when some does that it shows that they have exhausted their intellectual ability to debate an issue, and are now depending exclusively on false beliefs and rage. Rational people step away from ranters at that point, as I am about to do with you. But before I do let me pick apart your most recent (and EASIEST to pick apart) post (rant).
"If he was on private property ... how could it be said he was driving?" Was he operating a motor vehicle? Yes? Then he was driving. The word "driving" is not dependent on who owns the ground you are on. (What else would you call driving a car on private property? Maybe "poaching an egg"?)
The defendant had a PUNITIVE action taken against him for past violations. That means he had certain rights suspended as part of the punishment. One of those rights was the right to drive. The statue cited in the case, and that I cited in my post, makes it very clear that he was NOT allowed to drive. And he was driving on private property. Its still called driving.
".... AS YOU CLAIM, THE EXISTENCE OR LACK OF EXISTENCE OF A LICENSE IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE ... THE PLACE IS PRIVATE PROPERTY."
First: Anytime you exclusively use caps, you are screaming, and have shown you have lost rationality.
Second: It is not a matter here of the existence or lack of existence of a license, except that state statute clearly states that one who HAS a license, when that license is suspended, may not drive AT ALL (on public or private property). It is the court ordered punishment of NOT being allowed to drive that is the issue here, and not the existence or lack of existence of a license.
And with that I bid you Adieu. I have wasted enough time on this clear and obvious point where you are clearly wrong. You have gotten all the "free" time I am allowing and I would have to charge for anymore.
Unlike you, I have a life, and business to run. But carry on with your ridiculous rants. They are amusing and I will maybe read them later.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: