RE: Common-law Right to Travel

RE: Common-law Right to Travel (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/18/2010 11:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If you cannot exercise your right on the public "common way" and you certainly cannot trespass on private property on the side of the public common way how does one exercise their unalienable right to travel? Lying as usual. If you want to exercise your right to travel you can. You can walk or ride a bike or horse. You cannot operate a motor vehicle without a license, registration and insurance.

popeye1250 -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/18/2010 11:50:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If you cannot exercise your right on the public "common way" and you certainly cannot trespass on private property on the side of the public common way how does one exercise their unalienable right to travel? Lying as usual. If you want to exercise your right to travel you can. You can walk or ride a bike or horse. You cannot operate a motor vehicle without a license, registration and insurance. Yeah, or you can drive a big fuckin' HUMMER that gets 6 mpg!

Termyn8or -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 12:42:32 AM)
FR OK, I have saved up another two cents worth. Up until 1959 I believe, certain states did not even require a driver's license. Can't be sure but I think Idaho was among the last. That was only a year before I was born. Now what if someone from that state, whether it was ID or not, drives to another state ? To further confound the issue (something at which I excel) way back when I was young my Father had a problem, I think it was in Iowa. We did not have mandatory insurance at the time, and when accidents happened, cash was the answer. We became experts at writing a proper release form and even got my sister to become a notary. When we sweep things under the rug they are gone. All had to happen within 72 hours, the time limit to file an accident report. It wasn't that bad, even though we were a bunch of drunks we always knew how to drive, well almost. Anyway the olman gets into a fender bender in Iowa, and was not at fault. The other guy was a hothead and insisted they arrest the olman because he did not have insurance, which was mandatory in that state back then. However not being a resident they did not arrest him. In fact they were about to but somebody got a state trooper there and the trooper looked the traffic cop right in the eye and said "If you arrest him I will arrest you". He was not a resident nor a Citizen of Iowa, therefore the law did not apply to him. So what did apply to him ? If they can't enforce the insurance law, how could they even give him a speeding ticket ? Interesting questions develop, especially for those who do alot of interstate travel. Like when I went to FL the first time. My buddy down there told me a few things. About the diamond marked lanes, and the fact that anytime you had to use your wipers the lights must be turned on. I am sure I could probably defend against either of those charges at least the first time around. Additionally in 96, I shared driving of a 26' Uhaul with the biggest trailer they have down to FL. My buddy was finally picking up all his stuff, out of storage, Mom's basement, all of it. When I took the wheel he told me to make sure I left the directional on until I was ALL THE WAY into my intended lane. During that time I also discovered that the speed limit signs in GA were just there for decoration, or to shoot at for practice. They want you to drive through there, having quite the length in the north - south direction. I guess they figure they make more off of gas taxes and food/lodging than they would by writing tickets. Works for me, doing 85 (not that trip, the truck had a governor) and a cop just passes you by. I like it. Then we have the "I can't drive 55" issue. At one time the Will Rogers pike had no speed limit. I mean no limit at all. When the national 55 limit came out, which was the stupidest thing I've ever seen BTW, it could only be enforced on a federal level by requiring it to obtain future federal higway funds. Nevada notably told them to go fuck off and keep their money. I don't wonder why. It's been clear to me for a long time that this is just a money game. Knowing that helps to mess with the system. You have to know the object of the game to play effectively. You'd be surprised how well this works. They bust me, with a couple of safes full of money, bank accounts I can't even count, credit that would kill a moose, when they give me my phone call I just say "I have noone to call". Mind you I could come up with about six figures for bail money, but I won't. Now they leave me alone. Let's take a few facts in hand. A license does not prevent an accident. In my view the test is inadequate to screen competent drivers anyway, judging from what I see on the roads. Insurance does not prevent accidents. People prevent accidents because ........... Accidents are caused. It is really that simple. You want to prevent accidents ? I got a good plan. Eliminate all licensing requirements and make insurance illegal. If you cause harm, cough up the money or lose your property. If that isn't enough, make seatbelts and airbags illegal. Put sharp pointy things on the dash, so if you hit something it hurts. Put railraod ties or something in the doors so if someone Tbones you, you live and they are impaled by a heater control or something. They die you live. In a matter of a few short years there will be no accidents. Proof ? Take a look at the accident rate of motorcycles. Some drive them for fun, which means risk. Even so, because of the vulnerability of the driver, per capita motorcycle accidents are rare. From the guy with a beard who gets on his Harley after drinking a keg of beer, to the punk on a crotch rocket, they know they are vulnerable. This makes them pay attention. Fight logic all you want. T

