 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / August 2005The Right of Locomotion
The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion: "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270 (1900) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=270#274 Examine this carefully. This is YOUR Right. You NEED to Understand EXACTLY WHAT is your Right. Note: "and the right, ordinarly" Which Right? "of locomotion", "to remove from one place to another", "of personal liberty", "of free transit". AKA: Personal Travel. How? "ordinarly". Where? "from or through the territory of any state". AKA: Public Property. We have the Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on Public Property. Even expressed in this form, from experience debating this issue, there will be those who still don't understand what their Right is. Let me rephrase it. On any particular stretch of Public Property, you have a Right to use WHATEVER Locomotion is Ordinarly used on that stretch. On Public Sidewalks, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Walking, and we have a Right to Walk on Public Sidewalks. On Public Biketrails, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Bikes, and we have a Right to Bike on Public Biketrails. What is the Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways? It is, of course, the Automobile. On Public Highways, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is the Auto, and we have a Right to use Autos on Public Highways. snip whine If wishes were fishes, you sure would have a nice dinner, huh? If wishes were fishes, I'd have nothing, as I only have facts. If facts were stacked, you'd be flat. Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes? I present you with evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then come off with some cutesy limerick! Are you under the impression you proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy limericks? You have lived in this harness for so long, you are afraid to live without it, you are afraid to consider living without it, and to avoid doing that, you are afraid to even admit the harness exists! And, in your case, plagiarizing cutesy limericks is a defense mechanism, protecting you from unwanted thought and observations. You probably wouldn't dare follow it, but this is a link to a site where the 1937 Detroit Michigan Driver's Handbook is shown. At the time of the publishing of this handbook, "driving" was still openly admitted by Cities and States as a Right. http://www.us-highways.com/trtdr00.htm Let's try another approach at this. Surely you would have to admit our Constitution recognizes our Personal Right to Liberty. And, surely you would have to admit that this implies a Personal Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways. If you can't admit even this, then I can only think you humiliate yourself. Assuming you admit we have the Personal Right to Travel on our Public Highways, in what manner should we Travel on them other than the Ordinary (the usual) manner of Travel on them? Should we be limited to only extraordinary manners of Travel on them, which in turn may be, and are in many places, prohibited because they obstruct the ordinary manner of Travel? And, how can you have a Right to something extraordinary which can be prohibited because it obstructs the ordinary? You can't! If there must be a choice between the Ordinary manner of Travel and a certain extraordinary manner of Travel, the Right must always go with the Ordinary manner of Travel. If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths and other Public Right of Ways, then you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Roads, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Paths, and you have the Right to Travel on other Public Right of Ways. If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, then, formost, you have the Right to Travel on them in the manner Ordinarly used on them. The Ordinary manner yesterday was the Ordinary manner yesterday. The Ordinary manner today is the Ordinary manner today. The Ordinary manner tomorrow will be the Ordinary manner tomorrow. We have the Right to the Ordinary manner of Travel used on any particular stretch of Public Highway, Road, Path or other Public Right of Way at any particular time. > Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee > jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy > limericks? [snip...] Isn't this now the third time you've posted this right-to-drive stuff, which effectively makes it Usenet spam? The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself. One can freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor vehicle of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)... subject to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored vehicles in their respective area. However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or kill oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left as a privilege rather than an unalienable right. As it is now, enough so-called licensed drivers--where the license is supposed to indicate proficiency in the knowledge of the laws of driving and competent behind-the-wheel control of the motor vehicle--make enough driving errors and intentional violations of various laws of driving that there are multiple collisions reported on an hourly basis. > The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself. Give this person a cigar! You are correct! And, among all the various manners of locomotion possible, the US Supreme Court has specifically recognized as a Right only the certain types of locomotion "ordinarily" used on any given stretch of Public Right of Way. "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270 (1900) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=270#274 And, if other extraordinary manners of locomotion obstruct with the locomotion ordinarily used on a particular stretch of Public Right of Way, that extraordinary manner of locomotion may rightfully be prohibited on that