Admiralty on Land

barefootsworld.net ^

[mindprism.com]

This is too long. Take out an excerpt and post a link for the rest.

I posted it whole to preserve its content, which I believe is part of the policy at FR.

All in all, ranks high on the kookmeter.

Of course it does, but this is due primarily to the reality it claims to illuminate, and not because of the presentation of argument.

[The B Man]

show me the law that says case law is law. You can't. It isnt.

[billybudd]

I don't think people are avoiding thinking. When somebody says that something's kooky, they're saying it in the sense of "this smells kooky" - they've heard the arguments or same type of arguments before, so they're comfortable making a quick pre-judgment. Nobody is going to sit there and respond line-by-line to every argument in that 10-page paper. As you point out, that's the problem with throwing too much stuff at people at once. To really get your point across, it's good to make two or three simple points that use examples to prove a broader argument. Beyond that, it gets messy.

[mindprism.com]

wrap their minds all the around the colossal fraud we've been living for our entire lives.

Indeed. I'm trying myself to proceed a step at a time in judging the validity of the premise and I come to one definite conclusion:

The law is designed to obscure reality. They sharpen a spoon and slice you with it, claiming the important thing is that it is not a knife.

Function IS reality, labels exist as camouflage.

[mindprism.com]

The "right to travel" does not imply that a particular MODE of travel is guaranteed to you.

You have a right to walk, but you do not have a right to wear shoes.

[Darth Sidious]

Cheese!

I just wanted to come onto a thread and say "cheese" :-)

[mgstarr]

show me the law that says case law is law. You can't. It isnt.

Can you prove to me that reality is reality? You can't can you. Actually I think you're all just a figment of my imagination.

[Poohbah]

Do I have a (nonrevokable) right to use the public roads to walk or to cycle? Why?

You may not use controlled-access roads (i.e., those that do not have surface intersections with other roads, but use offramps and onramps, except on or in a motorized vehicle--this is established by statute. However, those roads are not all of the roads in America.

Do I have a (nonrevokable) right to use the public property in a reasonable manner? Why?

Ah, there is the rub: "A reasonable manner." That means that you may not travel in such a way as to impede traffic (all controlled access roads have MINIMUM speeds as well as MAXIMUM speeds).

PS 'nonrevokable' means: may not be arbritrarily revoked.

PPS: it's spelled "nonrevocable."

Are you conceding the the state may arbritrarily deny Drivers Licenses since driving is a privilege?

Ys, they may, and they do. For example, the state arbitrarily holds that one must be of a minimum age before one is allowed to have a driver's license. The state also arbitrarily holds that you may lose your license if you manifestly demonstrate an inability to "play well with others" on the road (DUI, reckless driving, etc).

[Poohbah]

driving is a right not a privelage

Please cite the case law to back this up.

[mgstarr]

Actually Poobah, I think that B Man and Co. are on to something here. Through my research, I have discovered that the Law of Gravity was actually never passed by the Congress of the United States or any legislative body. I am therefore going to ignore it.

Be seeing you.

[Poohbah]

A lot of folks with names suspiciously similar to banned tinfoilers have shown up in the past week.

Just a co-inky-dink, I guess.

[mindprism.com]

Please cite the case law to back this up

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

[Poohbah]

Not being able to operate one's own vehicle due to a lack of demonstrated minimal competence (or demonstrated incompetence) does not equal an abridgement of the right to travel. It merely makes you have to use an alternate method of travel.

[CobaltBlue]

Err, the admiralty jurisdiction was extended by act of Congress to include all inland interstate navigable waterways, like the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes - note that inland navigable waterways that don't go interstate are not within the admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction for torts does not extend beyond the high water line. Admiralty jurisdiction applies to contracts to be performed on navigable water.

Admiralty/maritime law is a special set of rules which apply in very limited circumstances. The source you linked is, to put it as precisely as possible, garbage.

[CobaltBlue]

The right to travel is not the right to drive. You can take the bus, or a train, just like everyone else without a license.;^)

[mindprism.com]

The state also arbitrarily holds that you may lose your license if you manifestly demonstrate an inability to "play well with others" on the road (DUI, reckless driving, etc).

My argument is this:

The state HAS a compelling interest to insure safety of the roads, BUT this interest is not sufficient to use licensing as a means to do so.

In short, the state may license and such a license may be used to help prove competency, or to allow ease of administration of tickets. In an unlicenced individual the state MUST prove incompetence and they may require immediate payment of tickets.

I should have the right to CERTIFY MY DRIVING ABILITY *without* CERTIFYING MY IDENTITY:

A state should have a licence where I am required to give the print of my big toe to establish identity. NO OTHER INFORMATION IS NECCESSARY to satisfy the states interest in establishing safe roadways.

This is based on the principle of minimum infringement.

If you may have a gun without license, I may use an automobile without license - BECAUSE A GUNS BULLET IS CAPABLE OF LEAVING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PRESENTS A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.

[Poohbah]

The state HAS a compelling interest to insure safety of the roads, BUT this interest is not sufficient to use licensing as a means to do so.

Sorry, the courts disagree with you.

[mindprism.com]

The right to travel is not the right to drive.

Your right to breathe is not being infringed, you just have to have someone jump on your chest or give you mouth-to-mouth, OR ask the state for permission to take in air under your own power.

You are admitting that you do not have the right to PILOT ANY means of transport then. How do I know I have the right to walk? After all, I could be incompetant and walk into traffic and cause accidents.

In short, licensing falls short in functionality in certifying safe drivers and infringes my right to privacy by being an ID.

The balance of these two interests has changed, privacy concerns now override the states need to certify competence ALONG WITH identity.

See #36.

[mindprism.com]

Sorry, the courts disagree with you.

No kidding! Wow, I guess you are right then, after all the courts, as we all know, are infallible and divine.

BTW, the cases in #32 show the courts have disregarded the judicial principle of upholding precedent.