Lauren kidnapped roadside by thugs Oct. 2nd

[Kat Kanning]

inmate....I prefer the term 'political prisoner'   

[Jim Johnson]

Lauren Canario
Political Prisoner 42103 1A
Hillsborough Co. Corrections
445 Willow St.
Manchester, NH    03103

...is the address I use.

[Riddler]

All fine & well, but she IS part of a civilized society, enjoying something that is very expensive to get & maintain, and cherished by most people on earth.....FREEDOM. And being a member of this society, enjoying the freedoms we have in this country, compels all of us to live under certain guidelines. Part of any civil order. Or should I be able to walk into her house any time I feel like, make something to eat, have a shower & a nap, use her car whenever it suits me? Of course not. Because there are rules to abide by in a civilized world, like them or not.

How does being forced to obtain government permission in order to travel in your own private property outside your home on public roads have anything to do with "FREEDOM?"

Because she could walk or ride a bike, take a train, bus, plane to any destination in the U.S. w/out being questioned, to protest the govt. & elected officials w/out being jailed or shot, to practice any form of religion w/out being jailed or shot.....just that, to drive there, you've got to prove you posess the ability to drive an automobile... are we supposed to let ANY & EVERYbody drive a car down the road? How bout letting a 10 yr. old drive an 18 wheeler his dad bought him? It's HIS private property, after all.

[Tom Sawyer]

 

You haven't flown on an airplane, taken Amtrak, or interstate bus lately have you. They demand ID.

In fact an activist that challenged in court the demand for papers was told that the law was secret, thus they didn't have to show it to him.

Often people walking down the road are detained and papers demanded of them.

[Riddler]

You haven't flown on an airplane, taken Amtrak, or interstate bus lately have you. They demand ID.

In fact an activist that challenged in court the demand for papers was told that the law was secret, thus they didn't have to show it to him.

Often people walking down the road are detained and papers demanded of them.

Of course, you're right (re: public transp)....but my other points ,re: freedoms, are correct.

[Puke]

From this here website - http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

The Right to Travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Seems like a private property issue. Too bad the gov't has more guns.

[error]

I almost wish they had left it in. I can just imagine people having to get licenses to ride horses, or drive a stagecoach. Yes, it's absurd. No less absurd to require a license to drive a car. Each requires skill and training which has to be learned.

[Jim Johnson]

Because she could walk ...

You ass, have you ever tried to walk between towns in America,
people who walk across this country are the most harassed travelers.

[error]

Yep, I always get harassed by the police whenever I try to walk across the country, at least two or three times.

[SethCohn]

Because she could walk ...

You ass, have you ever tried to walk between towns in America,
people who walk across this country are the most harassed travelers.

Indeed:

http://ask.metafilter.com/44148/Where-in-the-US-does-the-police-interrogate-pedestrians

And as it mentions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

[EthanAllen]

All fine & well, but she IS part of a civilized society, enjoying something that is very expensive to get & maintain, and cherished by most people on earth.....FREEDOM. And being a member of this society, enjoying the freedoms we have in this country, compels all of us to live under certain guidelines. Part of any civil order. Or should I be able to walk into her house any time I feel like, make something to eat, have a shower & a nap, use her car whenever it suits me? Of course not. Because there are rules to abide by in a civilized world, like them or not.

How does being forced to obtain government permission in order to travel in your own private property outside your home on public roads have anything to do with "FREEDOM?"

Public roads/sidewalks are owned collectively. Public roads/sidewalks also contain a common right of way that we all have an individual equal right to use.

The common right of way for roads is subsumed under the collective right to decide on the rules of the road because of the inherent danger involved to bodily and property harm.

The collective rules of sidewalk use are subsumed under our individual equal right of use because foot traffic in the same direction at walking speeds is inherently not very dangerous.

You can't walk three abreast in the same direction or block the common right of way while exercising your first amendment rights of speech, assembly, & petitioning.

[EthanAllen]

Because she could walk ...

You ass, have you ever tried to walk between towns in America,
people who walk across this country are the most harassed travelers.

Indeed:

http://ask.metafilter.com/44148/Where-in-the-US-does-the-police-interrogate-pedestrians

And as it mentions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

Police who physical stop you (by telling you to stop) can only do so with legitimate probable cause. If they don't have one, then they can certainly ask you for identification but you are not required to provide it.

Now of course trumped up probable cause occurs all the time.

[dalebert]

Lauren Canario
Political Prisoner 42103 1A
Hillsborough Co. Corrections
445 Willow St.
Manchester, NH    03103

...is the address I use.

Good point, Jim, and perfect timing. I was just putting together a mailing for Lauren. I'll do the same.

[SethCohn]

Police who physical stop you (by telling you to stop) can only do so with legitimate probable cause. If they don't have one, then they can certainly ask you for identification but you are not required to provide it.

Bzzt.  Sorry, you lose, but thanks for playing.

The law here in NH:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-2.htm
594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

That's extremely broad 'probable cause', and potential jaywalking or other minor offense is more than enough to trigger it.  Loitering would be fine too.

This is considered one of the many Stop and Identify statutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Claiming you are Russell Kanning, for example (unless you _are_ Russell), would be illegal, so effectively while not directly requiring ID or license, it's nearly as much - since you must provide your information accurately, just as if it was a ID. 

[EthanAllen]

Police who physical stop you (by telling you to stop) can only do so with legitimate probable cause. If they don't have one, then they can certainly ask you for identification but you are not required to provide it.

Bzzt.  Sorry, you lose, but thanks for playing.

The law here in NH:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-2.htm
594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

That's extremely broad 'probable cause', and potential jaywalking or other minor offense is more than enough to trigger it.  Loitering would be fine too.

This is considered one of the many Stop and Identify statutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Claiming you are Russell Kanning, for example (unless you _are_ Russell), would be illegal, so effectively while not directly requiring ID or license, it's nearly as much - since you must provide your information accurately, just as if it was a ID. 

How is this anything different than what I said?