particular stretch of Public Right of Way. > One can freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor > vehicle of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)... You are, in fact, quite mistaken. Walking, bicycling, skateboarding and inline roller-skating are rather extraordinary manners of locomotion used on our Public Highways, which can be, and indeed often are, rightfully prohibited because they obstruct with the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways, each upon which we have a Right ONLY to the locomotion ordinarily used on it. Nowhere is walking, bicycling, skateboarding or inline roller-skating specifically recognized as a Right on Public Highways! I find it quite peculiar that you would assert that these rather extraordinary manners of locomotion on Public Highways are a Right when there not specifically recognized, but would deny the Right of Locomotion Ordinarily used on Public Highways when it IS specifically recognized. The US Supreme Court has specifically recognized ONLY the Locomotion Ordinarily used on any particular stretch of Public Right of Way. Today, that Ordinary Locomotion on Public Highways is, of course, the motor vehicle. But, you deny the use of a motor vehicle on Public Highways is a Right, because the use of a "motor vehicle" on Public Highways isn't specifically recognized as a Right, and despite the fact that the Locomotion Ordinarily used on Public Right of Ways IS specifically recognized. > subject to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored > vehicles in their respective area. Something which is a Right is not subject to restriction nor prohibition. Walking on Public Highways can be prohibited because it obstructs the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being the motor vehicle. Motor Vehicles on Public Sidewalks can be prohibited because they obstruct the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being walking. But, on both Public Highways and Public Sidewalks, the locomotion ordinarily used there is a recognized Right and therefore CAN NOT be prohibited. We have a Right to use Public Highways, Roads, Sidewalks, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways. And, on each, we have the Right to use the Locomotion Ordinarily used on that particular Public Right of Way. We have the Right to use Public Highways, and the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways at the time, regardless if that Public Highway runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not. We have the Right to use Public Sidewalks, and the locomotion ordinarly used on Public Sidewalks at the time, regardless if that Public Sidewalk runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not. We have the Right to use Public Right of Ways, and the locomotion ordinarly used on those particular Public Right of Ways at the time, regardless if that Public Right of Way runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not. > However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or > kill oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left > as a privilege rather than an unalienable right. Another reason a particular manner of locomotion may be prohibited is if it poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of others. If, as it would appear, you would claim the motor vehicle poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of others, it must be outright prohibited for EVERYONE. One CAN NOT obtain a license to Endanger the lives or property of others. But, clearly, as the motor vehicle IS the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways, the level of danger they pose must be acceptable. Otherwise, if it weren't, it wouldn't be the locomotion ordinarly used. > Proffsl wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Isn't this now the third time you've posted this right-to-drive stuff, No. It's more like the tenth time I posted this Right-OF-LOCOMOTION stuff, and it won't be the last. > which effectively makes it Usenet spam? What you call "spam", I call my soap box and my Right of Speech. Another Right you might not be aware of. What I consider SPAM is when people respond to issues, with no intention of discussing the issue. You've opened up dialog concerning the issue, weak as it might have been. I consider this issue to be of pivotal importance in many ways. Especially so now since there intentions to attach the National ID Abomination to Driver Licenses. I demand our Government abide strictly by the Constitution. I would think you should too. Are you afraid to find out? Are you afraid it will put you up against something bigger than you? Are you afraid you;ll feel foolish for allowing yourself to be fooled all your life? Are you afraid of the truth? > What I consider SPAM is when people respond to issues, with no > intention of discussing the issue. Except when the "issue" is a made-up one, where only one person actually gives a sh.t. > You've opened up dialog concerning the issue, weak as it might have > been. No, you're just trolling. Nobody in r.a.d. seems to give one little rat's a.s about your pet project. Maybe you'd have more luck in alt.kooks? Now, don't get me wrong - I appreciate your motivations on the issue. Obviously the right to drive is not your real motivation. Your real motivation is to have a pissing match in usenet. Otherwise you'd go and do something real, instead of having your face glued to a monitor. Oh, the right to drive? I couldn't care less. With every other issue out there, up to and including the stuff I have to do when I get home tonight, it ranks right down there with the reproductive habits of archaebacteria. E.P. gcmschem...@gmail.com wrote: > [Typical Troll Spam Crap Deleted] Do not presume to speak for others. Do not presume to speak for me. You respond to issues without addressing the issue. You are a Troll. You spam usenet. >> What I consider SPAM is when people respond to issues, with no >> intention of discussing the issue. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >E.P. Wow, what an incredible statement. One of THE most basic freedoms a person can have is the right to move unimpeded by gvt control and you say that's something you could not care less about. I suppose you don't give a rat's a.s about your free speech rights either and think the gvt would be within it's "rights" to require you to get a license in order to use the Internet. It's no wonder this once great country is going to hell in a hand basket with people who think like you around. > gcmschem...@gmail.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > use the Internet. It's no wonder this once great country is going to hell > in a hand basket with people who think like you around. They've had this harness on for so long they'd feel nakid and scared without it. The propaganda has taught them to react with these types of Knee Jerk responces. It all began back in the 1930's. Before this, Licensing was required only for the commercial use of Public Right of Ways. Then, States began to employ deceitful termonology to fool the citizens into believing Licensing was needed and Constitutional. The word "traffic" being at the core of this deceitful termonology. When most people think of the word "traffic", they think of all the vehicles moving along a highway. As though "traffic" meant "travel". Traffic MAY or MAY NOT Travel, still Traffic IS NOT Travel. Traffic is the commercial exchange of goods and services for money. Travel is physical movement from one place to another. Ever hear the phrase: "trafficing in drugs"? That doesn't mean one is Traveling in Drugs. That means their Commercially Dealing in Drugs. Regardless if, in the process, these drugs do or do not Travel. All commercial entities exist under the Commerce Act of the Constitution. Therefore, as Traffic is Commerce, Traffic is subject to the Commerce Act of the Constitution. In particular, the Commerce Act applies to Travel only in instances where Travel is a Commercial Service, such as Taxi, Bus, or Truck Services, Plane Services that use Public Right of Ways for performing Commercial Services. The Commerce Act does not apply to Travel for Personal reasons, nor do Licensing laws. At first, their laws were somewhat benign in appearance. But, as time has passed, they've added more and more attachments to the bridal, closing in tighter and tighter on our Freedoms. Remember that movie: "The Christmas Story" (I believe)? Where the mother sent the youngest out to TRAVEL to school, bundled up so thickly and tightly, the poor kid couldn't even WALK. He fell down, and couldn't get up. Flapping his arms and kicking his legs, and screaming the whole time he couldn't get up. Well, unless people learn to shake off this harness, their going to end up like this kid, weighed down so much by the harness, they can't even move. They'll lay there kicking and screaming, and they'll know they were told so. So, there. > Wow, what an incredible statement. One of THE most basic freedoms a > person can have is the right to move unimpeded by gvt control and you > say that's something you could not care less about. Who said I don't care about moving about without government control? I don't care about the "right to drive" sophistry. Right at this very moment, I could cross the country without any licence whatsoever. Without showing any ID, along publicly-funded right-of-way. And not be breaking any laws. So take your "right to drive" spam, and your trollish bullshit, and shove them up your stupid, pimply, teenaged a.s. E.P. > One can freely do that with their own legs, This is always the snide responce, thought through none. We have the Right to Travel on Public Right of Ways, Including Highways. The snide responce is "Walk". But, If one were to choose to Walk on Public Highways, obstructing travelers in motor vehicles, those who would say "Walk" will also be the first screaming to get them off "their" highways because they obstruct motor vehicles. >Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee >jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >particular stretch of Public Highway, Road, Path or other Public Right >of Way at any particular time. Here's more evidence of the RIGHT.. http://www.sagebrushnews.com/wise.htm A Word To The Wise Further enlightenment about the right to travel (drive) By Jude Vollendorf, for the Sagebrush News Last issue I talked about the right to drive, or travel, at some length. But in conversations with friends (and foes) it has become clear that people in general believe the fiction the state has promulgated since the turn of the centurythat travel on the roads in a motor vehicle is a privilege. A privilege, of course, can be denied at will. And the state has increasingly denied individuals the right to travel for reasons further and further afield from regulating traffic and public safety. So I thought this time I would let the courts speak on the issue and see if some understanding can be achieved by all sovereign Citizens of the state of Oregon. There are many more quotes and cases than what are listed here, but for space considerations these will have to do. "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 "The right to travel is an unconditional right which cannot be conditioned by the legislature." Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 341 (1972) "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777 "A right which is free and open to all is not the subject of license."-- Freebourgh v. Dawson 274 F 420. "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.) It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. "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." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489. "...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter; it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. "...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...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. The right to travel is implicated when a statute actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right. Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Minn. 1993) (citing Attorney Gen. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S. Ct. 2317, 2320 (1986)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1081 (1994).. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America. > Here's more evidence of the RIGHT.. > > http://www.sagebrushnews.com/wise.htm Apparently, this site is no longer carrying this particular story. Not that I doubt the story existed. > By Jude Vollendorf, for the Sagebrush News > "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing > situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's > inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by > due process of law." > Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; > Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777 Take note above of the use of the word "removing". Often, in denying our Right to remove ourselves from one place to another, people suggest one can always take a bus or a taxi. But, we don't have a Right to BE REMOVED. Instead, we have a Right to REMOVE OURSELF. We have the Right to TRAVEL. We DO NOT have a Right to be TRANSPORTED. If such a Right existed, others would be legally obligated to TRANSPORT us to where ever our inclination choose. Additionally, such TRANSPORTS are generally Commercial entities, which DO NOT have a Right to even exist to begin with, and may exist only by the permission of the State. It is nonsensical to say we have a Right to something which itself doesn't even have a Right to exist. Imagine you owned some property with roads on it. Imagine you hired someone to maintain those roads for you. Now, Imagine the person you hired begin to deny you the use of your own roads, forcing you to be subjected to using a Commercial Transport Service which this person you hired give his permission to use your roads. You would, or should, be outraged. Also, take note of the phrase: "without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." Due Process of law is the Right to be charged of a crime, summoned to court, to receive an orderly proceeding, confronting your accuser, having the choice between a Judge or Jury, and to be assumed Innocent until proven guilty. What this means is that Rights may not be denied of everyone merely by Legislation, but that a particular individual must be charged with a crime, and found guilty, before that particular individual may be denied of a Right. >> Here's more evidence of the RIGHT.. >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >must be charged with a crime, and found guilty, before that particular >individual may be denied of a Right. Most of the people who today call them selves Americans are the same people who have never read the constitution and have no concept of rights "... reserved to the states or to the people..." Anything NOT specifically listed in the constitution as something the feds have control over is a states right and if it's not listed as a states rights, it's the citizens right. The legislatures and courts have systematically pissed all over the constitution. > Most of the people who today call them selves Americans are the > same people who have never read the constitution and have no > concept of rights And, I find their usually the first to respond, and always with heckles, assults, and slander. It's as if their afraid somebody might discocer their slavery and free them from their shackles. One poster, who goes by the name "The Real Bev", after making the typical personal assaults, nailed their own coffin of ignorance closed by writing: The Real Bev wrote: > OK, so as I see it we have the following rights: > 1. To be semi-attached to the earth by gravity. > 2. To require oxygen in order to breathe. > 3. To require food and water in order to continue life. > 4. To require sufficient shelter to enable continued life. None of these are Rights, but instead are just the facts of life. Item 1 being a Law of Nature. Items 2 thru 4 being needs. Rights are NOT what others are obligated to provide you. Instead, Rights are what others are obligated to allow you. > "... reserved to the states or to the people..." Anything NOT > specifically listed in the constitution as something the feds have > control over is a states right and if it's not listed as a states > rights, it's the citizens right. Also, if it is reserved to the people, NO State shall infringe upon it by Law either denying it or converting it to a privilege. And, as I have pointed out numerous times, the US Supreme Court has reserved to the people the Right of Locomotion Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on Public Right of Ways. Public Highways are Public Right of Ways. Therefore, State Driver Licensing Laws are indeed a Violation of our Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. > The legislatures and courts have systematically pissed all over > the constitution. And, their having control over our Public Education system provides them the opportunity to turn out a bumper crop of those very same Americans you spoke of above, being totally Ignorant of the nature of Rights, and making their transgressions of the Constitution that much easier to get away with. > The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion: The remainder was snipped. Not this again...gawd! I thought this horse was beaten dead into the ground the last time you mentioned this nonsense. > Proffsl wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not this again...gawd! I thought this horse was beaten dead into > the ground the last time you mentioned this nonsense. Beating a horse to death, and debating an issue are two entirely different things. You refuse to debate the issue, but insist on beating dead horses. > Proffsl wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not this again...gawd! I thought this horse was beaten dead into the > ground the last time you mentioned this nonsense. Ironic that the issue is about our Right of Locomotion, and that you would wish to beat that horse dead into the ground. You smite our Rights. I smite you. > I smite you. You can smite him all you want. I'd prefer that you BITE me. And that goes for your sock puppet, Crusher, too. -- C.R. Krieger (Do I LOOK like I'm afraid of the government?) >> I smite you. