Right to Travel

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Right to Travel

Post by iamfreeru2 » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:18 pm

I have uploaded a couple of cases regarding the right to travel. The so-called PTB own "case law" states a "person" has the fundamental right to travel. How much more so do the children of YHWH have the right to travel on His earth without being molested?
Thompson v. Smith.doc
(38 KiB) Downloaded 974 times
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Right to Travel

Post by iamfreeru2 » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:36 pm

Here is a link to a video I put up on my forum where a man and his family were stopped by a DHS checkpoint. It just goes to show, without our consent there is nothing they can do. :D

http://praisehim247.freeforums.org/depa ... t-t91.html
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Right to Travel

Post by iamfreeru2 » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:40 pm

I have uploaded a pdf all should read. The way I am coming at the right to travel from a constitutional standpoint is, it is a violation of my constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion to be required to obtain a driver license. To be so required would cause me to put the state before YHWH, and I am commanded to serve Him only.

Notice I said: "constitutionally protected right". Since I am a people, and a creation of YHWH, not the state, my rights come from Him. He has ordained government to be His exacter of righteousness, His servant, and devoting themselves to be His public worship (see Romans13). However, any government that does not obey the covenant between it and YHWH, is a usurper of His authority and is not to be obeyed.

I believe this is the approach we need to be taking.

orphaned_right.pdf
(57.4 KiB) Downloaded 1019 times
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
saulvation
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:02 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by saulvation » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:18 pm

The United States Constitution clearly supports the right to travel in its preamble. "We the people......secure the Blessings of Liberty......" In American Jurisprudence one could look up the ample definition of liberty, it is quite vast. You can also find where the U.S. Supreme Court rulings have stated closely that an individual has the right to own private property which includes a mode of transportation and do what he sees fit with it without encumbrances. This is not the exact wording, so you must look it up yourself for yourself. If a person desired they could use an Administrative Procedures Act , available in every state and take the matter up in front of a administrative law judge and say something like, " under what law can you compel myself to acquire or even apply for a driver's license?"
JakeNeely
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by JakeNeely » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:29 pm

I'm fighting a right to travel case in the state of Oregon as we speak. I own a classic car that I'm restoring for personal use and I've been to court twice claiming "right to travel" as my defence against a license. The first time in circuit court the acquitted me as the sheriff was familiar with the law. The second time they found me guilty in the same court of the same charges and the judge literally refused to acknowledge the law NOR engage with me at all. He just repeated "you must get a license if you want to drive" for 20 minutes and then found me guilty without citing a reason. Also he found me guilty of not having insurance even though I brought the documentation to court proving I did.

I'm here basically to make sure that A.) I do actually have the right to travel and it's THEY that are in the wrong. (I.e. I'm not trying to make trouble arbitrarily) and also B.) How to MAKE them respect their own laws on the books OR just challenge the constitutionality of the entire process and get it dismissed that way, since my experience in court has given me negative one million percent faith in it. I don't see how I can receive a fair trial when the judge represents the state, as they do in traffic court, and more importantly, has flat out refused to respect the law as it's written.

Important facts to note: I do not drive for work or commerce, only as a private car enthusiast. I have a precedent in my favour already. It was a motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction. (Basically if I'm not a commercial driver the "commercial police" have no jurisdiction over me) I've declared my car a recreational vehicle for personal use.

SOME of My questions are: Is my classic 1986 300zx eligible for recreational vehicle/personal use status?
What makes a recreational vehicle a recreational vehicle?
How can the judge represent the state and consider it a fair trial since it's everyone
against me?
If my car doesn't classify as an "rv" why not? It's literally only for recreation.
Are all roads the same? Which do I as an American citizen have the right to travel freely on?

Any help is much appreciated and I will post updates as they happen. Thanks ahead of time for your input.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by notmartha » Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:25 pm

JakeNeely wrote:
SOME of My questions are:
Is my classic 1986 300zx eligible for recreational vehicle/personal use status?
What makes a recreational vehicle a recreational vehicle?
If my car doesn't classify as an "rv" why not? It's literally only for recreation.

Any help is much appreciated and I will post updates as they happen. Thanks ahead of time for your input.
You can download the Oregon Vehicle Code book here: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/docs/vcb/2013vcb.pdf

This will tell you how the "court" will define their words.

ORS 801.409 “Recreational vehicle.” “Recreational
vehicle” has the meaning given in
ORS 446.003. [Formerly 801.407]

ORS 446.003(33)
Recreational vehicle means a vehicle with or without motive power, that is designed for human occupancy and to be used temporarily for recreational, seasonal or emergency purposes and as further defined, by rule, by the director.

From HERE:
Motor homes (a.k.a., recreational vehicles, RVs). Definition: A vehicle that has been designed, reconstructed, or permanently altered to provide facilities for human habitation, i.e., permanent sleeping and cooking facilities. This includes permanently mounted campers on pickup trucks or other truck frames.
JakeNeely
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by JakeNeely » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:20 pm

As much as I appreciate you cut and pasting the publicly available codes, I feel like you didn't read my post. Especially the part where I said, "the judge literally refused to acknowledge the law", also, "found me guilty without citing a reason", also "If my car doesn't classify as an "rv" why not? It's literally only for recreation.". I took the law on paper into court. I'm not ignorant of the codes, what I'm asking, I feel rather plainly, is why can they just ignore the law when it doesn't suit them. The judge held up my page of Oregon Laws and said, "You need to quit reading this stuff! If you want to drive you have to have a license".

