Right to Travel

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by JakeNeely »

Yeah that's been my approach so far, I just don't like having to walk on egg shells and get patronized by people whos salaries I pay when I can see in broad daylight that the law is on my side.
User avatar
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by notmartha »

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:

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]"
If you are going to try to use their codes (i.e. secrets) against them, you have to be extremely careful in your interpretation. For example:

§ 801.208

Commercial motor vehicle
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the term commercial motor vehicle does not include the following:
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]

This does not say what you quoted above. This does not say "Vehicles not considered a "motor Vehicle."" It does not disqualify a recreational vehicle from being a motor vehicle. What it says is that a recreational vehicle that is operated solely for personal use is not included in OR's definition of the term "commercial motor vehicle".

Courts' interpretation... a recreational vehicle is a motor vehicle operated by persons for their own use.

Do you see why judgy wudgy didn't have to go very far in his reading of what you provided? You incriminated yourself by taking the benefit of this statute.
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.

Ok, I'm glad you understand the various meanings. It is a good idea to use words properly even in casual conversation as to make it habit. And yes, they are evil, evil, evil tricksters. We don't need to help them along by being easy victims.
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.
No, in their court, they make presumptions and the burden is on you to prove who/what you aren't. It may help you to learn more about the adversarial system of law.
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.

Registration and insurance are contracts that bind the parties to a particular set of rules, in part, the motor vehicle code. If you are one of the parties to the contract, you must comply or change the terms of the contract. I can't say whether you should or shouldn't have a state issued tag. I will say, the idea of "staying low on the radar" is history when you run around without a tag. You will be dealing with many more "courtroom" railroadings if you put a target on yourself. Some people have the temperament and wisdom to deal with courts, others do not.

Edited to add:
I want to clarify my post a bit. I don't want you to think that if you memorize all their code and say everything perfectly that you will "win" in "court". That is not the case. I've seen people totally mess up and "win" and others who didn't miss a beat and "lose". The courts are arbitrary and capricious. I just think it is prudent to understand where they are coming from and how to not make their jobs easier.
Last edited by notmartha on Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Right to Travel

Post by editor »

Dumpster-- Am I missing something? Why did you talk about articles written by the Informer, and then post a link to the Wayback Machine, and an article about elections? Did you post the wrong link?
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:03 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by Dumpster »

editor wrote:Dumpster-- Am I missing something? Why did you talk about articles written by the Informer, and then post a link to the Wayback Machine, and an article about elections? Did you post the wrong link?
Hmm...I thought I had already replied to this and now I don't see my reply.

In answer to your question: the page that comes up, if you scroll down a little, on the left side you will find tabs to 'The Informer' articles.
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:28 am

Re: Right to Travel

Post by Wizlawz »

Why are you even stepping into court?

Serve a non statutory abatement

As I comprehend it the only court you enter is the supreme court as an ambassador for Christ, citizen of the saints, and public minister.

Or has this changed?
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:21 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by milo »

@JakeNeely, Hi I read your post about the case you where involved with in Oregon. I am currently involved in a similar case in California. I have only made it as far as the arraignment where i pled not guilty and immediately ask for an continuance. A public defender was appointed to me and I got the same impression and feeling talking to him that I would be dealing with the same kind of a judge the next time I appear in court. While talking to my public defender I recited to him that the California Constitution, article 3 section 1 states that pretty much California is an inseparable part of the United States of America and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I then went on to cite Thomas vs Smith and inform my public defender that this was where I was going with this case. He pretty much stopped me and said that this is not how the law works. So when I was brought before the judge I pled not guilty and requested a continuance so I could better prepare myself for the circus act that I'm about to enter. So basically I was wondering if you had any success or any advice that may be helpful. I have not said anything to a judge other than I'm not guilty. I was pulled over for not stopping at a traffic light, no drivers license and no proof of insurance. In like yourself of course I had insurance. I'm really not sure what to do next or how to approach or go about getting my case dismissed I currently do not have a license I have also gone to the Department of Motor Vehicles for California filled out some form that was to be sent to Sacramento which is our state capital request that they remove me from their database and that I wanted nothing to do with the registration or licensing for vehicles in California I'm still currently waiting for a response from them and this is where I'm at at this point. I go back to court in 3 weeks I'm hoping that there's somebody out there that can help me on how to deal with these judges that refused to acknowledge the Constitution thank you godspeed to everyone and good luck.
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:08 pm

Re: Right to Travel

Post by snoop4truth »

Hello Immafreeman,

Did you know that the Supreme Court Of The United States had defined the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" and the right of a citizen of one state to leave that state and enter into another state and take up residence in that other state and be treated like every other citizen of that other state?

Did you know that this right is analogous of the right of equal protection of the laws AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVING ANYTHING, MUCH LESS DRIVING WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE?

Please read the TWELFTH (12th) post in the "Rod Class" post below, entitled "THE RIGHT TO TRAVELHOAX". Also, be sure to read the SECOND (2nd) and THIRD (3rd) posts in the "Eddie Craig" thread below?



http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthr ... any-hoaxes

EVERYTHING ABOUT DEBORAH TAVARES AND HER TEACHINGS ON WACCOBB.NET. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...s-depopulation)

All The Best,

Post Reply