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >C.R. Krieger >(Do I LOOK like I'm afraid of the government?) Naw, you just seem ignorant. > >> I smite you. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Naw, you just seem ignorant. Irony so thick you can cut it. So how's that fertilizer stash you guys got goin'? Enough to fill up the rental truck yet? -- C.R. Krieger (Not quibbling) >> >> I smite you. >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So how's that fertilizer stash you guys got goin'? Enough to fill up >the rental truck yet? Did your Mom help you come up with that? >>> Naw, you just seem ignorant. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Did your Mom help you come up with that? Oooohhh, Burn! >So how's that fertilizer stash you guys got goin'? Enough to fill up >the rental truck yet? It turns out they stole the wrong kind - it cannot be used to make an explosive. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/071505_nw_stolen_fertilizer.html > >So how's that fertilizer stash you guys got goin'? Enough to fill up > >the rental truck yet? > > It turns out they stole the wrong kind - it cannot be used to make an > explosive. Our resident dim lights probably tried to make a fertilizer-fuel bomb the easy way. They heisted a pallet of fertilizer from Home Depot and grabbed a tank of fuel from the local truck stop. Now they've got 100 bags of cow manure mixed with diesel fuel. > It turns out they stole the wrong kind - it cannot be used to make an > explosive. You do not increase your stature by lowering yourself to the same Libelous behavior of Motorhead. Or do you? > > > > I smite you. > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So how's that fertilizer stash you guys got goin'? Enough to > fill up the rental truck yet? Your resume of accomplishments continues to grow. You've already been Accomplished yourself as a Troll and a Pervert, now you add to your accomplishments that of being a Libelous peice of Filth. > > I smite you. > > You can smite him all you want. I'd prefer that you BITE me. > > And that goes for your sock puppet, Crusher, too. Along with being a Troll, you now add to your list of accomplishments by being a Pervert. >> The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion: >The remainder was snipped. > >Not this again...gawd! I thought this horse was beaten dead into the >ground the last time you mentioned this nonsense. Its amazing how some people like you are determined to stay under the yoke of gvt no matter WHAT evidence is presented to you that YOU ARE NOT. ================== http://www.sagebrushnews.com/wise.htm A Word To The Wise Further enlightenment about the right to travel (drive) By Jude Vollendorf, for the Sagebrush News Last issue I talked about the right to drive, or travel, at some length. But in conversations with friends (and foes) it has become clear that people in general believe the fiction the state has promulgated since the turn of the centurythat travel on the roads in a motor vehicle is a privilege. A privilege, of course, can be denied at will. And the state has increasingly denied individuals the right to travel for reasons further and further afield from regulating traffic and public safety. So I thought this time I would let the courts speak on the issue and see if some understanding can be achieved by all sovereign Citizens of the state of Oregon. There are many more quotes and cases than what are listed here, but for space considerations these will have to do. "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 "The right to travel is an unconditional right which cannot be conditioned by the legislature." Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 341 (1972) "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777 "A right which is free and open to all is not the subject of license."-- Freebourgh v. Dawson 274 F 420. "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.) It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. "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." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489. "...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter; it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. "...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...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. The right to travel is implicated when a statute actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right. Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Minn. 1993) (citing Attorney Gen. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S. Ct. 2317, 2320 (1986)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1081 (1994).. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America. > >> The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion: > >The remainder was snipped. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > yoke of gvt no matter WHAT evidence is presented to you that YOU ARE > NOT. Oh gawd! I thought we only had one locomotion troll. Could it be proffsl has mutated and now can multiply by cell division? Or maybe he is just using another name. Hmmm...wonder which one it is. Since the nonsense Ashton posted has many similarities to the proffsl posts I think they are one in the same. We are probably safe...there appears to be only one. You are nothing but another Troll Spammer with Paranoid delusions. >> >> The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion: >> >The remainder was snipped. