Right to Travel

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by ndusa

...(holding that the constitutional right to travel does not encompass (1)unrestrained use of highways; that the ability to (2)drave a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental right, but thater is a revocable privilege that is granted upon compliance with statutory sicensing procedures.." ect, ect....

1. Right, unrestrained use not encompassed. Driving/operating with "for hire", passengers and/or cargo is restrained.

2. Correct, to "drive" as the vehicle codes define drive, is not a right as opposed to traveling, which is a right.

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

1. Right, unrestrained use not encompassed. Driving/operating with "for hire", passengers and/or cargo is restrained.

2. Correct, to "drive" as the vehicle codes define drive, is not a right as opposed to traveling, which is a right.

I'm sorry, is that what the Supreme court said? I don't think so! If you are behind the wheel, you ass is grass in Montana. People like the "freeman" tried this crap, and it never has, and never will hold up in MOntana, no judge thinks like you, nor will you find any jury to buy this crap.

Now, instead of giving your "theory" which doesn't mean a damn thing in law, show us a case where I'm wrong in Montana. (I won't be holding my breath thats for sure!) NOBODY HAS EVER, I DO MEAN EVER, WON THIS LOONY THEORY IN MONTANA AND NEVER, EVER WILL.

[ndusa]

All the loony theory's have been tried, look it up, you can't even get them to read that junk anymore. The Montana Supreme's just don't buy into these 100 year old cases, and in one case they point out, the state has a right to regulate the roads.

So, you can tell me I'm wrong all the live long day, doesn't matter. You can tell the Montana Supreme court and every jury thier wrong, but I would step back and think"what do you call someone who is right, and everyone else is wrong".

Last, your quotes and what not don't mean a thing. These judges interpret the law, not YOU. I'm just an average joe, and I have to agree with them. Of course, you can continue to think your smarter than these judges, but opinions are like AH, everbody has one, and perhaps you should keep yours to yourself.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by ndusa

I'm sorry, is that what the Supreme court said? I don't think so! If you are behind the wheel, you ass is grass in Montana. People like the "freeman" tried this crap, and it never has, and never will hold up in MOntana, no judge thinks like you, nor will you find any jury to buy this crap.

Now, instead of giving your "theory" which doesn't mean a damn thing in law, show us a case where I'm wrong in Montana. (I won't be holding my breath thats for sure!) NOBODY HAS EVER, I DO MEAN EVER, WON THIS LOONY THEORY IN MONTANA AND NEVER, EVER WILL.

Without Prejudice.
What you probably dont see published are the situations cases where the traveller or sojourner knew his or her stuff. The cases you are pointing out are ones were the 'defendants' had obvious flaws in logic.

Originally Posted by ndusa

All the loony theory's have been tried, look it up, you can't even get them to read that junk anymore. The Montana Supreme's just don't buy into these 100 year old cases, and in one case they point out, the state has a right to regulate the roads.

So, you can tell me I'm wrong all the live long day, doesn't matter. You can tell the Montana Supreme court and every jury thier wrong, but I would step back and think"what do you call someone who is right, and everyone else is wrong".

Last, your quotes and what not don't mean a thing. These judges interpret the law, not YOU. I'm just an average joe, and I have to agree with them. Of course, you can continue to think your smarter than these judges, but opinions are like AH, everbody has one, and perhaps you should keep yours to yourself.

You seem to feel very...passionate about this. However, your statement about opinions could be ...reciprocated. Thing is though...who is actually even coming close to asserting the right to drive without a license?

[ezrhythm]

The words; driving and "unrestricted traveling" are used purposefully otherwise they would come right out and say, "All automobile use on public roads is restricted." Or, "All use of the common ways are/can be regulated."

The very fact that we are having this discussion indicates that the courts haven't and can't plainly say, "You have no right to travel."

In fact, because we do have the right to travel, they have to make up the category of "person" just so that they can trick people in to attaching themselves to such catagory in order to regulate/control the deceived population.

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

The words; driving and "unrestricted traveling" are used purposefully otherwise they would come right out and say, "All automobile use on public roads is restricted." Or, "All use of the common ways are/can be regulated."

The very fact that we are having this discussion indicates that the courts haven't and can't plainly say, "You have no right to travel."

In fact, because we do have the right to travel, they have to make up the category of "person" just so that they can trick people in to attaching themselves to such catagory in order to regulate/control the deceived population.

LOL, oh yes they tell you that you don't have a right to drive! You can call it travel, if your behind the wheel, your dead in the water.

Instead of thinking that you're argueing something new, go do some research, read EVERY case decided in Montana, every stupid arguement has been made, and if you look further, you can call yourself person, man, woman, its all the same in montana.

Matter of fact, why don't you come up to Montana, rip the plates off your "vehicle", get rid of your DL, and do 100mph down a road, then when you get out of jail in a year of so, come back and tell us about it.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by ndusa

Last, your quotes and what not don't mean a thing. If they didn't mean a thing, we wouldn't be here.

These judges interpret the statues which are NOT law.

I'm just an average joe, and I have to agree with them. Only if you decide to. Freewill.

Of course, you can continue to think your smarter than these judges, I don't and that's not the object.

but opinions are like AH, everbody has one, and perhaps you should keep yours to yourself.
You say, "perhaps I should."
I say we are all here to share; opinions, facts, beliefs, ideas, theories, methods, etc.

And I'm glad you are here to share yours.

Peace and wisdom to you in Christ Jesus.

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

And I'm glad you are here to share yours.

Peace and wisdom to you in Christ Jesus.

I agree with them because they are right. I don't see much of my opinion here, and my opinion means nothing. The fact is, the matter has been decided, all your mumbo jumbo double talk isn't going to change the fact the matter has been delt with.

Why argue with me, go argue with the Supremes, you'll lose, I promise you that. Go to a jury, you will never find 12 people in montana who are going to let you go, I'm sorry, that just how it is in the real world.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
Another interesting thing about the Skurdal case...

"The privilege properly may be revoked for non-compliance...and such would not be an infringement of the revokee's right to travel."

They make a distinction in that very section between the right to travel and the "privilege to drive". And then admit through a bit of haze and fog that revocation of the "privilege to drive" would not "infringe upon the ...right to travel". They are admitting that revocation of the driver's license doesn't stop one from traveling by car (non-commercial) just like taking a company's operator license away doesn't stop someone from travelling non-commercially in their semi--but the company might be fined for trying to do commercial hauling without the license.

[ndusa]

Ezy, I agree we are here to share ideas and what not. But telling me I'm wrong, when I never made these decisions isn't right either.

I very seldom agree with courts, but this is one that I do, as do Montanans. Maybe in your state its different, but not in Montana.

Lastly, your preaching to the wrong person. We could go back and forth all night long, but it boils down to the fact it has been decided, and you or me ain't gonna change that.

Provide case law, which you can't because there is none in the state of Montana to support this right to travel theory. Montana frowns on people with such ideas, look at the freeman. Its not just me, its the entire population, with the exception of less than one percent.