Right to travel

Right to travel

Postby holy vehm » Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:07 pm

I have been looking into the right to travel without let or hindrance.

We have at common law this right.
We also have this right in natural law.

I am a nomadic species and have the ability to roam the earth as i see fit save for tresspass on private land.
Private land in this instance is land that is claimed.
Claimed in this instance is land that a fellow human is using as is his natural right.

So for instance he may have planted some crops or built a shelter and it is wrong for me to just walk right on through.
He does not own this land but simply uses it as he see's fit as is his natural right.

Under common law a similair practice exists but is also backed up by common law rights notably (in this country) the right to travel without let nor hindrance anywhere in the UK and its dominions. This is the act of union.

Dominions can and are the commonwealth where the queen is head of state. There are 15 countries where she is still head of state.
She is also head ofthe commonwealth of nations.
Under the commonwealth ALL uk citizens are deemed none foriegn. So for instance australia does not recognise UK citizens as foriegners but rather commonwealth citizens. All other commonwealth countries are classed as foreign to each other but not the UK.

In times gone by i as a human could travel where i wanted when i wanted, but i could be met with resistance by the current occupiers of the land i intend to travel on, security is an issue here.
Also, having your natural rights recognised is still a problem, even way back in time.
The saving grace here is that there where many less people around then today, so there is a strong chance that you may not even encounter other humans.

We then have imperialism and colonialism and with that the rule of law (common law)

We then come to a time when you could approach a land in your vessel and dock in the harbour where you would be greeted by the harbour master.
He would then ask a few questions, such as what is the nature of your visit, who and what is on board.
A ship flying another countries flag was deemed as a soverign vessel and much like the embassies we have today, usually beyond being boarded/entered by any other state/country.
There was no requirement for a passport or papers. No identification and no lengthy application process. Often a charge or levy was paid to dock in the harbour, this was often a safe bet rather than out on the sea's (pirates)

But what we have today is that both natural and common law is still very much valid yet is very much not recognised.

You could jump in your boat and sail to australia, approach its waters and attempt to dock in the harbour.
You would not get that far.
Your rights are not recognised, its that simple.
Unless you have a couple of aircraft carriers and a few nuclear subs you aint getting in.
They do not recognise your rights to travel without let nor hindrance anywhere in the commonwealth (54 nations) including (15 where the queen is head of state)

Undetered i press on.

I looked at two other factors.

Most commonwealth countries are common law jurisdictions with a high court acting under common law - so these countries should when challenged in these courts be forced by law to recognise your rights (common law)
But, these countries very rarely accept a 'foreigner' to lodge a claim against the country. The claimant would be outside of the country.
But we are not 'foreign'

So that seems a plausable method.

The other way is to petition the queen.
She is head of state in 15 countries and head of the commonwealth of nations, she is supreme, she is head of the court.
There is a procedure that must be followed.
First you petition the queen, the petition is a petition of favour.
You write seeking support for your claim under common law to travel without let nor hindrance to australia (a common law jurisdiction)
You are not asking her to grant a permission of entry (she cant)
Next you write to the high commisioner of the commonwealth of australia (thats its official title)
Australia is not called australia but the commonwealth of Australia.
The high commisioner is the queens representative, she has the authority to do things even without the queens permission so far as it would be in the queens best interests.
You seek the support for your claim by the high commissioner.
At this stage you may now have the support of the queen and the high commissioner for your claim to travel without let nor hinderance the land mass known as the commonwealth of australia.
You now lodge your claim with the minister for immigration.
He has the authority to grant 'special visa's
It does not say what these visa'a can or can not be granted for.

The possibility of getting this far is slim granted, yet i see no reason other than corruption why this 'legal' and lawful route should not be followed by the qeen and everyone else.

The commonwealth of australian constitution speciffically states that the law should be open and equal to all, to not be is unconstitutional and any law made this way is void.

Your claim.

I ............... of the family ............
Being a flesh and blood human being residing from my ancestoral lands commonly known as Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

I lay claim to my right at common law to travel without let nor hindrance the land mass commonly known as The Commonwealth of Australia.

It is reasonable to infom you of my intentions which are to travel in order to trade.
I intend to trade my skills which are..........................

It is further reasonable to supply information (see enclosed) to provide peace of mind that i as named above are of sound character and do not present a threat to the current inhabitants and its wildlife.

I except and understand that The Commonwealth of Australia is a common law jurisdiction and i agree to live, travel and trade under this jurisdiction.

(Or words to that effect.)

But there is no passport, no expensive application and no signing a way common law rights and becoming a person of the state (statute)

Granted one still needs to recognise that 'others' have a hold over you in order to be recognised yourself but perhaps its a middle ground, a halfway house.

You could first try this route and then when unsuccessful it may lead to grounds to seek review of the decision in the high court.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:46 am

This is very helpfull thank you, but to be more helpful and factual could you quote where it states that we have a right to travel without let or hinderance at common law please?
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby huntingross » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:43 pm

Ingy wrote:This is very helpfull thank you, but to be more helpful and factual could you quote where it states that we have a right to travel without let or hinderance at common law please?


Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 Wills J. and
DPP v Jones and Another [1999] Lord Slynn

"The only 'dedication' in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage, of which the legal description is a 'right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.' "

This 'dedication' in the Queens Bench in 1888 was repeated/referenced again in 1999, so this under the doctrine of 'stare decisis' binds lower courts who can not disturb settled matters....Yet they do, every day.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:57 pm

Thanks for that huntingross,

I will try and get my head around that as am a novice compared to you no doubt.