What I'm asking is how do I respond to THAT. I'm not going to court and saying "I'm the living man blah blah" why am I treated like it just for bringing up the law to defend myself? I expressed my desire to be within the law, my willingness to learn the correct way if I was mistaken, and basically I was mocked, found guilty without reason, and sent out.

If I could get just ONE answer out of you it would be does my car, or does my car not qualify as a recreational vehicle? I've read the law. I've even went so far as to look up and document other similar court cases and precedents. The court looked at them (all cited by case number and triple checked by me for legitimacy) on record, and then just did what they wanted anyway, which as far as I can tell goes against the law AND many many well documented court precedents.

If I had a second question it would be "How the heck is that legal?!?!" How can the court ignore laws and court cases?
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by notmartha » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:37 pm

I read your whole post. You left too many terms unqualified for me or anyone else to give you an accurate, thorough response. For instance, you said "the law" no less than 5 times without actually deposing which "law" you are speaking of. In your last post you said "Oregon law" but do not state which one. Your law (which you have yet to depose) and the court's law are likely very different. The "judge" did cite a reason, and it sounds like he gave you ample chance to rebut it. You need a license to drive. Driving is not synonymous with traveling, yet you seem to use the terms interchangeably. The court does not. You use the words "car" and "vehicle" synonymously. The court does not. You don't want to claim a standing of "living man" but seem to imply that persons are entitled to the same rights. They are not. I did answer your question about whether your 300zx is eligible for RV status by referring you to the code and definition of RV. You can call your car anything you want, but if you want the court to see your car as an RV it must meet their criteria. You don't say in your post whether your car is registered/tagged or not, or whether you are trying to get an RV tag or not. It would be easy enough to make your car fit the criteria of an RV, by adding a pillow, 12v coffee pot, and urinal, if that is what you are looking for.

The courts have no obligation to uphold your law (whatever law that may be). They are corporations which are in business to make a profit by watching out for their state interest. Sometimes it is in the state's best interest to show a kindness and let you go, and other times it is not. If you think the courts have an obligation to uphold anything but public policy, you are sadly mistaken.
JakeNeely
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by JakeNeely » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:26 pm

Yeah sorry. I agree that I didn't cite which laws the court was referring to as THEY didn't specify either, and for the sake of brevity I wasn't specific previously. I went to court and cited the following law:

801.208¹
Commercial motor vehicle code
Subsection (2) article D.

Vehicles not considered a "motor Vehicle"

"A recreational vehicle that is operated solely for personal use. [1989 c.636 §2; 1991 c.185 §1; 1991 c.676 §1; 1999 c.359 §1; 2007 c.387 §1; 2009 c.395 §3; 2009 c.718 §27; 2011 c.470 §1]"

I looked up the definitions and aside from the above there's nothing specifying why my auto-mobile (I do know the differences in terminology and I used them properly in court as well as provided the judge with the definitions and differences.) could not be considered "operated solely for personal use" since it genuinely is. Also like I mentioned, I referred to my car as an auto-mobile and not a motor vehicle. I referred to myself as a traveller and not a driver etc etc. Also at this point as pedantic as it is I have to point out that the whole process feels like dealing with hustlers/scam artists from start to finish.

If I'm doing something wrong it seems like the burden should be on them to prove it. THEY didn't have to cite any laws and prove their claim that I was, in their terms, a motorist in a motor vehicle rather than a traveller in an auto-mobile. I was the one that had to pay out of pocket and prepare a case. They just dismissed it.

My car is registered, tagged and insured. Does that count as compliance? Should I not have state issued plates? Is THAT compliance? These are the questions I have.

"I did answer your question about whether your 300zx is eligible for RV status by referring you to the code and definition of RV"

Like I said, I didn't see anything that disqualified my 300zx. I was asking did I miss something.
Dumpster
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:03 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by Dumpster » Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:35 pm

@JakeNeely I'm no expert on this, but I have been looking into research done on the judicial system.

Due to certain laws the people are considered the enemy of the state and have no standing in court. Which means no matter what you bring for your defense, the court might patronizingly look at it, or talk about it just for show, but it doesn't take any of it into consideration.

The court does what ever it wants.

The way the laws are written, with legalese, using terms (not words) where the law can pretty much be interpreted any way the court likes.

This is not advice, but what I would do if I were in your place is to do your best Not to have to go to court. Stay low on the radar so to speak. And if I had to go to court, I'd be very polite and speak as little as possible. If you bring up, my rights, or a lot of case history and laws in your defense, the court will get angry because they just want to get things done quickly and get your money. They are afraid of the people, especially people that are knowledgeable in the law because they don't want the people to realize the laws are all fiction. The law is all made up and relies on acquiescence and consent by ignorance.

The law is designed that way and Not until a good percentage of the people get educated about 'legal fiction' will it make a difference. That's why it is important for people who understand, help others understand.

Here is a link to a site with a great deal of great information. Check out the articles by 'The Informer', he has/had been doing research for over 40 years, and while doing his research he met others doing similar research, they have articles here too--- http://web.archive.org/web/200808221220 ... /index.htm

Edit: The link above; if you scroll down, on the left side of the page is the links/tabs to the authors. Like I mentioned above, the Informer has some great articles. The tab/link 'Knowledge is Freedom' are James Montgomery articles; very revealing.
Last edited by Dumpster on Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply