Travis In Austin

LOL! That's right Earl, I figure in your case, you learn quite a bit about the law by studying discussions on this forum, then watching the Youtube vids I post! +++ To me, by far the most impressive thing about this thread is we have a 14 year-old boy questioning a fundamental behavior nobody ever questions (driving). Then he quotes or alludes to US Supreme Court decisions, then has his father NOT spoon feed him answers, but guides him to find his own answers. Nice job of parenting, Mr. USN Retired. Here, here. Ditto

HAHAHA This made my morning. "Were free people of the land, we have all the rights but dont have to follow any of the laws!"The best part was the fact that the cop wasnt some Unconstitutional DHS goon at a "border" checkpoint or anything, he was a deputy of a Sheriff who was democratically elected by the people of the county to enforce laws passed by democratically elected local officials which is pretty much exactly how the founding fathers set up our Republic. I am a pretty die hard Constitutionalist and this deputy acted with nothing but patience and restraint. The girl should have just got out of the car and asked, "Officer, am I being detained?" If the answer is "No" then just walk away. What if officer said: "Yes you are being detained." Then you make them explain under what suspicion of crime you are being detained for so unless you are actively helping with an investigation your only conversation should be: "Officer, Im I free to go?" "No" "Officer, am I being detained" "Yes" "Officer, please state your reasonable suspicion of a crime for which I am being detained" Then depending on the answer you cite that you can only be detained under reasonable suspicion and if that cant be provided you should be free to go or if there is suspicion then keep you mouth shut and dont say a word without a lawyer by your side. Just say, "I wish to remain silent until I have legal representation." The most important thing is to use the exact words and be extremely polite as the Cruiser is recording everything and the last thing you want is to look like an A**hat while sitting in a courtroom. (I actually attended a seminar on this in College) I would agree with all of that. Most people think they can talk their way out of something. So he says "I can respect that, and that is certainly your right. However, I am not asking you any questions. I just want you to step out of the vehicle and I want to see your ID." Terry v. Ohio is the place to start and then Arizona v Johnson.

Great video. From there she probably got a public defender who tried to explain to her that none of her legal "arguments" had any merit, that he tried to look up the U.S. Confederate Code and came up empty, to which she said "I have seen it on the Internet, I know it exists."

HAHAHA This made my morning. "Were free people of the land, we have all the rights but dont have to follow any of the laws!" The best part was the fact that the cop wasnt some Unconstitutional DHS goon at a "border" checkpoint or anything, he was a deputy of a Sheriff who was democratically elected by the people of the county to enforce laws passed by democratically elected local officials which is pretty much exactly how the founding fathers set up our Republic. I am a pretty die hard Constitutionalist and this deputy acted with nothing but patience and restraint. The girl should have just got out of the car and asked, "Officer, am I being detained?" If the answer is "No" then just walk away. What if officer said: "Yes you are being detained."

I skimmed through it, and noticed that out of all of those citations none deal with whether a state can require someone to get a driver's license. That is your son's specific question as I recall. If driving is a right how can they prevent me from driving. First step is determine whether driving is a fundamental right. Freedom of travel is a fundamental right, lot os cases on that. What the specious argument that is advanced by some groups is that the only way to accomplish this is by driving, and therefore driving is a fundamental right. If you look at the 9th Circuit case I linked, it is clear that Sup Ct. has held that as long as you have some mode of travel, whether, air, bus, or by FOOT, your right to travel is not infringed. What is common with the fringes is they lay out the logic of a premise of an argument, quote language from cases that don't have anything to do with the specific issue, and they ignore the cases right on point where the issue is addressed. When you point out to them that the Court rejected the argument, their logic turns circular. They will say that Court says travel is fundamental right, you say, but same court says driving isn't, they respond with something out of left field like, if you haven't signed agreement with state, or "without prejudice" they have no power over you. You then hop down that bunny trail about where they come up with that. The video of mountain man was about him not paying for a fishing license. Then claiming he is a free man with right to forage for food. Sorry, no, the fish belong to the state, whether you are hungry or not. It is no different if he went on someone's property and took their chicken for food and he was jailed for theft. He switched argument to that is not my name, that the prosecutor is operating as an esquire under English law and on violation of the Constitution of whatever year. Judges tells him to sit down and shut up, he will get his chance, he refuses and gets led off in handcuffs. In mountain man's mind he believes he has won. More importantly, those who are like minded as him also think he won and think he has advanced legitimate legal arguments that are a precedent. Here is a quote from one of the citations in your linked site: Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets Indiana Springs case isn't a U.S. Supreme Court case. They copy and paste from like minded people who agree with their legal view, and they don't check it. Here is a clue, if SCOTUS had ruled in a case that driving is a fundamental right it would be at the top of their page with a direct quote.

