Instead of trying to belittle, mock, pooh pooh, snort at and blah blah this commentators' writings, which belie your personal insecurity, you too could learn to stand the law as opposed to buy into the deliberated fraud of public policy.
Do NOT make the mistake of thinking my disagreement with your theory to mean I am insecure or don't understand the concept you present. DO accept that I am pointing out that your failure to make your point is clear. Citing incorrect statute, and failing to cite what you claim is there, makes your point a complete and utter failure.
idea said:
Try to comprehend that of what you read, I have shown (post 147), how the traffic laws convert private rights into public rights through public policy. You still have not grasped the concept, especially when two agencies (PSC and DMV) work in unison.
Once again, do NOT confuse my lack of agreement with any failure to comprehend that which I read. If I say you have not proved your point, it is on YOU to do such.
idea said:
Read it again, digest it, research and look up the definition(s) of the words that are statutorily defined.
LOL, I cited the statute definitions that contradict the ones you presented. To accurately use definitions in statute, you must first cite the definitions for the title you are using the definitions in, not the definitions from another title or section. If you cannot understand that, you really are in over your head expecting others to accept what you claim.
idea said:
All you have shown is an attempt to disprove that what you don't comprehend through usage of single statutes you pluck out of a code here and there. Bodies of law are a tad more complicated.
Which is exactly appropriate to counter your usage of single statutes that are NOT from the statutes you claim they are relevant to.
idea said:
Other than that: your use of those funny emoticons and pictures is truly a work of art. Congrats!
You have attempted to declare what you feel is true to be true. You have failed utterly to show any connection, except in your own mind. I have pointed out where you failed in the NM cite, the NV cite, and the MD cite. I have pointed out that you have not shown what you claim re NV statute, and you didn't present any evidence to support your claim. I will not attempt to prove YOUR claims, and it is clear that you refuse to also.
When you cite public transportation statute and attempt to claim it defines DMV 'motor vehicle,' it IS worth the 'double facepalm.'
Maybe you have a point. You have utterly failed to present it, other than attempts at empty declarations. Empty declarations aren't proof. What is the source of your claims, because what you present so far, isn't making the connection you think it makes.