California Helmet Law

On Sep 9, 6:36*am, snowbender wrote:

You like to argue these minor points ceaselessly to show that you know
something, don't you? But I think that laws is more complicate than
that, and in America/California, only judges can make legal
interpretation of the laws. Who are you?

Who is he ? He is a literate citizen. He seeks out the statute
describign the law, and how it is broken. If he cannot find it, it is
not law. That's how the "America/California" legal system works. One
does not have to be a judge to simply read a law. How unfortunate for
you, that you cannot educate yourself in the law, which is freely
available should you seek it.

In article
,
snowbender wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:09 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:04 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:45 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:15 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

om,
snowbender wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:43 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

ps.c
om,
snowbender wrote:

Oh yeah they do. Don't you know it is
illegal to wear helmet and drive
in a car in California?

snowbeader

No, Chai-tea, I've never heard that. Can you actually
provide a
reference for that?

The stipulation is that you cannot drive with both ears
covered
in
California; wearing helmet maybe legal (laws have no mention
on
wearing a helmet while driving in a car), but you may still
get
cited
too.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

So you were making it up.

No, though I got my info from a different source, but
nevertheless,
the question was raised long time ago as well,
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10011

That someone else raised the question before is irrelevant to the
fact
that you made up contention that it is illegal to wear a helmet
while
driving.

Still having problem with your logic, eh? No, if someone else raised
the question in 2006, I didn't make up the contention in 2010. Do you
know why?

Sorry, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

You made a positive claim: that it is illegal to drive a car in
California while wearing a helmet. When you made this claim, you had no
actual knowledge of any law or fact that supported that claim.

Yup, a little mind can never straighten its little thinking. If the
question has already existed, I didn't "make it up."

I didn't say you made up "the question", Chai-tea.

You made up your certainty that it was illegal.

"Yup, a little mind can never straighten its little thinking." "If the
question has already existed, I didn't 'make it up.'"

I never said that the *question* didn't exist. People not knowing things
and questioning them is normal.

People pretending they know when they don't is lying, and that's what
you did.


That makes it a lie.

That other people were confused about the legal situation doesn't make
your positive claim any less a lie.

Given the same token, you lie as well; nevertheless, guess that you
lie so much, you can no longer tell what a lie is.

LOL

No, I have to take it back. It is not that you "can no longer tell
what a lie is," but you don't "know" what a lie is, care to define
what your "lie" is, little mind?

LOL


I am unsurprised.

Of course, a self-conceiter thinks that he know
everything would never
be surprised at anything.

LOL

You said it.

Because I'm laughing at you...

...again.

What so funny? You are confused, LOL is your shameless trademark.

LOL

Over and over, like a dog likes to play "fetch" game, exciting,
doesn't it? But few human have the patience to play such silly game.
Bye.
LOL

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

On Sep 9, 9:06 am, Yabahoobs wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:36 am, snowbender wrote:

You like to argue these minor points ceaselessly to show that you know
something, don't you? But I think that laws is more complicate than
that, and in America/California, only judges can make legal
interpretation of the laws. Who are you?

Who is he ? He is a literate citizen. He seeks out the statute
describign the law, and how it is broken. If he cannot find it, it is
not law. That's how the "America/California" legal system works. One
does not have to be a judge to simply read a law.

Any one can "read" a law, but understanding that given partition
nature of English language, as well as the complicated language in
laws, not every one has the same interpretation, so your forefathers
wisdom enough to create a three branch government, which guarantees an
independent court/legal system, and the supreme court as the final
interpretation of the laws, and the rest of court/legal systems follow
its practice. And that's "how the "America/California" legal system
works."

How unfortunate for you, that you cannot educate yourself
in the law, which is freely available should you seek it.

That's what I've learned in political science 101 in college, where do
you learn yours?

snowbender

On Sep 9, 10:21*am, snowbender
wrote:

That's what I've learned in political science 101 in college.

LoL. You're the authority on the American legal system because you
took an introductory PoliSci class ? Are you serious ?

There's no interpretation to be had here, Itchy.

On Sep 9, 8:44*am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:36*am, snowbender wrote:





On Sep 8, 9:06 am, Richard Henry wrote:

I had a similar exchange with a know-it-all on my favorite soccer
forum. *He claimed that it was illegal to eat while driving. *I
responded that there was no such law. *He insisted, so I asked him to produce the Vehicle Code section that prohibited it.

You like to argue these minor points ceaselessly to show that you know
something, don't you? But I think that laws is more complicate than
that, and in America/California, only judges can make legal
interpretation of the laws. Who are you? When you win a argument over
a "know-it-all," does that make you a "know-it-all"?

He's still bitter.

As for "snowbender", I'll bet he will maintain his denial at least
until his next name change.

Only in your perpetuated shameless denial.

snowbender

Q.E.D. *(so far)-

Oh, please. Baker is a pathological liar and all around asshole who,
like this dickless freak, is dumb enough to threaten to break the law
but smart enough not to do it. Prove me wrong. Baker provides the
contact info of the SPD officer he promised to lie to, and you provide
the contact info of the SPD officer you claim to have lied to.
Go **** yourself, you stalking psychopathic coward.

On Sep 9, 9:06*am, Yabahoobs wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:36*am, snowbender wrote:

You like to argue these minor points ceaselessly to show that you know
something, don't you? But I think that laws is more complicate than
that, and in America/California, only judges can make legal
interpretation of the laws. Who are you?

Who is he ? *He is a literate citizen.

He's a deranged, delusional pathological liar and stalker.

*He seeks out the statute
describign the law, and how it is broken.

