The Right of Locomotion

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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 ass 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.

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.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 bull****, and
shove them up your stupid, pimply, teenaged ass.

E.P.

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.

John S. wrote:
>
> 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?

John S. wrote:
> 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?

John S. wrote:
> 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.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> 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.

On 23 Jul 2005 17:39:46 -0700, "proffsl" > wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>> 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.

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 ****ed all over the constitution.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> 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 ****ed 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.

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
> 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.

On 23 Jul 2005 06:05:28 -0700, "John S." > wrote:

>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.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2005 06:05:28 -0700, "John S." > wrote:
>
> >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.