Declaration of Competency to Travel

[bsmurph83]

I'm wondering about the old Declaration of Competency to Travel. Has anyone here used them to ride on a bus or train or other public transport without hassles? I'd like to know.

Here's an example of one. I'd be interested to see others if people have them. Are people getting them laminated? Making them so they can fit into a wallet?


Declaration of Competency

This declaration is to evidence that John Henry Smith© is competent at journeying down the King’s highways and byways in any machine self propelled and on wheels throughout the land known as Australia



Signature of Sojourner ______________________



KNOW all men that I, Really-Really:Goodlookin on the land at (suburb or town), (country), at the request of John-Henry of the family Smith, there being no notary public available, did on the (change the date obviously) Fourteenth Day of July 2006 Anno Domini, at (suburb/town), in the presence of _____________________________ and _____________________________, witness the signature of the free man on the land commonly called :John Henry of the family Smith.

Yours Faithfully, By,


(Signed) …………………………
:Really-Really:Goodlookin
All Rights Privileges and Powers Reserved (meant to finish on the right but formatting here is retarded)

Witness 1 ………………………………..
Witness 2.………………………………...

Date of Issue: The fourteenth day of the seventh month in the year of Our Lord two thousand and five (edit)

[bsmurph83]

This section is meant to be on the right side of the page, that's where freemen sign:

Yours Faithfully, By,


(Signed) …………………………
:Really-Really:Goodlookin
All Rights Privileges and Powers Reserved (meant to finish on the right but formatting here is retarded)

(below stays on the left)
Witness 1 ………………………………..
Witness 2.………………………………...

[yozhik]

Never seen this before.
Will look into it some more.
Thanks :)

[oghene]

Something that popped into my head over the weekend.

Are buses and trains in the UK not deemed Public Transport? If so as members of the public do we not own them and as such can use our 'pre paid' privilege freely?

Are trains owned by the public, but we really pay for the use of ports/stations? Hence the ticket barriers at train stations.

Are roads not public, hence owned by the public.

What is the UK Stautory definition of the word 'Public'?

[bsmurph83]

well this seems to be the rationale for it... menard basically says that yeh the public pays for it and the government basically exists to serve us (theoretically) so we are the owners of the public transport and have free reign to use it. then again, sometimes there seems to be blurred lines and grey areas in all of this. in the public, we are PERSONS, are we not? And persons have no rights(?) and have to follow the statutes legistlated by the Gov... so if they say we have to pay, then as persons, we DO, don't we?

but as freemen, we dont, as long as it is publically owned and not a privately owned system... but that's what I don't get... because the freeman AIN'T funding the government or paying taxes anymore, as he is in the PRIVATE world. perhaps someone can clarify this for me... the intricacies have me chasing my own tail... methinks I am missing somethin'...

[oghene]

well this seems to be the rationale for it... menard basically says that yeh the public pays for it and the government basically exists to serve us (theoretically) so we are the owners of the public transport and have free reign to use it. then again, sometimes there seems to be blurred lines and grey areas in all of this. in the public, we are PERSONS, are we not? And persons have no rights(?) and have to follow the statutes legistlated by the Gov... so if they say we have to pay, then as persons, we DO, don't we?

but as freemen, we dont, as long as it is publically owned and not a privately owned system... but that's what I don't get... because the freeman AIN'T funding the government or paying taxes anymore, as he is in the PRIVATE world. perhaps someone can clarify this for me... the intricacies have me chasing my own tail... methinks I am missing somethin'...

bsmurph83,

I think that basically addresses my ponderings.

What a bloody cheek! Make our persons fund the investment, then make our persons pay to use what we funded.

It seems the freeman is no different to the 'person', only difference is the freeman does not contribute to the initial capital expenditure but is still able to adopt the persona of a 'passenger', by paying a fare.

At least we aren't building pyramids we can't use...

[bsmurph83]

haha yep

I'd love if Rob M or chesterd or someone of similar insight could iron out the creases in my mind over this.