But when I say a common law I am looking for it to be quoted in any Charters written in stone before any parliament existed as this would be a solid unarguable tool for us.

Although I gues you mean your quotes are from past court cases that should not be changed under the doctrine 'stare decisis' meaning settled matters in court should not be changed.... but of course I understand the corruption of courts who actually would change settled matters thinking the masses don't know otherwise.

I have dipped into the Freeman movement on and off and am carefully and slowly picking it up and as a sometimes outsider can give important useful feedback from an outsdiers point of vie to an extent, which is that I see a lack of reference to exact quotes from what is considered to be common law, which I thought was our early Charters before parliament such as the Magna carta and Charter of Liberties?

I am sorry if you don't understand my questions but I am just wanting usefull solid tools for this decent movement that folk can easy reffer to.
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby squark » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:49 pm

I got an £1100 bill on this issue so be careful before trying out a theory.

Interesting little point I picked up in court.
I asked "Does the Police Office really believe that my rights are give to me by statute?" (he misquoted my statement from the traffic stop)
The Judge responded "That's for me to decide."
Which I think has meaning and is worth a good head scratch.

You may have a common law right to travel but if you have waived it or contracted it away or sold it or signed it over, you have no longer got that right. You can exchange rights for privileges by being a member of "society". You can demonstrate that membership by for example receiving a benefit, like JSA or Legal Aid or even having and using Bank of England bank notes.

I also noticed that in the Road traffic act, it says "must have an insurance policy, Bond or other document." A Treasury Direct Account (USA) is an account that holds asset funds(Birth Certificates and Living Man Estates) and if you can make it your own to administer (A4V the Birth Cert, sign the back, return it etc ?) you can issue a Bond with the asset account as its collateral. So there you are "insured" You can also raise credit based on a bond! (4kin hell I got it out and my head didn't explode!)

I wrote an Affidavit saying "I don't consent". Of course you can't testify in your own case because everyone would swear they didn't do it and unrebutted the walk away scott-free. So, sorry folks it doesn't work that way. Your consent is expressed by accepting benefits (of the contract). You can't take the benefits without taking the liabilities too.

I say contract, but with money being a fiction of law, as it has no gold or silver backing, there can be no Valuable Consideration as payment, so it seems to be (Jack Smith says) Trust Law. That promise to pay, you have to trust them on that. I know its not easy and they will not give an inch when you do it back to them. But you can (just promise)!!!!

I would explain more thoroughly but....I'm pretty well confused, it's not what we expect and seems to make no sense with that old mind set. Even to the point that we can have it all for free, in this existing system, if we can only become competent and know who we truly are.

I find there is SHIT LOADS to learn, but once you have it, you have it for life (and you can teach too!)

Absolutely mind boggling!
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Right to travel

Postby huntingross » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:42 pm

It's not a theory, its fact.....but putting it to the test exposes you to their bold faced lies, I know because I did it.

All the rights to travel on the majesties highway as described in the Lewis case are signed away when you apply for a driving licence.

And there was another paradox for them, Swift made it clear they cant licence a criminal act, so how can traveling without the documents they claim you should have, be criminal ?.....because if it is criminal how can they issue a driving licence to make it legal ?

Answer....they can't - therefore driving is lawful without a licence.....its just illegal !
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:08 am

Thank you both, much apreciated.

I still need a solid reference point to use as a tool which sometimes I see lacking in this movement. (Constructive critisism here)

If folk are stating that it is common law to travel without let or hindrance then where does it state this in our common law?

Is the court case quote from huntingcross a quote from common law? if so what Charter was it taken from?
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby musashi » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:43 pm

I'm feeling a touch pedantic today and, as I have bugger all else to contribute to this thread (it's all going so well, boys and girls and I am proud of you) I'd just like to point out that the original term is SCEOT FREE - not Scot free or any variation.

Sceot was an ale tax and getting off sceot free was simply not having to pay the ale tax. Everyone consumed ale - a very low acohol fermenatation - because the water was so dodgy. A fermented water brew made it safe to drink. The state, always looking to steal more money from us, brought out an ale tax - the Sceot - and made people pay for safe drinking water. The latest mad idea is a bedroom tax.

The cops ambush you. The courts demand money afterwards because of it, and the bailiffs come and collect it. The system is breaking down at this collection point. Well done to all of you who have resisted a bailiff. And a huge thank you to those of you have, in the last few weeks, put out such terriffic stuff to help us in this war of attrition.

It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:22 pm

The highest law is God's law. It is the basis for all our law and precedes parliament and the common law by centuries. Whether you believe in God or not
having his laws on your side in court is a VERY strong position.


Genesis 1:26

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Psalm 115:16

"The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men."

Of course you could also argue the right to travel from a philosophical perspective. All animals have "public highways". Rabbits, foxes, deer, badgers etc. all have trails or "public highways" which they get to use for free, is man any different? Do we have less natural rights than the other animals which use public highways? Does any man have the right to tell another he cannot travel?

The right to travel is so fundamental to animal life that no appeal to statute, common law or even God is necessary, for to take away a man's right to travel freely is to take away a man's right to live.
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:42 pm


Am I right in presuming the right to travel without let or hindrance is not written in Common law? as you or anyone else has not provided me with it written in common law which I though was our early Charters?

If it is, please can you tell me where it is written? Which Charter?
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm


Return to Travel only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest