Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 22-12-2013, 06:55 PM   #1
fanof2012
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Huntingdon Valley, PA
Posts: 708
Likes: 57 (43 Posts)
Exclamation The REAL REASON why TSA lawsuits can't be won

Why is it that Jesse Ventura and other people who have tried to file a lawsuit against the TSA for violating rights can't win the lawsuit? Most people will say that it is because many people perceive the TSA as justified and necessary to keep people safe from things like terrorists, but according to Deborah Stevens of the "Rule of Law Radio Show" on the Logos Radio Network, there is actually another reason why you can't win a lawsuit against the TSA........ YOU ARE IN COMMERCE.

Deborah says there is a reason why the New World Order chose the name TRANSPORTATION Security Administration, and that reason is because the term "transportation" has a legal definition (and not a standard English dictionary definition) which expressly defines "transportation" as a COMMERCIAL TERM. She also says that the reason our airline tickets refer to us as PASSENGERS is because that term also has a legal definition which is commerce related. Why does this matter? Because interstate commerce is something government has authority to regulate, and there are times where government can take away your rights if you agree to participate in a commercial activity. Deborah said that this means that what the TSA does (and the TSA's of other nations) IS NOT ILLEGAL! And as long as they can keep us in the dark to this fact, then the TSA can keep doing what they do to us for eternity because, in Deborah's words, we are just cargo.

So how do we solve this problem and make what the TSA does illegal? Deborah says that we would need to change the wording of our tickets so that the commercial term PASSENGER is replaced with the non-commercial term TRAVELER. In this way, the TSA no longer has legal grounds to invasively search people because doing so would violate our RIGHT TO TRAVEL. We would then be able to sue them and win cases.

It should be noted, however, that some law experts say that we should not have to do this. Eddie Craig, another host on the Rule of Law Radio Show, said that when we buy our tickets we are not paying for commerce, we are paying for SERVICE, and if we are paying for service then that gives us the right to ask that we not be invasively searched at airport security. Craig also used the argument that if you contracted with a commercial company to transport goods via interstate commerce and law enforcement or government personnel tried to stop you to search your cargo, and if you tried to take the case to court, then the courts would without a doubt say that the government may not search all the cargo. Craig then said, "So if the goods are not subject to such searches, why should the passengers on planes be subject to such searches?"
fanof2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-12-2013, 07:28 PM   #2
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

refuse to fly. that would end it. simple. oh, but that would be too inconvenient for a while. oh well, they get what they go along with to get along. no more than they deserve for doing so. kind of like everything else. don't play. too hard they say. too bad. like I said, they get exactly what they go along with.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 06:38 AM   #3
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:

why you can't win a lawsuit against the TSA........ YOU ARE IN COMMERCE.
lol

most law suits are commercial in nature.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 26-12-2013 at 06:40 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 10:01 PM   #4
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanof2012 View Post
So how do we solve this problem and make what the TSA does illegal?
Nick says maybe you could try somethign like a 3 step process on them to gain their agreement that they recognise that you (the man) is NOT acting in the capacity of the PERSON (PASSENGER), it's the paper that's the passenger and that you (the body, the man) do not accept liablilies of the entity know as PASSENGER... that if they fail to adhere to your rules then they will be liable for a pyment of X and to lick your balls. However, in all likelyhood if this was a route taken it would be worthless unless it was enforced, followed up and hounded to the finish
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 11:44 PM   #5
lesactive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 75 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
However, in all likelyhood if this was a route taken it would be worthless unless it was enforced, followed up and hounded to the finish
Or, they may declare you stateless and hold you indefinitely at the airport until you admit citizenship. People with guns tend to be arrogant like that.
__________________
It's very simple. You posit spirits, I posit nothing, as in neutral, as in no position on the matter; not a vested interest in the outcome, couldn't care less either way even if it was really really real. I don't have to prove nothing, nor can I and nor do I care. Who in this situation has the burden of proof?
If demons control this realm and you want help in defeating them then you'd better be able to convince non-believers that they exist.
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2014, 09:36 AM   #6
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesactive View Post
Or, they may declare you stateless and hold you indefinitely at the airport until you admit citizenship. People with guns tend to be arrogant like that.
More likely they wont let you fly. Like jim says, if you don't want to follow such rules don't fly.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 06-01-2014 at 09:37 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 08:39 AM   #7
mffreedom
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 23
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Another question I'm asking myself in this context is: were does flying with private jets fit in? They drive to the plane, hopp in, fly, land and hopp off into another car to do whatever they like. Nice, hassle-free travelling - albeit its high prices. No security check points as far as I can tell. Obviously true travelling and although earning big money with these flights they do not count as commercial flights, yet do count as companies, yet again a commercial entity. I am yet trying to get my head around exactly what makes the difference between private and commercial flights. I am pretty sure, that the answers lies in exactly that area. When it comes to private planes - it is on one hand forbidden for private f.e. Cessna-owners to take money for some round trips in the alps, yet private jet companies take on and wave good-bys to 'passengers' in different parts of airports with no TSA around. Anyone have an interesting explanation?