I can understand that persons fund something and then are told by the Gov that the very things they are funding they cannot use without paying a fare. What I don't really get (though am quite prepared to put into practise! :D) is how the Freeman who no longer funds such things has carte blanche to use them for free (even though in reality, he probably spent may years as a person theoretically funding these things by paying taxes, etc, thus earning the 'privilege')... If you're in the private as a freeman, what is the rationale for us to be able to use the public transport for free?

Where are the pro's when ya need 'em? :cool:

[dharmic one]

I've never seen this before but after seeing 21st century poliitix doing his NOUI and COR last night I learned that all corporations acting under limited liability are in fact deemed as incompetent and are instantly viewed as wards of the state/court in such matters I believe, even to do with travel. I wonder if this is a factor. Is the fare due only if you are a ward of the state and as such incompetent in the eyes of the law???

Just wanted to throw that in there......

Happy thinkin!!!!!:cool:

[mark will i am]

Are buses and trains in the UK not deemed Public Transport?

Since 1932 Australia's been bankrupt and busily selling off assets. UK is no different. I am aware that in the UK rail was privately owned for some time and was sold during the Maggie years. Whether it's been bought back in a state of disrepair or not i'm not sure.

In Brisbane Queensland Rail is one such asset that's been sold off here. It operates as a quasi government agency like so many these days. It operates under the QLD Public Transport Act or whatever it is but is owned by (partly or wholly) by so called private interests (which for the sake of Freemen is still in the "public" domain with Freemen the only cobbers and sisters considered 'private').

On the weekend I was sojourning peacefully on the train and approached by a couple of Transit Cops. I had paid a for a conscession ticket but old mate said it didn't apply to me and claimed i had acted dishonorably by not having the right ticket. He called me a "passenger" which isn't defined in their Act and I asked him to define it. He said he was being courteous by calling me a "passenger". I should have asked him to call me pink pokadots as a courtesy. I will next time. At anyrate I knew that on this occassion he'd only 'offer' a warning which i accepted.

My internal question followed: as a Freeman, do i have the right to journey in my being on "their" train. The Transit Cop claimed that i had a duty to ensure i had the appropriate fare as I had bordered the train of my own will and as a privately owned public transport vehicle he may have a case.

As a Freeman many talk about travelling freely in their vehicle of choice. In the case of public transport it could be considered that you've chosen to journey in another's vehicle and hence the strawman should play by the rules of their matrix. What do others think?

PS I would have loved to have had a certificate of competency to travel. Make em earn their crust ;-)

And Just as an aside I would rather support Public Transport as opposed to petrol companies.

[dharmic one]

I'm inclined to rewind to question my initial assumption, that there exists such a thing as "public" transport???!!!!

[merlincove]

bsmurph83,

I think that basically addresses my ponderings.

What a bloody cheek! Make our persons fund the investment, then make our persons pay to use what we funded.

It seems the freeman is no different to the 'person', only difference is the freeman does not contribute to the initial capital expenditure but is still able to adopt the persona of a 'passenger', by paying a fare.

At least we aren't building pyramids we can't use...

As an ex bus / coach driver..... i now understand that we are dealing once again with contracts. When you eneter onto a bus you do so under the stance of entering into a contract with the driver. You say what you would like that contract to be - ie, you say 'i would like to contract with you in the order of you carting my ass to the High Street and back' and the driver can either agree to contract or decline, by saying 'sure thing, that'll be £1.00,' or 'i am sorry i can not contract with you as i do not journey to the High Street, you'll want a numbver 65 for that. If you agree to the former £1 charge then you complete the contract.

If you claim freeman right of travel on a public transport then the driver can and will more than likely refuse to contract with you and turf your ass into the street if he can be bothered. And under rights of equality, everyone else on the bus (apart from the driver) have paid for travel so under freeman right of equality if you enter in the same contract as everyone else on the bus you is paying too?

