
Blake wrote:
Dear Just Reading,

Before you suggest that others sound unintelligent, or lack your own rapier wit, perhaps you should learn to use correct spelling and punctuation...just a thought.

LOL it is late and I have been up all night, who gives a sh*t about spelling and punctuation Blake your friend kavino never capitalizes his I's but who cares....


Yea, that's it, your just "tired" You must be tired all the time.

"The prosecutor and the judge were both kind of dumbfounded. The prosecutor actually laughed," Wells said.

Hey Wells! Ever heard the phrase, "what's in your wallet?".

I'm surprised BOTH the judge and the prosecutor didn't laugh their backsides off!

The usual response from the judge is "aw shut up dummy" or "bring up the constitution again and you'll be held in contempt of court". The defendant is usually clueless at that point as to why the judge said that.

"Assembly" is not the issue here. You had your "assembly", but you chose a highly regulated means, volunteered into by you, to travel to that "assembly."

I would wager that you walked into that courtroom with evidence of consent to be regulated, commonly referred to as a driver license, in your back pocket, said "uh, constitution!", yet still don't have a clue about the duties, contractual and quasi-contractual obligations associated with voluntarily requesting government privileges and benefits. Although, knowledge is presumed when you signed on the dotted line and agreed to be bound by all of the terms, conditions, statutes, ordinances, and administrative rules.

In differentiating the rights between an individual and a corporation, the US Supreme Court stated: "[We] are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. (emphasis added) HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).

So, Wells. How many "constitutional rights" have you converted to contract and quasi-contract by way of government privilege and benefits? Can you say "equity" courts?

Do you use terms such as, "driver", "operator", "traffic", etc., when going to visit grandma? Do you understand that those terms have long referred to using the public highways to engage in trade, commerce, and industry?

Bouvier's Law Dictionary was the official law dictionary used by Congress until they switched to Blacks Law Dictionary in the 1930s.

"DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals." (emphasis added) Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

"TRAFFIC. Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like." (emphasis added) Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

"OPERATOR" is defined as one who drives a team of horses or mules for hire in more recent Bouvier's Law dictionaries such as the 1914 edition.

Perhaps you should go back to UVU and ask your instructors why students are not taught the legal consequences of voluntarily requesting government priveleges and benefits. Or, "how do I convert my constitutional status to contract and drown in a sea of equity?"

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Blake wrote:
Dear Just Reading,

Before you suggest that others sound unintelligent, or lack your own rapier wit, perhaps you should learn to use correct spelling and punctuation...just a thought.

LOL it is late and I have been up all night, who gives a sh*t about spelling and punctuation Blake your friend kavino never capitalizes his I's but who cares....


Yea, that's it, your just "tired" You must be tired all the time.

Your excuse is always "I am typing too fast". You have also said you do not care if you spell or punctuate correctly. So why are you on JR'S back......

(hand up and jumping in seat)OOOOOHHHHHHH I know ....... To just start a fight and argue.....Too funny!!!!!

DonCarlos wrote:
Hey Wren, it's me again.

So if the city passes a law condemning your home without cause, and forcing you out, you should "Follows the rules, quit whining, and don't be a crybaby."?

If a law violates the Constitution (as this one does) it does not matter how small it may seem.

Just because the city did something, doesn't mean that they have the authority to do it or make it right. It's sad that I'm standing up for what's right instead of continuously forking over my hard-earned money and you have a problem with that. You really ought to talk to the residents on that street like Mr. Knudson who's family recently held a bridal shower and had several of his guests get cited and fined.

Wake up Wren. This is not the former USSR. I don't care how insignificant it may seem to you or others. I do not need big brother's permission to visit with my friends or family.

Did you even know that they limited the number of permits per household? And that you have to pay to get more? Try holding a birthday party, or a ward activity (for the sake of the argument I'm going to assume you're LDS).

Maybe you're content to live in a world where you have to ask permission to conduct your daily life. But I'm a free man and I'm not giving that up for anything.

You're right, this isn't the USSR, this is a place where residents can vote to control their own neighborhood.

You think this is the City penalizing you, it's not--it's your friends neighbors doing it. The only reason this parking permit program is in place is because the residents (or the residents who vote) demanded it.

This is not a revenue stream. The program probably barely pays for itself, if at all. The reason the fines are ten bucks is because the City probably found that to be the lowest price that would still have an effect on people's behavior. If the City were really after money here, they would be fining you a lot more.

If you don't like the program, either convince your friend to vote or to move. I agree with Prof. Geddicks in the article--you have no case.