Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
- See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defenses-to-libel-and-slander.html#sthash.ofjTemV9.dpuf
Thank you for the link!
quote:
priviledges and immunities, the state steals your rights by writing law that undermines and suspends your rights .
Travel is a right reserved by the constitution, (through the AoC) however the gubblemint removes those rights from you if you wish to use a a vehicle to travel, first within their jurisdiction by regulating 'commercial drivers' then by slipping in a requirement for everyone to register as a driver.
Bullshit. You might want to look into things a bit deeper. The "right to travel" is a right that a person had the right to free ingress/egress to another State. One state could not tax you to enter or leave. That has zero to do with driver licensing laws.
Methinks your tin foil had might be on a bit too tight.
quote:
the press is mostly a useless gubblemint mouthpiece and agenda propaganda pusher today anyway.
freedom of press does not exist
the requirements for libel/slander like most everything else judicial needs a complete over haul, with someone watching the backs of we the people as well as they watch the backs of they the gubmint
Are you in favor of a Trump Administration rewriting defamation law?
Tin? hahaha! 24K Gold!
U.S Supreme Court: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." See Hertado v. California, 110 US 516
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." See Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." See Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." See Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." See Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"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." See Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." See Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
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, and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
DRIVING IS COMMERCIAL for PROFIT, travel is to transport yourself and your property, [noncommercial]!!!!
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
But they Did!!!!
Armey Exposes Traffic-Light Spying
Tue Jun 26 10:55:37 2001
Armey Exposes Traffic-Light Spying
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/25/195458.shtml
Tuesday, June 26, 2001
WASHINGTON - Gotcha! House Majority leader Dick Armey has turned the
spotlight on legal documents showing that profit, not safety, is the guiding
principle in yellow traffic lights of four seconds or less.
A few weeks ago, Armey, R-Texas, blew the whistle on the whole idea of using
machines instead of police officers to catch motorists who run red lights.
Moreover, the yellow light time was suspiciously short in many cases,
seemingly in an attempt to make it harder to stop in time before the light
turns red.
Now, says Armey, there is documented evidence in San Diego confirming that
this is exactly what's happening.
Attorneys with the "Red Light Defense Team" have obtained thousands of
confidential documents from the city's red-light camera contractor during
court proceedings.
"The evidence is clear," says the congressman. "The concern for safety has
given way to a concern for profit. It's all there in black and white."
Here are the criteria used to determine where red-light cameras were to be
placed in the city:
1. "High traffic volume." Heavy traffic ensures a steady stream of profits.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 2/28/2016 4:58:53 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Donald Trump Vows To Change Libel Laws To Sue Journ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread