Stephen D. L’Abbe – Idaho is just a corporation

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Spotted this decision from the Idaho Court of Appeal where the court attempts to explain in detail and via historic review why Idaho isn't a corporation, and you still have to pay your traffic tickets even though you didn't contract with the state for services. Or something.

• Idaho v. L'Abbe: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/41212.pdf

Perhaps of interest.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

Cute. Obviously another sovrun legal genius who slept through Civics and gov't class, among others.

FWIW, I thought the court gave a pretty good thumbnail sketch of how it was set up, obviously wasted on the audience, since he seems to be a repeat offender with long term memory issues.

[Kestrel]

This whole thing was triggered because he was caught driving at 38mph in a 25mph zone. That's what, about a $250 fine?

I wonder how much it'll cost him now, assuming they can squeeze blood from that block of stone he calls his head.

[Jeffrey]

Wonder if they get the current intern to write those out. Gotta imagine a judge would be bored out of his mind having to explain such basic things.

Additionally, a growing number of Idaho’s citizens have expressed views similar
to L’Abbe’s. With that in mind, this Court believes it is important to more fully analyze the history of Idaho courts’ jurisdiction. We will now take the opportunity to attempt to inform and educate L’Abbe and others similarly situated.

Looks like Mowe found a mini-Meads

[LPC]

What I find most interesting about the opinion is L'Abbe's claim that the Idaho courts have no jurisdiction because that are not Article III courts under the US Constitution.

We see lots of arguments that the federal government has little or no power (or doesn't even exist), but this one is the opposite of that, an argument that the federal courts are the *only* courts with jurisdiction over anything, and that the Idaho courts don't really exist.

Which reinforces my view that almost every frivolous argument has an opposite argument that is equally frivolous.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Which reinforces my view that almost every frivolous argument has an opposite argument that is equally frivolous.

Let's restate that in the context of Newton's Third Law:

• Newton's Third Law of Motion: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
  
  LPC's Third Law of Frivolousness: "To every frivolous argument there is always opposed an equal corollary frivolous argument: or the mutual actions of two opposed frivolous arguments is always nonsense, and directed to no legal effect."

Mmmeh. That probably could be better. But at least it's not a limerick.

SMS Möwe