Our Laws on Travel

[girlgye]

So..as you can see. One man stood up against the tyranny on his own in California 39 years ago and is possibly the oldest freeman in the West.

That lead me on the search for travel as opposed to driving legislation in commercial law statutes.

Needless to say, there is some sort of wall on UK internet sites where all this is concerned. Try looking up UK Common Law see how far you get.

Anyway, has anyone else got any further with this in the UK. They seem to get round the word by using the words mechanically propelled vehicle. I think these are weasal words.

Unfortunately those nasty Trolls drove off the only person I knew with a copy of any law books on this subject. :(

[merlincove]

Well it is a God given right for us to travel freely where we do not cause harm or loss to another, or at the very least a natural right to move freely.

There is no legislature to cover birds, migrating or otherwise.

And by those same natural rights there is no legislature to govern us other than statute law and tertiary agreements to hinder Divine or natural law via Acts of parliament.

Who has the right - or more importantly, who is more equal, than you or i to any degree of overstanding us and claiming we need permit and permission to move freely upon the land when such movement causes no harm or loss?

And then, to further that, who overstands you or i to any degree that they can dictate how we move between A, b and C, or in what kind of carriage we choose to perambulate that journey in?

Of course that is the concept of Equality. In actuality there are many who would decree that they stand above us and can dictate their whims and fantasies upon us, and we are relatively unable to do anything when met with Egocentric officers employed to attend the full weight of statute against us. Would we fair any better in a court house, again, where all things begin equally we should fair better, the truth is a little more harsh, as many have discovered.

[girlgye]

Well it is a God given right for us to travel freely where we do not cause harm or loss to another, or at the very least a natural right to move freely.

There is no legislature to cover birds, migrating or otherwise.

And by those same natural rights there is no legislature to govern us other than statute law and tertiary agreements to hinder Divine or natural law via Acts of parliament.

Who has the right - or more importantly, who is more equal, than you or i to any degree of overstanding us and claiming we need permit and permission to move freely upon the land when such movement causes no harm or loss?

And then, to further that, who overstands you or i to any degree that they can dictate how we move between A, b and C, or in what kind of carriage we choose to perambulate that journey in?

Of course that is the concept of Equality. In actuality there are many who would decree that they stand above us and can dictate their whims and fantasies upon us, and we are relatively unable to do anything when met with Egocentric officers employed to attend the full weight of statute against us. Would we fair any better in a court house, again, where all things begin equally we should fair better, the truth is a little more harsh, as many have discovered.


Well Lee I have it good authority that there is a certain 'purple' drivers license. Ever heard of it?

[girlgye]

I don't think this lad likes the police very much. I think it's very wrong to call them rude names.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Here's what he's talking about

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

It's all very well Lee going no!

With these goons you have to prove it. You know that!

[merlincove]

Well Lee I have it good authority that there is a certain 'purple' drivers license. Ever heard of it?

Not heard of that one, no, is all new on me.

[girlgye]

I'm sSMOKIN now.

Come on Lee get wiv it. Start doing some due wiv me. Otherwise I have one of those post after me post after me posts. It's boring.

Shame I have to always get like this at frigging 3 in the morning when I should be doing the dreaded Defaults. :rolleyes:
And sleeping! LOL

LICENSE
contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal.
-LawGuru.com

DURESS
An actual or a threatened violence or restraint of a mans
person, contrary to law, to compel him to enter into a contract, or to
discharge one. A contract by violence or threats, is void, although the party in
whose favor the contract is made, and not exercise the violence or make the
threats, and although he were ignorant of them.
-LawGuru.com

[girlgye]

Notice the citation of the sources.

[girlgye]

Yup. Apparently, if caught speeding or at a road block they just flash the purple and the Officer of the Lu goes yes Sir and waves him on by.

So that being the case. Admiraties being what they are there is some sort of definition for it. ie this person can and you can't. neah in their rule books.

Coz if there ain't it means well we can all just do what they are doing. As we know in Admiralty one rule for the peasants and quite another for the Arch Capitalists innit?

[girlgye]

license.
1 a: a right or permission granted by a competent authority (as of a government or a business) to engage in some business or occupation, do some act, or engage in some transaction which would be unlawful without such right or permission
also
: a document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted
b: revocable authority or permission given solely to one having no possessory rights in a tract of land to do something on that land which would otherwise be unlawful or a trespass
(compare easement lease)
-Merriam Websters Dictionary of Law

[wakeupworld]

There is a purple heart license plate which gives the qualifiers the right NOT to register their vehicle or pay road tax, in Ohio, nothing to do with UK of course.
http://bmv.ohio.gov/vehicle_registration/purple_heart.htm

Don`t know about a purple license though.

[girlgye]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/common_law_right_to_travel

Notice how she says Statute.
So when asked to make it under penalty of perjury she ain't lying. Then when Norm asks the piece de resistance it i-URRRRRR. XXX

Much the same as the police.

