Merged Freeman on the Land in America/lawful rebellion/sovereign citizens

http://freemen.freeforums.org/chessmaster-joe-s-blog-t20.html

Scroll past the part about Attorneys...

You're looking for the U.S. Supreme Court cases in regards to realizing their understanding of the differences between the "terms" driving & traveling / a motor vehicle & an automobile.

Here's a small excerpt...

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile
As will be made painfully evident herewithin, a Private automobile is not
required by any law, code or statute to be recorded. Any recording (pledge)
of Private automobile to any agency is strictly voluntary. Any recordation /
contract you or a Dealership has done was a fraudulently conveyed act as the
recording agency/..automobile Dealer told you that you must record your Private
Property. The voluntary pledge that was done without just compensation is
usually done through fraud, deceit, coercion and withholding of facts, which
can only be construed as fraud and unjust enrichment by agency as well as a
willful malicious act to unjustly enrich the recording agency and its public
servants.

Do not post large amounts of text from other websites.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Ummm. If we're supposed to ignore part of your quote, why not just snip that part? That way, you are less likely to be in violation ... again.
.
 
.
Ummm. If we're supposed to ignore part of your quote, why not just snip that part? That way, you are less likely to be in violation ... again.
.



Heck, he could have just quoted me, and been fine. But apparently he'd rather rack up violations than actually address an honest discussion of the claims he keeps cutting and pasting here.
 
Excellent research H!

I bet you 72 1/4 Ameros that they just accepted what they told to believe and never looked up where the quotes came from.
 
.
Ummm. If we're supposed to ignore part of your quote, why not just snip that part? That way, you are less likely to be in violation ... again.
.

Grndslm did skip that part. The entire original post on the other board was humongously long. The part about "(premise 1) cars are household goods, (premise 2) household goods are not taxed (conclusion) personal cars cannot be taxed" was just exceptionally long.
 
Last edited:
Excellent research H!

I bet you 72 1/4 Ameros that they just accepted what they told to believe and never looked up where the quotes came from.



Thing is, they'd pretty much have to just accept them at face value, as it's hard to find the original sources for most of the cited court cases online. You'd have to actually go find a law library, or something. That they're willing to accept these quotes without doing such research speaks volumes about how serious they really are about learning the truth.

It's just like all the other CT-related quotes I've ever tried to track down - those original sources that can be found online are inevitably mis-quoted in some manner, and yet, the believers accept all the others at face value, and never seem to ask if the people who distorted the first set of quotes might have also distorted the second set.
 
Heck, he could have just quoted me, and been fine. But apparently he'd rather rack up violations than actually address an honest discussion of the claims he keeps cutting and pasting here.

A very useful linked post (along with a followup post (#212)).

Grnslm, you really should respond to this very recent detailed debunking of your traveling/driving claims.
 
Last edited:
http://freemen.freeforums.org/chessmaster-joe-s-blog-t20.html

Scroll past the part about Attorneys...

You're looking for the U.S. Supreme Court cases in regards to realizing their understanding of the differences between the "terms" driving & traveling / a motor vehicle & an automobile.

Here's a small excerpt...

Do not post large amounts of text from other websites.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

You know what is awesome about freeloaders on the land? How they build, maintain and fuel "automobiles" all on their own!

And when the "dealers'" contract with a Freeloader requires registration of the vehicle? FRAUD!
 
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the distinction grndlsm wants to make between "traveling" and "driving" is specious. Specifically, the right to travel does not include the right to operate a motor vehicle without a license. Here's a nice little summary:

AZIZA EL v. City of Southfield said:
The Court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims is also warranted for reasons set forth in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted because Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle and state licensure and registration requirements do not violate an individual's constitutional right to travel. See e.g., Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL 1828089 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding claimed violation of right to travel frivolous and explaining that "[w]hile a fundamental right to travel exists, there is no fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle."); Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 1999); Matthew v. Honish, 233 Fed.Appx. 563 (7th Cir. 2007) (State licensure and registration requirements do not violate motorist's constitutional right to travel).


http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_ca...river's+license"&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2010
 
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the distinction grndlsm wants to make between "traveling" and "driving" is specious.

