Donny Bucks se tire la queue
⚡ TOUTES LES INFORMATIONS CLIQUEZ ICI 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Donny Bucks se tire la queue
Dishing out a daily dose of Tiger News since December 17, 1996
LSU vs.Florida State: Sept. 4, 6:30 PM CT (ABC)
LSU vs.Florida State: Sept. 4, 6:30 PM CT (ABC)
The LSU football team practiced in front of the media for the final time yesterday in preparation for next Sunday’s much-anticipated season opener. It was great to be there in Tiger Stadium to check out the action, even if it was for only thirty minutes of light work.
If I were a superstitious man, I would have left practice feeling like I must have jinxed things with the “bold predictions” I posted yesterday. That’s because the player I predicted would lead the team in receptions — Malik Nabers — was watching from the sidelines as his teammates worked. Nabers was walking around, dressed-out like the others but wearing sneakers instead of cleats. I doubt that would have been the case if he were seriously injured, but it’s something to monitor moving forward. With Nabers sidelined, Jack Bech worked with the first team as the slot receiver.
Also, freshman backup offensive lineman Emery Jones, who I predicted would start by the season’s end, was working with the third team offensive line instead of the second unit as he has at other times throughout the preseason. The second unit consisted of LT Marcus Dumervil, LG Kardell Thomas, C Charles Turner, RG Tre’Mond Shorts and RT Kimo Makane’ole. The first team remained as it’s been the last week: LT Will Campbell, LG Miles Frazier, C Garrett Dellinger, RG Anthony Bradford and RT Cameron Wire. It seems all but certain at this point that those will be the starting five.
As for the quarterback position, Jayden Daniels took most of the first-team reps early on, but then Garrett Nussmeier directed most of the hurry-up drill with the first team. In other words, we were given no clear indication of who will be the starter. Really, Daniels and Nussmeier both looked good, but what impressed/surprised me the most was Daniels’ accuracy. The prettiest pass thrown during the media viewing window was a 40-yard sideline pass from Daniels to UL-L transfer wide receiver Kyren Lacey, who saw a lot of action with the second team. Lacey often gets overlooked when discussing LSU’s deep and talented receiver room, but he looks like a baller.
On defense, McNeese State transfer cornerback Colby Richardson ran with the first team opposite Jarrick Bernard-Converse. Greg Brooks was the first team nickel back.
Also, linebacker Greg Penn III continued to take most first-team reps despite having a brace on his left elbow from last week’s injury.
Really, there wasn’t much to take away from the practice, but it sure was nice to spend time in Tiger Stadium and then return home to football on the TV. A new era of LSU football is drawing near, and I can hardly wait!
With LSU’s season-opener exactly one week away, that gives us plenty of Tigers to talk about for today’s countdown feature. Much like we did with No. 18, we figured we’d highlight the special Tigers that have worn No. 7, which is traditionally given to the Tigers’ top playmaker. The tradition really ramped up when Patrick Peterson wore the jersey and passed it along to Tyrann Mathieu.
So with that said, here are the Tigers who have donned the number since 2010: Patrick Peterson (2010), Tyrann Mathieu (2011), Leonard Fournette (2014-16), D.J. Chark (2017), Jonathan Giles (2018), Grant Delpit (2019), Jacoby Stevens (2020) and Derek Stingley (2021). Kayshon Boutte will don the number this year, and we have no doubt he’ll live up to the lofty expectations that come with it.
(There’s one player in that group who isn’t like the others, but we’re not going there today.)
Of course, no discussion of Tiger greats who wore the number 7 would be complete without mentioning legendary quarterback Bert Jones, a.k.a. The Ruston Rifle, who wore the number from 1970 to 1972. If you’ve got 27 minutes to spare this Sunday morning, check out this great video reminder of what a special Tiger Jones was .
Here’s another interesting fact related to the number that is just too fitting not to mention today: According to our projected depth chart , which is far from certain, the Tigers are likely to start as many as seven newcomers brought in from the transfer portal by Brian Kelly. That really drives home what a depleted roster Kelly inherited and the significance of the transfer portal in today’s game. We often discuss the portal’s downsides, but there’s no denying how significant it has been for the Tigers since its inception in 2018.
Seven players Kelly brought in from the portal who we projected as likely starters seven days from now:
QB Jayden Daniels* LG Miles Frazier RB Noah Cain Nickel Greg Brooks CB Jarrick Bernard-Converse CB Colby Richardson P Jay Bramblett
*Of course, we’re not suggesting that Daniels has definitely won the starting job at quarterback. Only time will tell, and that time could come as early as tomorrow when Brian Kelly addresses the media for his Game Week press conference at 11:45 a.m.
• As I’m sure many of you saw, LSU’s first opponent, Florida State, opened their season last night with a lopsided 47-7 win over FCS foe Duquesne. It’s hard to discern much about how good the Seminoles are based on a game like that, but I would be lying if I said I didn’t think they’ll benefit significantly from having a tune-up game under their belt.
• Got comments or questions about the season — or maybe a few bold predictions of your own? If so, send them my way for potential inclusion in a Monday Morning Mail Call.
Lastly, I want to wish a very happy 90th birthday to a special longtime reader, Malcolm Patterson. As you may remember from our post a few years ago, Mr. Patterson taught Kinesiology, Exercise Physiology and SCUBA diving at LSU in the late 50s and had a huge influence on many students’ lives. He also served as a spotter in the football press box, typing communications on the stadium message board and operating the clock for basketball games. Here’s wishing him a very special birthday and many more!
Continue browsing our daily reports:
Dandy Don LSU Sporting News P.O. Box 53806 Lafayette, LA 70505-3806
This web site is not officially affiliated with Louisiana State University. Opinions expressed herein are the property of Donald Long, Scott Long and friends, not Louisiana State University.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.”
If you need to email about something (not hood ornaments) that isn't relevant to the comment section, e mail me at jbohjkl@yahoo.com, which will be responded to pretty fast on weekdays
Images used IAW Title 17 U.S. Code 107
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Now my 10 years BEST OF is on a facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Justacarguyblog/
and nose art of WW2 fighter and bomber planes is on another facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Nose-Art-WW2-aircraft
This is utterly false and. as an attorney, I would strongly advise you to ignore it.
http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/
Very interesting. Do you know of any similar cases that have made it to supreme courts (state or federal) concerning speed limits or driving under the influence. If, after all, one cannot be denied the right to drive a car on public roads even without a driver's license (which implies proper training), then why should other restrictions apply? Speeding and DUI are but two examples.
No, I haven't spent the kind of time needed to learn all the laws that there are, and all the court cases there have ever been. Just posting to share some interesting info. That's all.
Yea, try telling a N.C. Trooper you don't need a license (Spelled licence with a "c" which is "English style in the thread head-line)
hey, I make spelling mistakes. That happens after 28 thousand posts. But back to North Carolina... that state where it was proven that the cops do NOT have to know the laws. Irony, thy name is North Carolina. http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-us-supreme-court-has-let-us-down.html
Etudiante enculée en revenant de l'école
Se toucher pendant la bronzette
Velicity dans une vidéo subjective brutale