Public transport is often privately owned transport for the public convienience, and not often council owned, although the council often contract companies to run certain routes.

it is more commers and more contracts :D

And of course a decleration of competancy to travel is just that - it says this person is a competant human being, nothing more. That human being will still have to pay for using a facility. Try taking a declaration of competancy into a grocers and saying i am a competant shopper, you'll still have to pay for services / goods rendered. :-)

[bsmurph83]

yeh the real pain is trying to work out who is privatised and who isn't. my approach for my NOUI + COR is to visit the websites and see if they are identified as being Government owned/run. if they are then I consider that public and then the freeman is entitled to travel without fare. private and we gotta pay...

if anyone has anything to offer regarding possible problems with my approach to this please feel free to elucidate...

if there are any Aussies who can point out transport that has DEFINITELY been privatised in Australia meaning we have to pay no matter what, please share! :D

thanks for the input into this thread thus far, people

[merlincove]

But the driver can still refuse to contract with you / let you on.

And if you have an issue with that then you would have to take it to the company who would take it up with the driver. But ultimately if he stays at the bus stop and refuses to move until you A) pay or B) get off, what are your options. He also has the option of reporting a breach of the paece to the local bobbies.

When i used to work for a local bus co, i'd often let kids on for free if they had no money. Ok, they used to take the pi$$ a bit, but i was getting paid whether they paid or didn't. The kids would even say, 'lee lets us get on for free when we aint got any money' to other drivers who would then give me ear ache, but hey, if that kid hasn't got any money and the only thing standing in their way of getting home safely is me, then i'll get them as close to home as i can. But not everyone thinks that way, ego gets in the way.

i did it from London once, a young girl came up and said 'all i have is a tenner and i've got to get to nottingham tonight,' hey, there were seats free and no one knew. i just told her, 'if we get an inspector on, you sneaked on and i didn't see you ok.' she kinda smilled and didn't really take in what i was saying, so i said to her, 'go on then, sneak on - don't let me see,' and she did. Did the same for three guys once who only had £20 - and i aint going to be the one taking their last note - that may be me bing gullable, but hey, i know that they didn't end up sleeping on a bench in Victoria that night :-)

The milk of human kindness is a rare thing tho - not to be expected from all drivers, i know, i've met many. Less compassion than a brick, mostly :rolleyes:

[yozhik]

Also central to this is the basic definitions of man as traveller and person as driver, because inherent to both of those is man as guest and person and passenger.

The driver of a bus IS operating in commerce.
People on the bus are his passengers, making them persons, operating in commerce.

The only way for a man to be on the bus would be as a guest, but given the driver is not a traveller, I would argue this is not possible.

Also, in all that has been argued thus far, a man can travel freely in his private conveyance. I have not seen an argument that suggests a man can travel freely in ANY conveyance; it is specifically his private conveyance.

Just my random ponderings ... ridicule starts now ... :)

[bsmurph83]

well, it won't be from me, yozhik. What's got me thinking about the whole freeman as a guest/traveller on public transport (ignoring the whole Declaration of Competency thing) is Menard's stuff about using trains that are publically owned without paying. he says (if memory serves me) that since the public fund and pay for it and ultimately 'own' it, they can use it without being coerced into paying further (for a ticket)... Perhaps I'm mixing the freeman thing into it needlessly and thus confusing myself...

Dammit Rob, get in here and explain! tee-hee

[oghene]

I'm inclined to rewind to question my initial assumption, that there exists such a thing as "public" transport???!!!!


It seems to me that when governments use the word public, all it means is that the average joe funds the capital expenditure and the private interests make profit.

[bsmurph83]

ok, I think I've answered my own question in here (or found the answer amongst my doc's):

basically, because of our birth certificates, we are part owners/shareholders of the CORPORATIONS known as the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, or the UNITED KINGDOM (or wherever our person was created; CANADA, UNITED STATES, ETC). thus, we each have a stake in everything these corporations own, including the public transport (until the idiots privatise it all...?).

Hence, we freemen get to use it without paying. I suppose somewhere in the relevant legislation is states that PERSONS must pay for the 'privilege' of using such services, so I imagine that once we realise 'who we are', as they say, we can differentiate between us and our person and thus, what rules apply to us and when...

if anyone has anything to add along these lines or correct anything, I'd be glad to hear it :D

[merlincove]

But you will still be entering into a contract with the Driver who acts in the stead of the company, he can choose to accept your contract or refuse it.

Mutual assent
Lawful objective
Capacity of the parties to perform
Consideration
Appropriate form

What is the driver going to redeem from such a contract? His consideration is what? With no mutual concent, there can be no contract. whether that is lawful or not.

And despite the lawfull right to travel, anyone may or may not have, the driver has direct responsabilities to his other passengers, and must under law deal with you in the same context he has dealt with them - remember, equality before and under the law is paramount, and if he has took payment of everyone else on the bus, he has a lawful req to see that he treats you in the same manner.

Also, his other passengers may be pi$$ed off at your entry free of charge onto the bus, and so he has neglected his duty to his othe rpassengers if he allows you to travel freely while he has charged them, and as such, he is then in a possition of breach of his contract with his other passengers. He contracts with them to take them to their destination safely and to treat them with care and respect - a contract with a third party that diminishes the care to another would lead him into disshonour.

i think that is right, i think that is how it might play?

Either way he can refise to contract, leaving you in a place of A) disshonour, B) walking.

Of course you need to by-pass the driver and assert your right with the bus / coach operator directly and contract with them in the way of exersizing full right to travel freely. And from that, you show the driver of the bus the letter that you have recieved from the operator / bus co manager explaining that you have due course to travel freely and in an unhindered fashion. In this way the drivers contract with his passengers remains intact, no one is in disshonour - any grievance can then be taken up by individual passengers with the bus company management in order that they exersize their equal right to free and unhindered travel.

[bsmurph83]

well that all seems pretty internally coherent and logical and fair enough, merlin (spankyou very much for the continued dialogue), but I think we hit the issue of the legal vernacular, wherein we have to beware that we are identifying ourselves as 'guests' (who are not obliged to pay) rather than passengers (persons) who DO have to pay.

i'm thinking that, as part owner, you don't need to contract with the driver of the bus or train or whatever because you own it anyway. why would you ask to contract when you're the driver's boss? Passengers don't get that luxury because apparently passengers have to pay, like it or not. guests are a different story because they are different things in legal terms (they are not government chattel/goods being trans-port-ed over the seas of the admiralty world of the public/persons). hence, they don't have to pay.

now, in terms of putting this theoretical stuff into practise, I'm not saying I'd expect to just walk onto a bus and have the driver let me on as a 'guest' and not charge me, even if I did explain that I'm part owner of the bus he's driving and therefore not obliged to pay. I'm pretty sure he'd dismiss me as being a loon and that at the end of the day, it'd just be a LOT easier to pay.

I think it would be a lot easier on trains or trams (but mostly trains) because you can just stroll on and won't have to answer any questions unless and until the ticket inspector guys rock up and start asking questions. that's ok and they can even issue me a fine which can be ignored or accepted for value, it's all good (but will they after I explain that I do not consent, am not under their jurisdiction and that they would be violating my common law copyright and that it could cost them $500, 000, as well as being against the law to apply statute law to the freeman, and so on?). bottom line would be that I would not identify myself as an entity/person/ship/passenger that has to pay and is under their jurisdiction. I'd be a guest. No doubt that this would take some explaining but I like the sound of my own voice so that's not a problem haha

if it's public trans-port, it's free as a guest, until you screw up and identify yourself as a person/vessel which, under statute law, has to pay. beautiful thing is, statute don't apply to the freeman. we have to be really careful in what terminology we apply to ourselves, lest we render ourselves under their jurisdiction by accident. that's basically where I'm at. I think Menard has some good stuff on this in his materials. I need to get a black's law dictionary to really get a better handle on the terminology...

if we're talking about a privately owned company then none of this would apply I guess, because you wouldn't be part owner and thus, would have to accept their terms on using their services, unless you want to walk... :) ...which is where most of the content of your post would become highly pertinent methinks, Merlin

[merlincove]