The reason why they are getting places in the States is because in the States they look up the law and they prove it. See.

So 1771 was the time the first car was invented.

[girlgye]

http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/9baoq/robert_arthur_menard_and_vince_your_right_to/

This is a note to myself to watch and read. Love this site. It really does it much better for me than Youtube which is all over the place. So this is a note to myself to get some sleep. Go to bed and rest and stop running on fear and obsession.

Right ok Wakeup I'll read your link tomorrow.

I'd be interested to know what exactly you have to do to qualify!!! Those were the words I was looking for. There will be words in English Law that qualify those with privilages and not those.

:D
Nite e nite.
Peeps xx

[Ian2day]

My grandad was issued with a license as he never took a test to drive a car. It was just a case of going to the PO and filling out a form and a week later you received this document that recorded your details so they knew were to post any parking fines too. Perhaps it was a byelaw of local government. I am unsure if it was purple, although I do recall that a few years before they issued any photo license they made a change from purple to green paper license. My Dad did have a purple license but he took a driving test. He only surrendered the license when we moved in about 1978. So from that I would guess that it changed because of the EEC creation.

I did read all of this years ago on another website that had the various definitions of automobile, car, vehicle, driver, passenger and opperator. It hasd some other usefull info also. Unfortunately I cant recall it. The dvla website usually will have loads of info burried. Unfortunately it is a case of wading through it all yourself. As when I use to call up all they would do is ask what your enquiry was and then post their rules and regulations out. They wont research it for you, probably as they dont know either, what we have rights to do.

[yozhik]

Well Lee I have it good authority that there is a certain 'purple' drivers license. Ever heard of it?

Purple is the sovereign colour, so it makes sense it would be this colour.

[asky]

merlincove wrote
Well it is a God given right

Whos he/she to be "giving" things?

I thought natural rights were yours and not given to you.

asky

[number_6]

merlincove wrote
Well it is a God given right

Whos he/she to be "giving" things?

I thought natural rights were yours and not given to you.

asky

asky, welcome to "The Official Irritating Fucker Club"
I'm one of it's leading members:D

[yozhik]

merlincove wrote
Well it is a God given right

Whos he/she to be "giving" things?

I thought natural rights were yours and not given to you.

asky

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

[malvern]

found this as history.............


When Augustus established the Roman Empire in 27 BC, he assumed monarchical powers over the new Roman province of Egypt and was able to prohibit Senators from traveling there without his permission. However, Augustus would also allow more liberty to travel at times. During a famine in 6 AD, he attempted to relieve strain on the food supply by granting senators the liberty to leave Rome and to travel to wherever they wished.[1]

In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of the Magna Carta:

It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.




After World War II, the United Nations was established. The new international organization recognized the importance of freedom of movement through documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, reads,

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporates this right into treaty law:

(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
The ICCPR entered into force for the initial ratifying states on 23 March 1976, and for additional states following their ratification. In 1999, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, which is charged with interpreting the treaty, issued its guidelines for Article 12 of the ICCPR in its "General Comment No. 27: Freedom of Movement".

[yozhik]

Before any boffins chime in with the usual bullshit about 'the Magna Carta is a statute' or 'that Article of the Magna Carta has been repealed';

1. the Magna Carta 1215 is NOT a statute; it is more akin to a treaty.
2. the Magna Carta 1297 IS a statute and subject to repeal.
3. the Magna Carta 1297 is a codified version [copy] of the Magna Carta 1215, to enter it onto the parliamentary books, to enable a version to be fucked around with.

The politicians and legal boffins can fuck around and repeal the 1297 statute as much as they like; the 1215 treaty remains untouched.

Then it simply becomes a choice of which you recognise; the original 1215 Magna Carta or the codified/copied statute version; i.e. the 1297 Magna Carta.

[yozhik]

malvern ... one problem with the International Covenants/Rights/Agreements/etc

1. they state you are free to travel within your borders.
2. they state you are free to leave your country
3. they state you are free to enter your country

What they have omitted [intentionally] is the right to enter another country.

All that has been needed is for the political branches of the deception to 'cooperate' and insist on slavery papers [passports] being required and enforced [at gun point and with threat of kidnap], for the freedom and right of travel to be eliminated.

Of course, the other 'trick' has been to use the rules of commerce to enforce the documentation requirement.

Commercial airlines are the ones bearing the brunt of paper enforcement.
Commercial airline doesn't want to be the bully boys?
No problem - commercial airline licence revoked.
Job done.

Enslavement by proxy.

[asky]

The Magna Charta of 1215 was signed under duress and we all know what that means dont we ;)

asky

Or should this be worthy of another thread?

[number_6]

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

Absolutely not. I question everything, and when I find no proof to spurious claims, I voice my disbelief. That is what irritates others here. I do speak my mind, and possibly sometimes in an impolite manner, but never will I "toe the party line" when I consider it to be wrong. If that irritates others, then so be it.

[Ian2day]

merlincove wrote
Well it is a God given right

Whos he/she to be "giving" things?

I thought natural rights were yours and not given to you.

asky


Being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

Absolutely not. I question everything, and when I find no proof to spurious claims, I voice my disbelief. That is what irritates others here. I do speak my mind, and possibly sometimes in an impolite manner, but never will I "toe the party line" when I consider it to be wrong. If that irritates others, then so be it.


I quoted the relevant posts, in order above, unchanged.

Is this a multi-id rumbled? number_6 are you also asky?

[number_6]

Is this a multi-id rumbled? number_6 are you also asky?

No, I can assure you that I am not asky, but how can I prove it to you?
I joined in January, do you really think it would have taken me this long to register another ID?

[asky]

I think you will find it is simply 2 people who disagree with tinpot theories thats all.

My my ian I know this is a conspiracy theory website but even that is a little far fetched.

asky

PS Check the IP addresses if you have an issue

[Ian2day]

I think you will find it is simply 2 people who disagree with tinpot theories thats all.

My my ian I know this is a conspiracy theory website but even that is a little far fetched.

asky

PS Check the IP addresses if you have an issue

number_6 answered a question from Yozhik, directed to you asky. Thats why I ask, asky. I thought it was obvious, why I asked why, asky?:D

[number_6]

Actually that accusation has pissed me off a bit. I consider myself to be of reasonable intelligence, and capable of putting my view across without the need to invent phantom IDs to assist me in that path. Perhaps asky might just be somebody who holds the same beliefs as myself? I am pleased. I don't accuse yozhik of being girlgye, but they agree on much.

[Ian2day]

Actually that accusation has pissed me off a bit. I consider myself to be of reasonable intelligence, and capable of putting my view across without the need to invent phantom IDs to assist me in that path. Perhaps asky might just be somebody who holds the same beliefs as myself? I am pleased. I don't accuse yozhik of being girlgye, but they agree on much.


Read post 17 and then 22. To guage why I asked. Anyway whats wrong with questioning everything?;)

[number_6]

OK, I have re read, and admit I did answer yozhik's post addressed to asky. It was because my post was directly above it and I mistakenly thought that yozhik was responding to me, because he usually does. OK, I admit I got that one wrong.
But I can assure you, I have just the one ID on here, I have no need for others.

[asky]

Is it against the rules to start a thread on the Magna Charta now I have made reference to it in response to someone else mentioning it in this thread:)

asky

[merlincove]

merlincove wrote
Well it is a God given right

Whos he/she to be "giving" things?

I thought natural rights were yours and not given to you.

asky

i have no religious doctrine to abide by, when i say 'God given,' in my comprehension i see that God is the creator force of the universe / is the universe, rather than a separate entity. God therefore equates, in my comprehension, to nature and as such is a natural force. Therefore god given = the same as natural, or naturally occurring :D

I can understand the confusion though.

[merlincove]

The Magna Charta of 1215 was signed under duress and we all know what that means dont we ;)

asky

Or should this be worthy of another thread?

oh, please don't start any more threads ;)

:eek:

:D

[asky]

Sorry
Its done:(

asky

[merlincove]

lol

[girlgye]

Haven't you got anything better to do jb. Are you bored. No body wants to play with you anymore on TPUC so you've come on here to start fights and slagging matches. Well think on.

[girlgye]

Well I don't think Matts gonna be best pleased that I called him a racist. Also myself and Matt are quite transparent about who we are. Not the same with you two snivelling little cowards.

Getting closer to finding out who jb/jobo/asky is though. Shouldn't shore up enemies imho.

[girlgye]

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

Oh no he's much much nastier than that. He has single handedly along with his mate Dave he of Beyond Knowledge ruined TPUC to such an extent they've had to make another site.

they will do the same here.

No6 we are quite fond of. He is reasonable as opposed to wilfully unkind..

[asky]

girlgye wrote
Well I don't think Matts gonna be best pleased that I called him a racist.

You are a liar
show me where I have said anyone is a racist

asky

[girlgye]

So you are called Matt.:D

[number_6]

No6 we are quite fond of. He is reasonable as opposed to wilfully unkind..

Fond of? I'm humbled:o

[girlgye]

merlin he will bang on ad nauseum that we should be calling it the magna charter. Thinks he's right about everything.
The Charter was compiled again in 1227. Tries to force you to colour of law as much as poss.

[yozhik]

Is it against the rules to start a thread on the Magna Charta now I have made reference to it in response to someone else mentioning it in this thread:)

asky

Why start a new thread when threads specific to the Magna Carta already exist? Especially when they contain the exact question or subject matter you have raised?

:rolleyes:

Shouldn't concern myself with it ... I'm sure the mods will merge it.
No point having multiple threads - the forum is cluttered enough already.

[girlgye]

Just stop talking to him. He is trying to get at me anyways.

Can I bring the thread back to the topic please.