Right to Travel Part 100

[Shoonra]

Shoonra, tho I didnt read it in the post above, would you agree that acts of legislatures only apply to those ... who are made by law, legislated into existence?



No.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Shoonra, tho I didnt read it in the post above, would you agree that acts of legislatures only apply to those ... who are made by law, legislated into existence?

No.

I've said it before and it applies here:

Originally Posted by me

acts of legislatures and Cognress ONLY apply to creatures of law; that which is created BY law.

The People made government to rule over certain subjects by our rights delegated to those governments by constitutions.

such delegated rights, minimal and limited, cannot be exalted above the rights of the creators, we the people.

To admit any other answer IS high treason and self-deceit.

Shoonra, I realise that I'm interjecting here; it's not meant as a direct answer to you.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by kgod999

....but, if theres no victim, it must be civil. the fraud and kidnapping under color of law is what people are upset about. 90 percent of people in jail havent done anything criminally.

I think you know better than that. The vast majority of people incarcerated today are in for drug violations.

Originally Posted by kgod999

....the legislature can vote tomorrow in georgia and say everybody gotta paint their house pink or they committed a crime.

No, they can't do that successfully. If they were that stupid, there would be an almost instantly-filed court case and an injunction issued blocking the law from taking effect until the courts ruled on the viability of the law. It happens all the time. Laws get tossed when an over-reaching legislative body gets a bug up their ass for something.

But the validity of traffic laws has been challenged, re-challenged, challenged again and again and held up.

Originally Posted by kgod999

.... its that easy for the state to act in fraud and malice against the people.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

My "so-what" light is on.

All that says is the use of public roads can't be arbitrarily denied (i.e., for political or discriminatory reasons such as allowing one company to use it but not another) nor can a toll be applied to their use. No part of that precludes the state's requirements for someone to have a driver's license (demonstrating you are who you are and you passed some minimum qualifications), maintain automobile registration (for property taxation purposes) or insurance (as proof of financial responsibility in the event you damage someone else's property).

If you get in trouble on the road, this kind of BS will only make it more expensive and if you push it far enough, you'll be on foot, sans car and bitching and moaning that the argument didn't work because the judicial system is at fault.

The point of the citation is to show that the Right to travel the roads, is a RIGHT, not a privilege as many states try to claim. The Rights are the Inherent rights of mankind which come from Almighty God, according to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Thus, they are not privilege, which can be taken at the will of the state. I am glad to know that there is no disagreement over this issue, JRB and Shoonra. We won't need to discuss it again.

No Injury ? Can Courts Adjudicate?
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...html#post65868

As a Right, it cannot be legislated, or taxed, away!

PACKARD v. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)

The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper. [Otherwise, it may not be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper, it is a Right.]

[…]Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=264+&page=140

Sigler vs Berrigan [410 US 902]: “The right to travel is a peripheral right of every citizen under the First Amendment.”;

Worthy v. Herter, 270 F.2d 905, 908 (D.C.Cir. 1959)("The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty");

Tetalman v. Holiday Inn, 500 F.Supp. 217, 218 (N.D.Ga. 1980)(The "constitutionally protected right to travel ... is basically the right to travel unrestricted by unreasonable government interference or regulation");

People v. Horton, 14 CalApp.3d 930, 92 Cal.Rptr. 666, 668 (1971)("the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference ... is a fundamental constitutional right")

What is a license?

license, n. 1. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful… Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition.

Now we see that licenses are revoked for whatever reason the states wishes. Many of these reasons have nothing to do with the individual’s relationship to the road, or traveling, such as falling behind on a child support order, etc. How can the state strip away a right on such a basis? It cannot! There is no constitutional requirement to have licenses, while operating in a private not-for-hire capacity. Now the states are planning on putting Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in the license. This is just more tyranny. There are about 40,000 deaths on the public roads annually, how have licenses made the road safer?

National ID...Mark of the Beast...READ THIS!
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/end-da...east-read.html

HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
http://famguardian.org/forums/index....ic=361&hl=1984

The states can regulate the roads, such as stop signs, and traffic lights, for public safety.

If identification is needed, in the case of accident, injury, or being stopped based on probable cause (crime); an individual may give an affidavit. Witnesses may come forward. The victim may identify the suspect, etc. There is no need for a license. An affidavit can be used to prove vehicle ownership, also.

I see no reason that justifies the state forcing an individual to contract with another (private) party for insurance, while traveling in his/her private capacity. There is no constitutional requirement that I can find.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

AMENDMENT TEN

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For more information:

Driver license and registration please?
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...on-please.html

Right to Travel Court Cites
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...urt-cites.html

judge bean, even shoonra knows not to argue when someone agrees with him.

[squirrel]

Despotic treasonous traitors dont like it when you slap em upside the face with an unrebuttable rebuttal, they can run their mouth all they want here, saying the methods dont work, take it to their chambers of commerce and it's a whole different story, hence the reason to bad mouth it here so you'll think it wont work in "court".


We accept their lies and return it back to em for closure and settlement.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

The vast majority of people incarcerated today are in for drug violations.

Judge Robert Bork said, over 80 percent of all people in jail today volunteered to be there.

Government by consent? Administrative tribunals?

(I had specifics on that quote, but am unable to find them, currently)


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Shoonra]

I think Bork meant that the people in prison "volunteered" in that they intentionally set out to commit the crimes that put them in prison.

[charlesa6]

Yep! Shoonra, precisely.

[Akira]

Charlesa6,

Although I seem to remember it differently, I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the context of the above quote, as it seems to be a very logical possiblity, and because I am unable to find my copy of the original quote, in it's original context. (I have it somewhere, and did try to find it before posting.. lol)

But, since you are certain that what Shoonra suggests is correct, could you please provide a source for the quote?

Thanks !


For HIS Glory,
Akira