Anna Von Reitz
It's so exciting to see great people who know their stuff, working together! This gives me hope and motivates me to do what i can.
Your articles are awesome, Anna! i plan to use them in filings against these wrongdoers. Also, it will be my pleasure to share with many men and woman (as officials).
Within the next day or so, i plan to put into writing a notice to the men and women (involved at a recent hearing of the administrative "court") charging me for a traffic "offence", where things stand, as i had written previously to others who are associated with and in pursuit of this case. i had attempted to file those documents; i got stamped copies, but they were not entered properly into the "court". Therefore, i will file those and further communications into Superior Court with my claim.
Would you mind if i cc the email notice to you, so that these wrongdoers can see your name and perhaps check out your documents? That's all i'm asking. i'm not asking you to read it or anything else. i'm thinking they may drop their case sooner.
It is well-established matter of fact that you have the right to travel and use your private car or truck to do so.
You cannot however invoke such "right to travel" while causing harm including reckless endangerment to anyone else. I am not privy to the details of this case so can't comment except to say it is the judge's job to make sure that the roads are safe and that your right to travel-- whether judged by Common Law or Statutory Law will be balanced against the responsibility that goes with that right to not harm or recklessly endanger others who have an equal right to use the public roads.
So-- if you are fighting a DUI or major league speeding ticket or other matters of that ilk, don't expect any relief.
If you are objecting to the more mundane forms of revenue enhancement activities such concerns don't come into play and you may indeed invoke right to travel which has been supported countless times all the way to the Supreme Court successfully.
The rule as my Mother very succinctly explained it to me is this, "Your rights begin where another's rights end."
The right of others to travel the public roads in safety mitigates against the individual right to travel 100 miles per hour down an icy highway.
But the right of an individual who has proven competent to travel using a car or truck to get from Point A to Point B is not subject to licensing or other requirement or harassment or presumption.
I hope I am drawing a firm line in your mind as to whether or not your cause for complaint is reasonable and just.
I get all sorts of complaints about the right to travel yet very few are genuine right to travel issues. In most cases there has been no intent to keep anyone from traveling wherever, however, or whenever they wish.
There are improper arrests. There are cases of harassment and abuse by police. There are people who are not obligated to have a license peacefully traveling on the roads and being wrongly arrested and upbraided on the false presumption that they have to have a license when they don't and others who are being hauled into court for petty nuisance issues like a broken tail light or going five miles per hour over the speed limit who should never be in court.
That said, the right to travel does not imply the right to harm or recklessly endanger anyone else.
It is not a "home free" ticket to pretend that County Road D is the Autobahn. It is not sudden permission for blind people to drive trucks and knowingly endanger themselves and the rest of us. It is not an excuse for drinking and traveling in an erratic way that threatens oncoming traffic.
I am sure that if you stop and consider the realities of life and travel you can judge for yourself where your case falls in the spectrum of these public and private concerns.
The mission of peacekeeping officers should be turned away from statutory enforcement and back to the real issues at hand-- helping people get where they are going safely and in one piece, but I don't foresee a time when our society says "God gave you the ability to travel 100 miles per hour on an icy road while drunk as a skunk, so that gave you the right to do so and that gave you the right to kill my granddaughter while she was walking home from school."
Under statutory law such behavior gets Manslaughter charges. In Common Law it is Murder and potentially carries the Death Penalty.
Statutory law-- what you are living under now as a "citizen" of the United States is often more lenient than the Common Law you are obligated to observe as one of the free sovereign and independent people.
Freedom for oneself comes with a price tag-- respecting the equal freedom of others.
Your freedom to drive a car however you wish is balanced against a little girl's freedom to live and walk home from school.
Many people involved in the Freedom to Travel movement forget how Draconian the Common Law is. They forget in their enthusiasm for their own freedom that living as a free man or woman entails greater responsibility for one's acts-- not less.
It's like I tell business ventures to dissolve their incorporated status if they want to end their obligation to pay income tax and filing requirements and all that--- but take out extra liability insurance to make up for the increased responsibility you bear when you choose to be free.
It would not be appropriate to lend my name or opinion to any case I am not directly involved in. I am simply offering some insight into the whole Freedom to Travel discussion and the more general topic of what freedom demands in terms of responsibility from us.
Many people have wrongly equated freedom with lack of responsibility, but it is in fact the exact opposite that is true. Please consider my comments as intended-- as a help to you in evaluating your own case in the Big Picture. And please pass along to others who may need similar pointers.
See this article and over 100 others on Anna's website here:www.annavonreitz.com