eyesopened -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 3:23:43 AM)
Real One: I quoted this to further point out that quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution. Except for your inability to read the next paragraph of the case.... "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Although this particular case has not be overruled since the initial decision in 1930, it has received significant negative treatment. It's very easy to pick one statement out of a case and try to make it seem as though it supports your viewpoint. It's quite another to actually be able to read and understand the case. I would suggest getting subscription to WestLaw or Lexis as opposed to pulling them off your "freedom fighter" sites. Then again, that would only be if you want the whole story, which you obviously don't. In your own quote, the key is "at will" which means (as LayfayetteLady demonstrate with the second part) that permission can't be granted or revoked arbitrarily. In other words, you do not have the right just cuz and no one can take away your right just cuz. There is due process both in the right itself and any revocation of such.

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 6:18:19 AM)
FR Doesnt anyone read any more? Just pop on and whine liar liar pants on fire as if that counts for anything but a good laugh? Again: I said in an SEVERAL earlier posts that: Driving, Vehicle, Passenger, Hire is ALL commercial. Traveling, Automobile, Guest, No Hire, are ALL NONCommercial. Translated and simplified: These are regulated: Driving is commercial hence regulated! Vehicle is commercial hence regulated! Passenger is commercial hence regulated! For Hire is commercial hence regulated! These are UNregulated: Traveling, is NONcommercial hence UNregulated. Guest, is NONcommercial hence UNregulated. No Hire, is NONcommercial hence UNregulated. Automobile, is NONcommercial hence UNregulated. This means: Use of the word Automobile is not the same as Vehicle. Use of the word Traveling is not the same as Driving. Use of the word Automobile is not the same as Vehicle. Use of the word No Hire is not the same as Hire. Use of the word Guest is not the same as Passenger. How can it be more clear? I do not see where all the confusion is on this?

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 6:29:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Real One: I quoted this to further point out that quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution. Except for your inability to read the next paragraph of the case.... "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Although this particular case has not be overruled since the initial decision in 1930, it has received significant negative treatment. It's very easy to pick one statement out of a case and try to make it seem as though it supports your viewpoint. It's quite another to actually be able to read and understand the case. I would suggest getting subscription to WestLaw or Lexis as opposed to pulling them off your "freedom fighter" sites. Then again, that would only be if you want the whole story, which you obviously don't. In your own quote, the key is "at will" which means (as LayfayetteLady demonstrate with the second part) that permission can't be granted or revoked arbitrarily. In other words, you do not have the right just cuz and no one can take away your right just cuz. There is due process both in the right itself and any revocation of such. CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, [the right] is not a mere privilege [that a city] which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but [it is] a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. thats not what this says eyes.... Note the word BUT they stated the claim then stated the decision. They are saying that it is not a privilege that the city can do something with. It is a right that the city cannot touch. So that gives us: CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

pahunkboy -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 6:31:52 AM)
No one brought up that when one can not travel- that could be a component of martial law- which means the constitution is suspended. Also- a blockade is an act of war.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:42:46 AM)
FR Realistically regarding loopholes don’t count on the fact they won’t arrest you and let the courts decide, happens all the time. It really depends if you want to go through all this silliness and waste police time to prove a point. There are all kinds of old laws which people assume gives them specific freedoms. Subsequent laws have realised that people have the right to travel safely meaning the standard of driving, state of driver and protection (insurance) offered to you by other motorists has to be tested to be of a certain standard. Some people go as far as to say freedoms can’t be given by other people and they use the first few lines of the declaration of independence to show that. If that were realistically true then people wouldn’t be able to be put on trial for crimes such as tax evasion because god didn’t mention tax evasion, ever.

