Keene Activist May Be Jailed Tomorrow Morning 8/15 Over a U-Turn!

[Tom Sawyer]

So this is another example of being duped into "voluntarily" giving away our rights.

Interesting, thanks.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Is driving a privilege or a right?

Right

Based on?

A guy built a car and sold it to me.  Roads exist that I have been forced to pay for, and, I drive them without conducting fraud or injury of any kind to any individuals or their property.
Bill, you're going to be wrong about this as you are about everything.

[jaqeboy]

Yep. All the cases in the early days of the automobile (early 20th Century) recognized the right to travel using your own automobile. Licensing for commercial use began and included testing of skills to get the license. Then the testing was sold to the people as a way to prove how good they were at these skills, but it was voluntary. There's a good book on this by David Lindsay, from Alberta, called Rights Denied, who traces the whole history of travel rights back to Magna Carta, then the recent (starting roughly in the 1920's) drive to license everyone as "drivers." I have a copy here somewhere.

Lloyd, you should read some of the history of these laws. It's especially important to use the words properly - the law is very precise about which word means what.

[jaqeboy]

Dave Lindsay's book was self-published and I can't find it from a quick web search. We had him speak here in Milford about 10 years ago on "Right to Travel", which he called "Right to free access to the public ways." I have an old email address for him - I can write to see if he still has some copies for sale. There are plenty of others you can find on the net - google "right to travel". When we find a new location for the Renaissance Reading Room, I'll unpack my book boxes and it'll be right there on the shelf.

[EthanAllen]

Is driving a privilege or a right?

Right

Based on?

A guy built a car and sold it to me.  Roads exist that I have been forced to pay for, and, I drive them without conducting fraud or injury of any kind to any individuals or their property.

The roads themselves are collective property and therefore you are only a joint owner with all the other owners. As such, you need to get permission from all of the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority prior to use and the terms and conditions of use can be set by them.

Contained within the roads and sidewalks is a common right of way which is an individual equal right. As such, you are only restricted in your individual use of common right of ways by whether or not you are infringing on the equal rights of any other individual to the same.

The terms and use of the sidewalk are much less stringent than roads (skateboarders, rollerskating, bicycles, etc) because the extent of possible injury is so much less when you bump into anyone else while walking.

[FTL_Ian]

Finally, there was a very uncomfortable situation where Caleb and I were asked to meet with the judge in a private room.

Did you meet with the judge? What Happened?

Here is the full paragraph again, for your convenience:   

Finally, there was a very uncomfortable situation where Caleb and I were asked to meet with the judge in a private room.  Lance, the very friendly police officer asked us to sit down at a table and when the judge came in perhaps out of habit Lance said, "All rise."  Normally if I were to simply be an observer in the courtroom, I would not rise.  In this case I was a little torn as I did not want to jeopardize my ability to video the proceedings.  Caleb and I sort of looked at each other and began to get up maybe a few inches off our chairs, but then sat back down again looking confused.  The whole situation is a bit of a blur and I don't even recall if we said anything, but Lance started to indicate that we didn't really have to, so we didn't.  Perhaps Caleb can remember little bit more detail than I can.

[money dollars]

No clue... he's the same guy that did Russell's trial.

You video taped this guy twice, and didn't get a name?

Don't they names on their desk?

What are you video taping?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Got it

[jaqeboy]

OK, I looked beyond the first google page. Here's Dave's book on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/L133-RIGHTS-DENIED-1999-sc-David-Kevin-Lindsay_W0QQitemZ230155924388QQcmdZViewItem

and at a bookseller, The Preferred Network:
http://www.preferrednetwork.com/html/law__redemption_details_55.htm

and Dave's blog: http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html (where he doesn't seem to cover right to travel as a current issue)

[jaqeboy]

The roads themselves are collective property and therefore you are only a joint owner with all the other owners. As such, you need to get permission from all of the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority prior to use and the terms and conditions of use can be set by them.

You may be right in libertarian theory, but I don't believe this is how the common law right has evolved in England, Canada and the United States. The courts have maintained a full right to travel without restriction, but have regulated "drivers", ie commercial users of the public ways.

[FTL_Ian]

Don't they names on their desk?

I do not recall.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Yep. All the cases in the early days of the automobile (early 20th Century) recognized the right to travel using your own automobile. Licensing for commercial use began and included testing of skills to get the license. Then the testing was sold to the people as a way to prove how good they were at these skills, but it was voluntary. There's a good book on this by David Lindsay, from Alberta, called Rights Denied, who traces the whole history of travel rights back to Magna Carta, then the recent (starting roughly in the 1920's) drive to license everyone as "drivers." I have a copy here somewhere.

Lloyd, you should read some of the history of these laws. It's especially important to use the words properly - the law is very precise about which word means what.

Damn Jack! Puttin me to work!

[jaqeboy]

sorry, dude, but IT'S THE LAW!

[EthanAllen]

The roads themselves are collective property and therefore you are only a joint owner with all the other owners. As such, you need to get permission from all of the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority prior to use and the terms and conditions of use can be set by them.

You may be right in libertarian theory, but I don't believe this is how the common law right has evolved in England, Canada and the United States. The courts have maintained a full right to travel without restriction, but have regulated "drivers", ie commercial users of the public ways.

Speaking of "terms". The author of the article: http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm uses the word "public" and "common" interchangeably.

Here is an example:

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

and...

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

[David]

Congrats to Dave M. for his willingness to go to jail for this.  We were certain that is what would happen. 
I have never been to traffic court before.  They were initially seeing people in line the way mcdonalds serves burgers.  I was surprised.  Traffic court is a big business.