I would think that this distinction was actually non-specious, and that's what kills grndlsm's argument.

Specifically, the right to travel does not include the right to operate a motor vehicle without a license. Here's a nice little summary:

I.e. you have a right to travel; you can take a bus or a taxi or walk anywhere you like (along the public roads). You can even catch a ride with a friend.

But you don't have a right to drive.

I.e. grndlsm has the wrong end of a real legal argument.
 
I would think that this distinction was actually non-specious, and that's what kills grndlsm's argument.



I.e. you have a right to travel; you can take a bus or a taxi or walk anywhere you like (along the public roads). You can even catch a ride with a friend.

But you don't have a right to drive.

I.e. grndlsm has the wrong end of a real legal argument.
There is a specious version of the distinction (grndlsm/fotl) and a non-specious version of the distinction (actual law/common sense). In grndlsm's version, you are "traveling" rather than driving if you are operating a motor vehicle for non-commercial purposes.
 
Google Scholar that D'Rok linked to seems to have access to some of the cases cited earlier....


"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere
privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right
which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.


http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_ca...921366&q=154+SE+579&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1


Now, this is a (mostly) accurate quote, but it is presented in a dishonest manner, as it ignores the parts of the document that follow it:


The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.

The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, 378*378 under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. Taylor Smith, 140 Va. 217, 124 S.E. 259; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W.Va. 576, 85 S.E. 781, L.R.A. 1915-F, 840; Hadfield Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 Pac. 516, L.R.A. 1918-B, 909, Ann. Cas. 1918-C, 942.

The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.


So, unsurprisingly, the courts found that the government may impose regulations on the exercise of the "right to travel", so long as those regulations were imposed uniformly, and not arbitrarily.
 
And the problem is this.

If we had no system of licensing and insurance, etc. And someone suddenly came up with the idea of a test that made sure someone could drive safely, a system that made sure someone had the ability to pay for damages in an accident, and a way to track vehicles, i would herald this man a genius.

And so would the majority of the people in north america. It is simply a good idea. Even if this wasn't law ( which it is.) i would support making it so. Because i don't want people who can't drive well driving, i don't want to get stiffed if some idiot hits me, and to flip it over, i don't want to kill someone because i didn't know how to drive, or cost someone thousands of dollars because of a mistake.

But some people don't give a **** , they don't care if they kill someone because of their lack of driving skill, they don't care if i have to work double shifts because they totaled my car.

So any way you slice it, the fotl still lose. IF they are right ( which they are not) then it should be made law. If they are wrong...we are still living in the real world.
 
But you don't have a right to drive.

I.e. grndlsm has the wrong end of a real legal argument.
Orly? Do you have the right to carry firearms or other weapons??

End of lawful argument.

If it is no question whether or not you can carry a gun on your person, then it should be no problem whether you can travel in any modern conveyance of the time... as is said in a number of the quotes I cited.
 
As soon as one of you actually reads all the cites, in reference to these two issues, then we can talk.

P.S. - Sorry I can't directly post the issue here, because that's not allowed. The mods won't define what "small" and "large" mean.... so I won't bother. Just like most of you won't even bother to read what it is you're attempting to talk about.


Wow. I've been waiting since last evening to have a real talk about these two issues, and this is all you can come up with?


Orly? Do you have the right to carry firearms or other weapons??

End of lawful argument.

If it is no question whether or not you can carry a gun on your person, then it should be no problem whether you can travel in any modern conveyance of the time... as is said in a number of the quotes I cited.


Do you really have no useful comment on the fact that your cut-n-pasted "source" has seriously distorted the content of several of the court cases quoted, and that, even then, it really doesn't say anything about what you claim it said?
 
Orly? Do you have the right to carry firearms or other weapons??

End of lawful argument.

If it is no question whether or not you can carry a gun on your person, then it should be no problem whether you can travel in any modern conveyance of the time... as is said in a number of the quotes I cited.
Horatius has shown that at least one of your cherry-picked case citations actually stands for the opposite proposition than the one you have claimed. I have shown that the current state of the common law regarding the right to travel also proves you wrong.

Deal with it.
 

Back
Top Bottom