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

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:06:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or They actually changed the game, tilting the playing field in their advantage. Let's take that one. They ruled that driving on the public roads, no matter what you call it is a priveledge. Why did they have to do that ? Obviously someone had a pretty damn good case I would think. The Ohio supreme court involved in a traffic case ? There must be good reason no ? So now most of us just knuckle down, get plates and shut up. The fight is not worth it at this time. Repression, it sure is. For the the greater good, public safety and all that ? Ostensibly. A big money game ? Definitely. So I could make copies and you could go get a BIG P.O. box. Or I could scan and send everything in email, which would save me a ton of paper. It'll probably take 200-300 MB of harddrive space. Which do you prefer ? T come on! Now lets play court. Without reading the case I will bet you the best 80oz marzen they did NOT rule that "TRAVEL" is a privilege!!!! Whatever you want to call it is a mouse trap. They play on words like that man.

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Driving, Vehicle, Passenger, Hire is ALL commercial. Traveling, Automobile, Guest, No Hire, are ALL NONCommercial. Not in New York. I had to get commercial plates simply because I had a shell on the back of my truck. No matter how I swore up and down that it was just my own transportation. what do you mean by had too? Someone told you that you had too and you most likely believed them. You would be shocked at how much shit they tell you that you "have" to so thats not even in the code in stat land and you certainly dont in common law. (unless you are operating commercially then of course you owe it to the public)

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:11:11 PM)
This pretend lawyer is good he can know the outcome without reading the case. I say you are wrong and I put forward the case of J.L. Woodbridge versus the state as precedent. There that'll take up some Google time.

Termyn8or -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:13:04 PM)
FR Y'know if we had one ounce of solidarity there could be a boycott. If fully say 35% of the people here would rebel against this, there would not be enough jail space. It worked once in recent history. They wanted you to license your microwave ovens. Just about nobody complied at all and they just gave up. Commerce or not, I am waiting for the next trucker's strike. The government has stuck it so far up their ass that I'm surprised they can still work the clutch. Everything you own comes in on a truck, even your truck. If they actually get together they would have this country by the short hairs in a matter of hours. But we have been divided, and conquered. T

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 This pretend lawyer is good he can know the outcome without reading the case. I say you are wrong and I put forward the case of J.L. Woodbridge versus the state as precedent. There that'll take up some Google time. I do not believe that any judge would put his bond and ass on line to rule against an unalienable right so have fun looking it up on google cuz I wont waste my time.

Termyn8or -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 7:55:41 PM)
All I could find is a wrongful death case in New Jersey. T

DomKen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 9:20:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Happy to DK, but I need a bit of advice on just how to do that as it is easier said than done. Most of the most important material I have is in four file cabinets, or they are the destination. I just moved. After finding everything I will scan it, and leave it in JPG format to ensure some degree of authenticity. I might have to dig up a floppy disk reader as well because that's where my UCC files are. At that point then I can send attachments via email. This includes statutes, trial transcripts and other things that are just about impossible to find on the net. So what am I to do ? Ignore the people I personally know who have won this game as if they never existed ? You've got file cabinet full of material? Tell me the sources. That way I and other interested parties can independently verify your claims. For instance the source for your claim that the statutes involved do not actually say 'operate motor vehicle' but instead say something about drive versus travel. IOW stop slinging BS and put up or shut up.

DomKen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/19/2010 9:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The statutes say 'operate a motor vehicle' not drive or travel. Claiming one is commercial and one isn't is irrelevant. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle as defined by statute on the public way then you have to be licensed and the vehicle must be registered and insured. So where is your superior knowledge on thesubject? Facts only please not handwaves or bald assertions that you know facts you cannot produce. really? Just like when someone is claiming YOU owe a for a bill and you claim its not your liability. Completely irrelevant! Can you hear me LMAO (who are you trying to snag with your play on words or is this like a really personal argument with yourself?) I'm calling you out then. Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any styatute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 12:42:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The statutes say 'operate a motor vehicle' not drive or travel. Claiming one is commercial and one isn't is irrelevant. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle as defined by statute on the public way then you have to be licensed and the vehicle must be registered and insured. So where is your superior knowledge on thesubject? Facts only please not handwaves or bald assertions that you know facts you cannot produce. really? Just like when someone is claiming YOU owe a for a bill and you claim its not your liability. Completely irrelevant! Can you hear me LMAO (who are you trying to snag with your play on words or is this like a really personal argument with yourself?) I'm calling you out then. Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any styatute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.[image]local://upfiles/59055/BA5A96D0633D4A0FBE3A23C5E0BDCBFA.gif[/image] When all else fails demand that I prove up "your claim" on a completely false premise!

