Florida - two moving citations at once, NO empathy from officers

[cbg]

BadAdvice, this is not about you. How does your response help the poster?

 

[Indiana Filer]

Actually, I wish that I could transfer my diseases to ALL of you, and see if you ALL think that you should never drive again.

Look Moron, I already have IBD. I've lost several feet of my intestine to surgery, and take thousands of dollars in drugs on a regular basis. I wouldn't wish this disease on anyone, and I find it sad and evil that you would. That makes you pretty worthless.

It's not like I haven't been seeing doctors for 30 years and taken buckets of medications in an attempt to control this. Should a diabetic never be allowed to drive because they just MIGHT go into diabetic coma? Should someone with high blood pressure not be allowed to drive because they might have a stroke?

If the medical condition causes them to break traffic laws or put others at risk, no they should not be allowed to drive. When I'm in flare, I don't drive. When I'm on certain of my meds, I don't drive.

Have any of you crapped in your pants? If not, then I TOTALLY wish that lovely feeling and experience for ALL of you.

I repeat, you are a moron.

Again, you are using your own experiences to judge me. NONE of you have ulcerative colitis. I know, because then NONE of you would have written the things that you did.

I've got IBD, and I agree with the others here. My disease is actually worse than your's. UC is only in the large intestine. Crohn's can affect the ENTIRE digestive tract, from the mouth to the anus.

You need to grow up.

 

[Dillon]

I am confused.

Are you saying that you willingly avoided a traffic control device?

dont be confused, man


a maxim of law states that: what is necessary is lawful.

the laws are made for People and not People for the laws.


also since no damages were stated on the officers complaints, in a court of record the state would lack legal standing.

its impossible to commit a crime, if nobody's legal rights were violated and there are no actual damages.



Our government was instituted to protect individual rights

 

[cyjeff]

dont be confused, man

a maxim of law states that: what is necessary is lawful.

since no damages were stated on the officers complaints, the state lacks legal standing in a court of record.

one cant commit a crime, if nobodies legal rights were violated and there are no actual damages.

the Laws are made for people and not people for the laws.


Our Government was instituted to protect individual rights

Dillon, Dillon, Dillon....

Another "this is the way law ought to be" post.


For what it is worth, unless the driver asked the lawful owner for egress, your point doesn't stand up.

Please point out where you "maxim" is stated in statutory law as an affirmative defense to a traffic ticket. Thanks.

 

[anteater]

Our Government was instituted to protect individual rights

Damn straight! I have the inalienable right to get to a bathroom as soon as possible by whatever means necessary!

That's in... let's see... Article ... uh... uh... Well, it's in there somewhere!

 

[justalayman]

wow, dillon spews so much BS I can smell it from here.

a maxim of law states that: what is necessary is lawful.

so, if I have to kill a person so I can have their money, that is lawful?

 

[Dillon]

Damn straight! I have the inalienable right to get to a bathroom as soon as possible by whatever means necessary!

as long as you dont violate anybody's legal rights and there are no actual damages caused by you in the process.

WOW !!!

 

[Dillon]

Please point out where you "maxim" is stated in statutory law as an affirmative defense to a traffic ticket. Thanks.

MAXIM OF LAW DEFINED.

An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.

Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted.

The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain bow the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous.

 

[cyjeff]

MAXIM OF LAW DEFINED.

An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.

Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted.

The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain bow the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous.

That much dancing should come with a soundtrack.

I notice you didn't answer my question to provide me with statute or caselaw that supported your position.

Please do so if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

[Dillon]

wow, I can smell it from here.

so, if I have to kill a person so I can have their money, that is lawful?

justayman, how are you?

if you smell somthin, it probably you.


just kidding, have a great nite....


No, you cant violate peoples rights and damage their property in the process.

which the op didnt do according to their posting.

 

[cbg]

Perhaps you'd like to give us the statute that says the poster is entitled to violate the law as long as he does not do any damage while doing so?

 

[Dillon]

That much dancing should come with a soundtrack.

I notice you didn't answer my question to provide me with statute or caselaw that supported your position.

Please do so if you wish to be taken seriously.

its called common sense. maxims of law are all based on case law history.

there are to many to count.

 

[Dillon]

Perhaps you'd like to give us the statute that says the poster is entitled to violate the law as long as he does not do any damage while doing so?

one reason people lose in a court of record is because they think its about statutes, but its not, its all about LEGAL STANDING of THE STATE.

dont you get it yet, no legal standing for the state means no case for a court of record to even hear.

 

[cyjeff]

its called common sense. maxims of law are all based on case law history.

there are to many to count.

Translation: I don't know of any but it sounds really good.

You say there is case law history. Name it or stop. You say there are many... great.

Please provide us three cases in the proper jurisdiction where a driver was deemed able to determine whether or not traffic control devices applied to them because they really had to go to the bathroom.

Thanks.

 

[justalayman]

justayman, how are you?

if you smell somthin, it probably you.


just kidding, have a great nite....


No, you cant violate peoples rights and damage their property in the process.

which the op didnt do according to their posting.

yes they did. They trespassed on the private property they crossed. That violated to the owners rights.