mnottertail -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:46:54 AM)
Yeah, the Magna Carta defense hasnt been used since the Magna Carta. Not something you want to bring up in US courts either, that will get you sent on the short bus to the padded room law offices. Ron

Jeffff -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:56:33 AM)
Incidently, the Magna Carta was to protect the landed gentry more the the general populace. PeasantDom

mnottertail -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:59:02 AM)
We are all commoners now...... Bennett the Serf

LadyEllen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 8:01:03 AM)
Cows eat grass. Horses eat grass. Therefore cows are horses. This cow is eating cattle feed. Cows eat grass. Cattle feed is not grass. Therefore this animal is not a cow or a horse. E

Jeffff -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 8:07:55 AM)
To the devil with you Saxon's. PrinceJohnDom

mnottertail -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 8:12:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Cows eat grass. Horses eat grass. Therefore cows are horses. This cow is eating cattle feed. Cows eat grass. Cattle feed is not grass. Therefore this animal is not a cow or a horse. E Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy..... Æthelred the Unready

pahunkboy -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 8:43:05 AM)
Ild be curious to see the document he showed to police.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 8:46:24 AM)
Go and read the terms and conditions of Google Chrome backwards and it will contain all the legal jargon required to give you the right to herd sheep in Time Square.

pahunkboy -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 8:55:29 AM)
which brings me back to my creator gave me unalienable rights. Note how govt is unable to give me MORE rights then that.

Jeffff -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 8:58:57 AM)
I am not a biblical scholar. I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing any of the Bill of Rights mentioned. St.Jeff

LadyEllen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 9:03:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy which brings me back to my creator gave me unalienable rights. Note how govt is unable to give me MORE rights then that. this merely provokes further problems however - who is this Creator? if you cant prove such an entity exists then how can you possibly establish rights based on its authority? now, we might all agree - for the sake of establishing such a basis - that there is a Creator with such authority. But this does not vary significantly from the notion of government as the representation of the collective and having authority on that basis. which is to say that government must have at least equal standing and authority as such a mutually conjured Creator - and in fact must have greater standing and authority since it is apparent we can prove the existence of government but not of any Creator. E

Termyn8or -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 10:27:21 AM)
""The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." " I was looking for something like this. Even though used to disprove a point it may have proven another. I started a thread about guys divorced in absentia a while ago and it got bounced due to the extant draconian CM rules in place at the time. At this time I don't think this post is going to qualify as a hijack. I know a few who cannot get driver's licenses because of back child support, something they did not even know they owed until it had built up to hideous proportions. In two cases their ex Wives moved quickly and filed, purposely giving a false address for the papers to be served. Now they can't pay because they can't drive. I have looked into it a bit and the only way to really fix the situation is to reopen the original case. But they can't afford a lawyer because they can't drive. I could probably represent them but the court will not allow that. Now nobody can really argue that people who literally can't drive should try, and should not be prohibited from trying. For example blind people should not drive. Those who exhibit the inability to do so safely for whatever reason would have to be prevented from endangering the public. However we are talking about people with fairly clean records, who simply don't have the kind of money they used to have. We are not talking about me here, we are talking about law abiding Citizens. In two cases they got stopped for a minor ticket, like rolling through a stopsign. That gets ugly because now they have a DUS chanrge to pay for. Then they call down there and find out they owe tens of thousands of dollars. People who can't pay their child support should be impelled to find a way to pay it of course. People who can but refuse to pay belong in jail, I don't think many would disagree. But to take a guy who, say, gets layed off and can't pay the most counterproductive thing you can do is to immobilize him. The quote at the top of this post seems to prohibit the taking of the driver's license on such grounds. For example if you are a licensed electrician, should you lose that license for being a terrible painter ? I'll take those quotes. Sometime I will print them, probably from findlaw or something. They will go into the folder for when this battle is chosen. Not that this is a prime issue in these cases, but for the goal. Ideally both of these cunt should be on trial for fraud and kidnapping, but a binding estoppment of license suspension due to this reason will be on the table, and might make case law at the very least. I'll have to call a couple of lawyers to find out more. T

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02