Last edited by mffreedom; 07-01-2014 at 08:45 AM.
mffreedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 09:55 AM   #8
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mffreedom View Post
Another question I'm asking myself in this context is: were does flying with private jets fit in? They drive to the plane, hopp in, fly, land and hopp off into another car to do whatever they like. Nice, hassle-free travelling - albeit its high prices. No security check points as far as I can tell. Obviously true travelling and although earning big money with these flights they do not count as commercial flights, yet do count as companies, yet again a commercial entity. I am yet trying to get my head around exactly what makes the difference between private and commercial flights. I am pretty sure, that the answers lies in exactly that area. When it comes to private planes - it is on one hand forbidden for private f.e. Cessna-owners to take money for some round trips in the alps, yet private jet companies take on and wave good-bys to 'passengers' in different parts of airports with no TSA around. Anyone have an interesting explanation?
Maybe If using private air field. In the EU owners of micro lite aircraft are known to cross countries borders. Same with privet boats and yachts. However boarder control/ customs may direct you to land/ go into port with in a territory.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 10:35 AM   #9
mffreedom
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 23
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Wink

Thanks, Jon, for your appreciated input. Checked that one out myself. Take off on regular runways. They park away from commercial airport main buildings, though. So, private runways can't be the explanation as f.e. Basel-Euroairport is a public airport/company.

@fanof2012
Did Deborah address private jets also? Commercial flights vs. private flights?

Last edited by mffreedom; 07-01-2014 at 10:37 AM.
mffreedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 11:18 AM   #10
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
More likely they wont let you fly. Like jim says, if you don't want to follow such rules don't fly.
somewhat, that's what I am saying. what I am saying is i'ld like to see is 200 million or so not flying. it'll never happen...
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 11:39 AM   #11
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

What is the issue with airport security anyway? I travel relatively frequently and although I have had a few arguments with customs officials over being held up, the actual security check point is over in seconds, just have my luggage scanned and walk through a metal detector. More the ques to board/ going through customs and being stuck in a metal can with out smokes and crying children that puts me off.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 11:49 AM   #12
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
What is the issue with airport security anyway? I travel relatively frequently and although I have had a few arguments with customs officials over being held up, the actual security check point is over in seconds, just have my luggage scanned and walk through a metal detector. More the ques to board/ going through customs and being stuck in a metal can with out smokes and crying children that puts me off.
are you traveling through American airports?
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 12:37 PM   #13
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
are you traveling through American airports?
European.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 02:56 PM   #14
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
European.
big difference. america is becoming a police state. that is no exaggeration. I wont cross the border anymore. you just don't know what kind of asinine bullshit they are going to pull or when. luck of the draw.

in 92 when I was down a border guard asked me where I was going and did I have any guns. I said camping somewhere in florida and no guns. they joked that maybe I should have a gun and with that I was on my way.
the next time I went down they asked me my destination and business. I said just campng somewhere in florida. wrong answer. detained. grilled. searched. they didn't find anything, which seemed to piss them off all the more. airports? I wouldn't dream of going through there now unless it was corporate business and even then I wouldn't because they can stick their body scanners where the sun doesn't shine. sorry, I just am not that "afraid of terrorists".