The "without prejudice" tactic in that context is another one that is considered "frivolous"

It will all go to his sister if there are no children or parents living as time of death.

If you have no beneficiaries who are minors it works perfectly. If the estate is less than than the Unified Credit it works perfectly as well. If you have children, or a large estate it is going to take more sophisticated planning.

Not necessarily. While that will eliminate a lot of it, it may not be how you wish to distribute your estate. Minor children? Power of appointment? The main problem for Prince's heir is federal estate tax. Planning could have reduced that significantly.

I wish, actually I need receipt for my readers for proof reading.

What is Canada's plannwd response?

Picking an independent, knowageable and sophisticated trustee is the real key. If you have a family member who is accountant, business owner or lawywr that will do, but if the trustee is your wife's sister, who might be great mom if she has to yake over, but no business or financial experience, you are dooned.

Aint that the truth, sometimes you want it in probate for that very reason. Also, with young children it is sometimes better to go with probate than living trust. Even with a family trist/living trust, most folks forget to get every asset into the name of the trustnand you end up having to probate part of it anyway which is why a pour over will is done just in case.

It rarely turns out well for them. As Wold points iut, he ended up in jail, for a long time, with more charges. They are all the same. Above aberage intelligence, very articulate, but they have a processing switch that gets flipped where they sincerely believe in the most fundamentally flawed logical arguments. Copyright of their name for example. Here is local paper about mountain man.http://m.belgrade-news.com/news/article_8926881a-5654-11e3-bac2-001a4bcf887a.html

Here is a link to a Fed Case from 9th Court of Appeals decision. Havenhim read Section II of the opinion and it lays out very clearly prior SCOTUS cases going back into the 70s that driving a car is not a fundamental right and why. Here is one quote: The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.   The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html#sthash.fa7zwUBX.dpuf When you see a Court say an argument is "utterly frivolous" it is time to take heed.

As far as driving without a license, it is a class c violation, same as a speeding ticket, but non moving, can usually get dismissed with payment of administrative fee. No one would take that to trial, the law is well established that a state can require a license to drive, and establish regulations for the issuance of a license. What did get litigated was requiring a thumbprint for getting a license, TX Sup Ct said that was cool. A very conservative court I might add.

A license is a privilege, mot a right, it is a privilege license. It can be taken away or or denied as long as there isndue process. Send me the name of the case from SCOUTUS and I can try and see where he got off track, which is easy to do with SCOUTUS opinions. Or he can call me, you have the number.

I saw that Sat. thought it was one of the better clips. The first music performance he wasnin the trench coat with bikini underwear. That was the outfit he was wearing when I saw him open for the Stones. It wad a little much even for a SoCal audience. I had forgotten about that until they dhowed him in that overcoat, hard to catch.

Those look great

It looks like the smallest which is 72 meters long and accommodates 24-36 guest has 2 diesel generators which power an electric drive. So that would mean a diving depth limited by snorkel height, or a whole host of batteries.

U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner tentatively granted Led Zeppelin’s motion to exclude the drug and alcohol evidence at a pretrial hearing on Monday. He also tentatively granted other motions, including Led Zeppelin’s move to exclude all references to prior copyright settlements over the band’s other songs and to limit the scope of sound recordings to be played to the jury. - See more at: http://m.nationallawjournal.com/#/article/1202755911471/Led-Zeppelin-Stairway-Trial-Likely-to-Proceed-Without-Drug-Alcohol-Evidence?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=2&_almReferrer=https:%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

I don't understand how they plan to power that underwater. It looks as big as a boomer, which means 35 to 45K shp to move that underwater. The only thing that gets you there is steam turbine power and the only thing that gets you that underwater is nuclear power. Will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere.

Warped vinyl and digital transformations, KG 4 speakers mentioned. http://flip.it/a026E

Im not making this up, it has been studied for a long time. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/motorcycle-helmets-and-donor-organs/

Nope, we need the donors.