Right to Travel

Author Topic: Right to Travel  (Read 945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jai_mann

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Right to Travel
« on: March 07, 2013, 03:27:08 AM »
I just saw this video and thought I'd pass it along to others interested in the right to travel versus the privilege to operate a motor vehicle (ie: Commerce on the public roads.).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW7aNYYkQKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eabgxu7WzD0

"I beat a No Driver's License and No Insurance citation. I've been researching legal issues since 2008. I put all of that research to use in fighting this ticket. The court systems are structured such that it's easier to just pay the fines, even if you're innocent. Just to beat the citation cost me countless hours, much stress (and pain due to a chronic injury which hurts worse with stress), insomnia, a loss of enjoyment of life (I enjoyed studying legal issues at my leisure NOT ALL THE TIME, which is what occurred), and $200 plus in mail cost, printing, gas, parking, etc. The Judge would not rule on 2 of the motions I filed, or sign the proposed dismissal orders. Even after getting it dismissed the municipalities denied my claim for damages when they were clearly liable. That's okay. I've got a Federal suit in the works and in the mean time, any one interested in what I did can contact me at the address in the video. I don't know how popular this video will be, but if it's very popular I can't respond to every one. I already have nerve damage in my fingertips from all of the typing and research I've done over the last 1.5 years since this ordeal started.

If you think others would find the video and subject matter of interest, then please pass this link along."


Offline snoop4truth

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Right to Travel
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2017, 04:07:30 PM »
THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" & THE "NO DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIRED HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afCz8AjvYdY&t=421s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6SGIfO4ug4&t=69s

THE HOAX I: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE STATE AND TO ENTER ANOTHER STATE. It has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as a "RIGHT TO DRIVE" a motor vehicle. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know this.

THE HOAX II: Further, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists point out that under FEDERAL law, A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE to drive a motor vehicle UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE" AMONG ["BETWEEN"] THE "SEVERAL STATES" ("interstate commerce"), a narrow subject governed by FEDERAL law. See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL POWERS of Congress). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8 . https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause.

THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW APPLIES TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME. This is because, under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES OUTSIDE THE NARROW FEDERAL CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. And, under STATE law, a person is required to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle WHEN THAT PERSON IS NOT ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". So, when BOTH FEDERAL law and STATE law are COMBINED AND APPLIED TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN ALL CONTEXTS, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT (whether or not that person is engaged in "interstate commerce"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know this.

NOTE: For a detailed explanation of just how irrelevant "COMMERCE" is to driver's license and traffic & transportation law, see the comment by Snoop4truth entitled "EDDIE CRAIG & THE "NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE NEEDED HOAX".

THE LAW:

1). OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT, in the absence of FEDERAL legislation on the subject, THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=4,60

Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) FEDERAL legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Under the tenth amendment and under this decision, this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are OPPOSITES of one another (FEDERAL law requires drivers of motor vehicles who ARE engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" to have driver's licenses and STATE law requires drivers of motor vehicles who ARE “NOT” engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" to have driver's licenses. EITHER WAY, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.

2). Under the tenth amendment, the STATES have the RIGHT to require driver's licenses of all drivers who are “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...2&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006

3). THERE IS NO "RIGHT TO DRIVE".

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . (NEAR THE END OF THE CASE)

4). "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" DEFINED.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . (SEE BOTH SECTIONS.).

5). The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...2&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

6). State requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...2&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

7). A person may freely exercise their "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

8). AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ALWAYS LOSE.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . Note that this is the same person who stars in the 3 minute video below.

9). WHAT ABOUT CASE LAW THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS CITE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR HOAX? Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZrB0TRFYI

Amateur legal theorists ONLY CITE case law that says a person has a "RIGHT" to: a). "TRAVEL"; b). "USE THE ROADWAYS"; c). "LOCOMOTION"; d). "PASSAGE"; e). "FREE TRANSIT"; and f). "USE ORDINARY CONVEYANCES".

Note that the word, "DRIVE" is conspicuously absent in all of these cases.

But, amateur legal theorists DO NOT CITE case law that actually says that a person has a "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" (because no such law exists) AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT MATTER.