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >think they are one in the same. We are probably safe...there appears >to be only one. Instead of attacking the posters, why don't you explain why the court rulings are wrong and why you WANT to be under the yoke of gvt and NOT free to travel and use public highways without a license? > Instead of attacking the posters, why don't you explain why the court > rulings are wrong and why you WANT to be under the yoke of gvt and NOT > free to travel and use public highways without a license? That is a excellent question! If you really want information you should do is go back and reread the messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was started. > If you really want information you should do is go back and reread > the messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was > started. Oh? You mean like when you provided the following INFORMATION? > If you truly believe that nonsense then go find an uninhabited island > in northern Alaska to exercise your right. Or, would it be the following INFORMATION you're thinking of? > Maybe a public restroom in central park or online in one of the > Alt. news groups where you could participate in real or virtual > group sessions. Listen up "buckwheat". Why should we run back to a previous thread to re-respond to your previous posts? Your previous posts didn't address any of the points or questions I presented. I've already responded to your previous posts. And, your responces to my responces always went off on some tangant, still never responding to anything I said. Mostly, your previous posts merely attempted to deny the very existence of Inherent and Inalienable Rights. If you don't believe Rights exist to begin with, this thread isn't for you. I'm here to present evidence of and to debate the existence of a particular Right with people who already realize that other Inherent and Inalienable Rights do exist. If you don't understand the most fundimental aspects of Rights, Liberty and Freedom, you simply aren't ready to debate at my level. That would be like trying to debate Calculus with somebody who denies the concept of Numbers. >If you really want information you should do is go back and reread the >messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was started. Its not a nonsensical thread. It has exposed you as a supine and willing tool of the gvt. > >If you really want information you should do is go back and reread the > >messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was started. > > Its not a nonsensical thread. It has exposed you as a supine and > willing tool of the gvt. Tell me, in another life were you one of the conspiratorial loonies who was sure the commies were massed just on the other side of the mexican border ready to invade the U.S. So sure that you probably rushed to build a self-sufficient cabin in the Montana or Michigan forest after buying survivalist supplies from some wacko shortwave broadcaster. >> >If you really want information you should do is go back and reread the >> >messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was started. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >build a self-sufficient cabin in the Montana or Michigan forest after >buying survivalist supplies from some wacko shortwave broadcaster. Hell no! http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/default.asp They don't advertise over any shortwave!  SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com >> >If you really want information you should do is go back and reread the >> >messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was started. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >build a self-sufficient cabin in the Montana or Michigan forest after >buying survivalist supplies from some wacko shortwave broadcaster. No, were you? > >> >If you really want information you should do is go back and reread the > >> >messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was started. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No, were you? Oh, now isn't that a cutesy response. Will you be trying a nanny-nanny-goat next? >> >> >If you really want information you should do is go back and reread the >> >> >messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was started. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Oh, now isn't that a cutesy response. Will you be trying a >nanny-nanny-goat next? You volunteering for the position? > > > If you really want information you should do is go back and reread > > > the messages I left the previous time this nonsensical thread was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > build a self-sufficient cabin in the Montana or Michigan forest after > buying survivalist supplies from some wacko shortwave broadcaster. In this life, you are a worthless Troll. > > In this life, you are a worthless Troll. Heh - more irony. E.P. The irony here is that a Troll is responding to a post where I was identifying another Troll. > The irony here is that a Troll is responding to a post where I was > identifying another Troll. You obviously have no clue what a "troll" is, then. Hint: I'm not one. HTH, E.P. You obviously have no clue what a "Troll" is. Hint: You are one. > You obviously have no clue what a "Troll" is. "I know you are, but what am I" retort. How clever. E.P. I'm not here to dazzle you with clever retorts. You're not here to debate the issue. > I'm not here to dazzle you with clever retorts. Not that you'd be able to anyway... > You're not here to debate the issue. There is no "issue." It's just a half-witted troll. E.P. Go away half-witted troll. > Go away half-witted troll. How are you going to accomplish that, hmmm? Go ahead and try to get rid of me. I dare you. E.P. "half is better than none at all..." We determined that original Troll was in fact you attempting to impersonate our friend trolls Who are you responding to? Who are you?? What makes you think I must respond to someone without a proper ID? > Proffsl wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who are you?? Don't you know who you are responding to? > What makes you think I must respond to someone without a proper ID? Are you Mark Levitski? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.