I guess he did a bit of seeking and decided that if he claimed to SPD
that I had threatened his life, he would be breaking the law, right,
pppppuuuuussssyyyyy?

*If he cannot find it, it is
not law. *That's how the "America/California" legal system works.

You're even crazier than Baker, making up your own laws.

*One
does not have to be a judge to simply read a law. *How unfortunate for
you, that you cannot educate yourself in the law, which is freely
available should you seek it.

How unfortunate for you that you are a pathetic, dickless coward who
supports and encourages other people breaking the law to harass
me....but never has had and never will have the balls to spew his ****
in person.

On Sep 9, 9:24*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:09 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:04 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:45 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:15 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

om,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:43 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

ps.c
om,
*snowbender wrote:

Oh yeah they do. Don't you know it is
illegal to wear helmet and drive
in a car in California?

snowbeader

No, Chai-tea, I've never heard that. Can you actually
provide a
reference for that?

The stipulation is that you cannot drive with both ears
covered
in
California; wearing helmet maybe legal (laws have no mention
on
wearing a helmet while driving in a car), but you may still
get
cited
too.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

So you were making it up.

No, though I got my info from a different source, but
nevertheless,
the question was raised long time ago as well,
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10011

That someone else raised the question before is irrelevant to the
fact
that you made up contention that it is illegal to wear a helmet
while
driving.

Still having problem with your logic, eh? No, if someone else raised
the question in 2006, I didn't make up the contention in 2010. Do you
know why?

Sorry, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

You made a positive claim: that it is illegal to drive a car in
California while wearing a helmet. When you made this claim, you had no
actual knowledge of any law or fact that supported that claim.

Yup, a little mind can never straighten its little thinking. If the
question has already existed, I didn't "make it up."

I didn't say you made up "the question", Chai-tea.

You made up your certainty that it was illegal.

"Yup, a little mind can never straighten its little thinking." "If the
question has already existed, I didn't 'make it up.'"

I never said that the *question* didn't exist. People not knowing things
and questioning them is normal.

Translation: Baker lying his ass off when he doesn't know things is
normal.
Want to tell me again how I got to be a "convicted felo", you deranged
wack job?

People pretending they know when they don't is lying, and that's what
you did.

Now a Canuck is an expert on American law. Guess you learned a few
things so you could decide NOT to break American law and lie to SPD,
eh, you dickless coward?
Still waiting for that call, pppppuuuuusssssyyyyy!!!!!



That makes it a lie.

That other people were confused about the legal situation doesn't make
your positive claim any less a lie.

Given the same token, you lie as well; nevertheless, guess that you
lie so much, you can no longer tell what a lie is.

LOL

No, I have to take it back. It is not that you "can no longer tell
what a lie is," but you don't "know" what a lie is, care to define
what your "lie" is, little mind?

LOL







I am unsurprised.

Of course, a self-conceiter thinks that he know
everything would never
be surprised at anything.

LOL

You said it.

Because I'm laughing at you...

...again.

What so funny? You are confused, LOL is your shameless trademark.

LOL

Over and over, like a dog likes to play "fetch" game, exciting,
doesn't it? But few human have the patience to play such silly game.
Bye.

LOL

When busted lying, Alan Baker goes LOL. Guaranteed. As predictable
as him never having the nads to lie to the cops.

On Sep 9, 11:22*am, Yabahoobs wrote:
On Sep 9, 10:21*am, snowbender
wrote:

That's what I've learned in political science 101 in college.

LoL. *You're the authority on the American legal system because you
took an introductory PoliSci class ? *Are you serious ?

You and Baker (a Canadian) are authorities on American law? ****, you
ARE serious.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

There's no interpretation to be had here, Itchy.

I interpret you to be a blowhard, dickless cowardly lying piece of
**** freak. Thanks for ****ing yourself

On Sep 9, 9:06*am, Yabahoobs wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:36*am, snowbender wrote:

You like to argue these minor points ceaselessly to show that you know
something, don't you? But I think that laws is more complicate than
that, and in America/California, only judges can make legal
interpretation of the laws. Who are you?

Who is he ? *He is a literate citizen. *He seeks out the statute
describign the law, and how it is broken. *If he cannot find it, it is
not law. *That's how the "America/California" legal system works. *One
does not have to be a judge to simply read a law. *How unfortunate for
you, that you cannot educate yourself in the law, which is freely
available should you seek it.

And in this modern age, the laws are all available online (or at least
the complete California Vehicle Code is).

Google is our friend. Use it to avoid looking like a clueless fool.

On Sep 9, 1:31*pm, Richard Henry wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:06*am, Yabahoobs wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:36*am, snowbender wrote:

You like to argue these minor points ceaselessly to show that you know
something, don't you? But I think that laws is more complicate than
that, and in America/California, only judges can make legal
interpretation of the laws. Who are you?

Who is he ? *He is a literate citizen. *He seeks out the statute
describign the law, and how it is broken. *If he cannot find it, it is
not law. *That's how the "America/California" legal system works. *One
does not have to be a judge to simply read a law. *How unfortunate for
you, that you cannot educate yourself in the law, which is freely
available should you seek it.

And in this modern age, the laws are all available online (or at least
the complete California Vehicle Code is).

Great!!! Obviously, YOU decided to consult the law about making false
police reports, then lied about lying to a SPD officer, right?

Google is our friend. *Use it to avoid looking like a clueless fool.

How about YOU use it to avoid looking like a psychopathic pathological
liar, dickless coward, and all around asshole?
Imagine all those people googling you, seeing me demand contact info
for the SPD officer you claim to have corresponded with, and seeing
you look like a clueless fool everytime you avoid answering.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Google EMERGENCY SOCCER GAME!!!!!