3 MINUTE VIDEO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8

SNOPES:
http://m.snopes.com/supreme-court-ru...s-unnecessary/

ABOUT ROD CLASS:
Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 73 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. (Google "Judge DALE Hoax", "Debra Jones Hoax", "Private Attorney General Hoax", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter Hoax", "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (A.K.A. the "BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax"), "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax", "Lawyers Have No Authority Hoax", "Right To Travel Hoax", "My Paperwork Would Have Overturned Every Prior Case Hoax", "The Supreme Court Loves My Paperwork Hoax", "The Private Attorney General 'Certificate' Hoax" (A.K.A. "Why Was Rod Class In Washington, D.C. In The First Place?"), "The Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Money Hoax" (A.K.A. "The Harold Stanley Case Hoax"), "The United States is a Corporation Hoax" (A.K.A. "Title 28 U.S.C 3002(15)(a) Proves That The United States Is A Private, For Profit Corporation Hoax"), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (A.K.A. The "C.R.I.S. Hoax"), the "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax" and numerous other hoaxes.).

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGES that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
 

Offline snoop4truth

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Right to Travel
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2017, 04:10:56 PM »
EDDIE CRAIG & THE "NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE NEEDED HOAX" !!!

FIRST SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nok7Cby28 (Go to video FIRST. Then, go to 54:00-112:00; 118:00-120:45; 133:00-134:00 & 235:00-236:30.). These are the exact times of the hoax exposed below.

THE HOAX:
Eddie Craig falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers to have driver’s licenses to drive motor vehicles UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this is exactly BACKWARDS (OPPOSITE to the truth).

THE TRUTH:
The STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE".

BACKGROUND:
The original source of the word, “COMMERCE” as used in connection with driver’s license law, is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8 . This clause empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate driver’s licences ONLY IF the driver WAS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (“interstate COMMERCE”). The tenth amendment empowered the STATES to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS (meaning OUTSIDE of "[interstate] COMMERCE"). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES can regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGEGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
The U.S. Constitution divided the powers between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The FEDERAL government was empowered to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. Under the tenth amendment, the STATES were empowered to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS). Under this division of powers, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. This means that in terms of subject matter, FEDERAL law and STATE laws ARE "OPPOSITES" OF ONE ANOTHER. Thus, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "based on" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes, BECAUSE FEDERAL CODES AND STATE CODES REGULATE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS ("[interstate] COMMERCE" v. ("NON-[interstate] COMMERCE"). But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

APPLICATION:
FEDERAL driver’s license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. STATE drivers license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE NOT engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. So, if YOU ARE a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). If YOU ARE NOT a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

HOW WELL DO EDDIE CRAIG’S LEGAL THEORIES WORK IN COURT?
Answer: They don’t! EDDIE CRAIG ACTUALLY LOST HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE because he used this very same amateur legal theory in court ("STATE driving laws do not apply to me unless I am engaged in [interstate] COMMERCE.") . State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, Offense date 12-11-2011, ARREST Date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION Date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What’s worse, Craig CONTINUED to make and post videos online in which he peddled this very same amateur legal theory AFTER he LOST that case (after 6- 28-2013), AFTER HE KNEW THAT IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY WORK!

DISCLAIMER:
The ownership, management and staff of InfoWars are not responsible for the false claims of Eddie Craig. They had no way to know (and did not know) that Eddie Craig was not telling the truth.

NOTE: Advising people what to say to law enforcement officers and to judges may constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Texas, a crime. Victims who have paid for classes, seminars and/or books involving Eddie Craig may be entitled to a refund under STATE or FEDERAL law.

THE LAW:
You will note that Eddie Craig's amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE in court!

 1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400062.

 2. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...&as_sdt=400063.

 3. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400064.

 4. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 5. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 6. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006

 7. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006

 8. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 9. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 10. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 11. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 12. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 13. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 14. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400068.

 15. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 (SEE ENTIRE CASE)

 16. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=40006

CONCLUSION:
The FEDERAL government has the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses IF THEY "ARE" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". The STATES have the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED.

APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has proven that you ARE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE", then you have just proven THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle and which requires you to otherwise comply with all other STATE driving regulations). But Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
Eddie Craig claims that he is a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" and an "EXPERT" in the law. But, this is not so. The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" was as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas for a period of TWO-WEEKS in 1992 at which time he was unceremoniously FIRED "NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE". Craig uses this his TWO-WEEK tenure as a PART-TIME JAILER as the basis for his "CREDIBILITY" as an "EXPERT" on traffic, travel and motor vehicle codes. But, Eddie Craig is not credible and is not an expert in the law.

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Eddie Craig's role in the "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX", Snoop4truth would not have revealed this information here.

The message to hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.