LadyEllen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 2:47:53 AM)
vexatious litigant now there's an interesting concept to throw in after 7 pages of this nonsensical meandering RO - are you disputing jurisdiction or do you have something substantial by way of a case? can you give us an account - fictional if necessary, to illustrate for me what on Earth you are talking about and why it matters? E

pahunkboy -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 8:46:05 AM)
But a blockade is an act of war. and when you suspend the constitution- this is what is known as Martial Law.

DomKen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 9:14:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The statutes say 'operate a motor vehicle' not drive or travel. Claiming one is commercial and one isn't is irrelevant. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle as defined by statute on the public way then you have to be licensed and the vehicle must be registered and insured. So where is your superior knowledge on thesubject? Facts only please not handwaves or bald assertions that you know facts you cannot produce. really? Just like when someone is claiming YOU owe a for a bill and you claim its not your liability. Completely irrelevant! Can you hear me LMAO (who are you trying to snag with your play on words or is this like a really personal argument with yourself?) I'm calling you out then. Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any styatute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.[image]local://upfiles/59055/BA5A96D0633D4A0FBE3A23C5E0BDCBFA.gif[/image] When all else fails demand that I prove up "your claim" on a completely false premise! So you can't actually prove that the supposed legal distinction you base your entire claim upon even exists. Why didn;t you say that this was pulled out of some nutjob's ass and had no basis in reality 7 pages ago?

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 11:07:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The statutes say 'operate a motor vehicle' not drive or travel. Claiming one is commercial and one isn't is irrelevant. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle as defined by statute on the public way then you have to be licensed and the vehicle must be registered and insured. So where is your superior knowledge on thesubject? Facts only please not handwaves or bald assertions that you know facts you cannot produce. really? Just like when someone is claiming YOU owe a for a bill and you claim its not your liability. Completely irrelevant! Can you hear me LMAO (who are you trying to snag with your play on words or is this like a really personal argument with yourself?) I'm calling you out then. Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any styatute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.[image]local://upfiles/59055/BA5A96D0633D4A0FBE3A23C5E0BDCBFA.gif[/image] When all else fails demand that I prove up "your claim" on a completely false premise! So you can't actually prove that the supposed legal distinction you base your entire claim upon even exists. Why didn;t you say that this was pulled out of some nutjob's ass and had no basis in reality 7 pages ago? The real question is why are you in this discussion in the first place since you have already shown us that you are incapable of comprehending the cases posted on the previous pages? you dont even understand the basis and framing of the OP.

Musicmystery -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 11:11:07 AM)
I think he'll take that as a "No."

DomKen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 11:37:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The real question is why are you in this discussion in the first place since you have already shown us that you are incapable of comprehending the cases posted on the previous pages? you dont even understand the basis and framing of the OP. Actually the real question is: quote: Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any statute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words.

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 11:40:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I think he'll take that as a "No." well they dont have a choice when they cant properly frame their arguments within the boundaries of issue(s) or comprehend the citations posted. A feather in my cap :)

Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 11:42:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The real question is why are you in this discussion in the first place since you have already shown us that you are incapable of comprehending the cases posted on the previous pages? you dont even understand the basis and framing of the OP. Actually the real question is: quote: Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any statute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words. yeh I fully comprehend what you are saying man. you dont.

DomKen -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 2:34:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The real question is why are you in this discussion in the first place since you have already shown us that you are incapable of comprehending the cases posted on the previous pages? you dont even understand the basis and framing of the OP. Actually the real question is: quote: Show me a statute in the US that makes the distinction between driving and traveling. Any statute at any level. Not a judge's ruling on some case that mentions one or the other but a statute or judges ruling that makes a clear distinction between the two, note that means it must contain both words. yeh I fully comprehend what you are saying man. you dont. No I fully comprehend what you are trying. You are claiming that only people only need driver's licenses etc. if they engage in commercial activity when they operate their vehicle. This seems to be a mangling of something from one of the 'UCC is ebil' sources. Of course you are wholly and completely wrong since the statutes involved simply refer to 'operate.' You tried, rather unsuccessfully, to obfuscate the matter by presenting several court rulings which you selectively and deceptively quoted. In short there is a common law right to travel but it does not, never has and never will include the right to operate any machine. The state has and always has had and always will have the right to license, tax and place reasonable restrictions upon the privilege of operating motor vehicles on the public way.

pahunkboy -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 3:02:57 PM)
it is a blockade... and that is an act of war.

thornhappy -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/20/2010 3:42:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Not in New York. I had to get commercial plates simply because I had a shell on the back of my truck. No matter how I swore up and down that it was just my own transportation. what do you mean by had too? Someone told you that you had too and you most likely believed them. You would be shocked at how much shit they tell you that you "have" to so thats not even in the code in stat land and you certainly dont in common law. (unless you are operating commercially then of course you owe it to the public) Really. So what would you tell the clerk who's holding your tags? Do you really think that your common law theory's going to make a difference?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625