I think it would be a lot easier on trains or trams (but mostly trains) because you can just stroll on and won't have to answer any questions unless and until the ticket inspector guys rock up and start asking questions. that's ok and they can even issue me a fine which can be ignored or accepted for value, it's all good (but will they after I explain that I do not consent, am not under their jurisdiction and that they would be violating my common law copyright and that it could cost them $500, 000, as well as being against the law to apply statute law to the freeman, and so on?). bottom line would be that I would not identify myself as an entity/person/ship/passenger that has to pay and is under their jurisdiction. I'd be a guest. No doubt that this would take some explaining but I like the sound of my own voice so that's not a problem haha

if it's public trans-port, it's free as a guest, until you screw up and identify yourself as a person/vessel which, under statute law, has to pay. beautiful thing is, statute don't apply to the freeman. we have to be really careful in what terminology we apply to ourselves, lest we render ourselves under their jurisdiction by accident. that's basically where I'm at. I think Menard has some good stuff on this in his materials. I need to get a black's law dictionary to really get a better handle on the terminology...

if we're talking about a privately owned company then none of this would apply I guess, because you wouldn't be part owner and thus, would have to accept their terms on using their services, unless you want to walk... :) ...which is where most of the content of your post would become highly pertinent methinks, Merlin

thanks bsmurph, totally agree with all that :D

You would also need to identify which services are actually council contracted, as bus ops contract with the council on many of their 'runs' and as such the local council will fund the lesser paying routes in order to provide those area's with a service. So whether they are a privately owned company or a council operated company, the routes may very well come under the guse of being paid for by the community :D

I like the thing on the trains tho - you might expect to meet with security at the other end, so you'll be loking at explaining it all again to those guys and then the whole avoidance of being detained etc - which can be fun lol

[mark will i am]

if we're talking about a privately owned company then none of this would apply I guess

I would like to add to the private ownership query we have here.

We should consider where these guys got the materials to form the rail/bus infrastructure. For example who owns the rocks under the railway tracks or bitumen road? "ooh we got that from a quarry"? Yeah so what? They were my rocks too and as the aboriginal people of Australia rightly suggest:

"those rocks have a dreaming too..." in other words the spirit of the rock is spirit of creator and we all share that One.

[merlincove]

But by the same arguement mark, are you welcome oin anyones house simply because those rocks it is made of were gifted to humanity as a whole, and the land it resides upon is a blessing of the great divine upon us all?

Freeman concepts = do not cause harm or loss to any one.

If you were to knock on my door and say, 'can i enter your home, friend, as one weary traveller will you welcome me as a brother?' i might say yeah, come in, have a jar. Or it may not be convinient and i might say, come back some other day dude.

And if i come down in the morning and you are on my sofa, then i guess i'm gonna be upset and you are in disshonour of my freeman rights.

Jah, may have created the soil anjd the land my home is on, but to partake of my sanctuary is gonna be a little upsetting to me, i have been caused a harm, on an emotional level.

i see where you are coming from mark, and in an ideal world your ideal is a good measure - utopian thoughts for a utopian concept.

Nothin wrong with utopia, but i guess utopia is a commonly accepted norm, and without common ascent it might not be utopia :D

Welcome to the boards, btw, nice to see you :cool:

[mark will i am]

Thanks Merlin pleasure to be here.

I am indeed interested in utopian, enlightened societies. I think we are all here to literally create heaven on earth and i feel that the freeman movement is shining light on our (humanity's) darkest places and is part of knocking down each brick of the prison walls.

My biggest beef though is with money, the usary system in particular but i'll save that for another thread.

Cheers dude and oh, in australia some white fellas came to this land and started putting up houses and fences claiming 'ownership' and got mighty p!ssed off when the natives would camp inside their boundaries.

So if you did find me asleep on your sofa and got upset and happened to have the bigger gun, then you would probably end up with a world we share today.

I'm not having a go or seeking the ascendancy i'm just making an observation about "ownership" and claims to it.

Peace

[merlincove]

nice post :)

yeah, you are right, the white fella's guide to ownership is very much an ego thing, did you ever see the vid micheal moore did on oprah? that was as funny as. But so true too.

:-)

peace dude