Last edited by reverendjim; 07-01-2014 at 02:56 PM.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 03:02 PM   #15
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

as to the op...The REAL REASON why TSA lawsuits can't be won?

because the tsa is the newest pet of a tyrannical government that has strayed so far from the constitution its barely recognizable. a better question is wtf is wrong with the American people? it seems that they have more to lose in this world than anyone else yet they did the least to preserve what they had. notice I said had.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 03:13 PM   #16
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
big difference. america is becoming a police state. that is no exaggeration. I wont cross the border anymore. you just don't know what kind of asinine bullshit they are going to pull or when. luck of the draw.

in 92 when I was down a border guard asked me where I was going and did I have any guns. I said camping somewhere in florida and no guns. they joked that maybe I should have a gun and with that I was on my way.
the next time I went down they asked me my destination and business. I said just campng somewhere in florida. wrong answer. detained. grilled. searched. they didn't find anything, which seemed to piss them off all the more. airports? I wouldn't dream of going through there now unless it was corporate business and even then I wouldn't because they can stick their body scanners where the sun doesn't shine. sorry, I just am not that "afraid of terrorists".
Fair poin.

In regards to terrorist legislation in general, +1. I to would rather run the risk as opposed to all the bs measures. In the UK such is basically an extension of the NI prevention of terrorism act. A lot dont realize that new law does not have to be passed to turn parts of britain in to the war zone that was northern Ireland. Its all ready in force. When you consider the actual threat of deaths from terrorism as say opposed to murders, it does not really seem justified. More to point, the need for such stems from occupation.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 07-01-2014 at 03:22 PM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 03:59 PM   #17
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
Fair poin.

In regards to terrorist legislation in general, +1. I to would rather run the risk as opposed to all the bs measures. In the UK such is basically an extension of the NI prevention of terrorism act. A lot dont realize that new law does not have to be passed to turn parts of britain in to the war zone that was northern Ireland. Its all ready in force. When you consider the actual threat of deaths from terrorism as say opposed to murders, it does not really seem justified. More to point, the need for such stems from occupation.
got any links to a relatively brief overview of uk terrorism laws? starting with the ni laws etc and the consequences of each new law? i'd be very interested to read that
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 07:16 PM   #18
aulus agerius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
big difference. america is becoming a police state. that is no exaggeration. I wont cross the border anymore. you just don't know what kind of asinine bullshit they are going to pull or when. luck of the draw.
The difference in security screening is very minimal - I've just flown US-EU and back, and within the EU. Security screening differed very little between the US and EU airports. If anything security to tighter and more bothersome at Heathrow than in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
got any links to a relatively brief overview of uk terrorism laws? starting with the ni laws etc and the consequences of each new law? i'd be very interested to read that
I doubt a brief overview would tell you very much.
Try: https://terrorismlegislationreviewer...endent.gov.uk/ (the "independent reviewer" of terrorism legislation in the UK)
there are some books which might help, if you can get them at your local library on inter-library loan. Most relevant is probably Blackstone's Counter-Terrorism Handbook (2013) ISBN 978-0-19-965809-1 (which was written with police officers in mind) or more comprehensively Clive Walker, Terrorism and the Law (2013) ISBN 978-0-19-956117-9
Though these works are mostly going to be about modern anti-terrorism law rather than the schemes which were used in Northern Ireland (now largely repealed).
__________________
"Leaders of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement... teach a political theory based on a radical interpretation of social contract... For them, the social contract is not a primordial construct founding the legitimacy of government but an actual contract between an individual and the stateā€¦
This teaching is not only wrong in the sense that it is false. It is wrongful. That is, it is full of wrong."
R v. McCormick 2012 NSSC 288 per HHJ Moir at [28-32] Link
aulus agerius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 08:34 PM   #19
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aulus agerius View Post
The difference in security screening is very minimal - I've just flown US-EU and back, and within the EU. Security screening differed very little between the US and EU airports. If anything security to tighter and more bothersome at Heathrow than in the US.

as far as I know full body scanners are not allowed in Europe for safety reasons. in America you get scanned. they don't particularly care about your safety. I'd say that's one big difference.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 09:00 PM   #20
sukiari
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,599
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
refuse to fly. that would end it. simple. oh, but that would be too inconvenient for a while. oh well, they get what they go along with to get along. no more than they deserve for doing so. kind of like everything else. don't play. too hard they say. too bad. like I said, they get exactly what they go along with.
I'm done flying. I refuse to be treated like an ex-convict just because Dick Cheney hired a bunch of Saudis to fly into a building or something.
sukiari is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
airport, commerce, eddie craig, law, tsa

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:27 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.