May 12, 2013 8:54 PM

The RIGHT TO TRAVEL/DRIVERS LICENCE- thread.....

Scott Duncan: the decision of Justice Egbert of the Supreme Court of Alberta,1959 {28 WWR, 36 R v Minister of Highways} who eloquently and succinctly puts to rest any outstanding ambiguities, with a defensible and principled balance between our long-standing, historical, and “Sovereign protected” Right to travel the Kings/Queen’s highways in peace, versus the “duty” of Crown to reasonably regulate highways for issues of demonstrable safety, in protecting the RIGHTS of other travellers.

"At the outset I must express my shocked amazement at the contention of counsel for the minister that the claim of a resident of Alberta to a driver’s licence—and consequently to drive upon the highways of Alberta—is a privilege and not a right.

Since time immemorial the Queen’s subjects have been free to move along the Queen’s highway provided only they kept the Queen’s peace. While the requirement of technical competence in the operation of that modern mode of conveyance, the motor vehicle, may, for the public safety, require the subject to prove that competence, as a condition to the issue of a licence to drive — and the consequent right to drive - that requirement does not reduce a “right” to a “privilege.” Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty. The introduction of a dangerous mode of conveyance has not destroyed or impaired my right, but it has enlarged my duty. The keeping of the Queen’s peace now embraces an obligation on me to be so technically and physically competent that I shall not drive to the danger of any other of Her Majesty’s subjects. When I have fulfilled my obligation, when I have performed my duty, my right to move freely upon the Queen’s highway remains intact and unimpaired."

The phrase "since time immemorial" is particularly noteworthy, since it is through the common law Right established during the reign of King Alfred the Great (if not before) that all of us "have been free to move along the Queen's highway provided only [they] kept the Queen's peace."

Malek: show me the transcript please, i cant find it online...........

Scott Duncan: No. It's mine. I own it, and it's my PERSONAL library.

I can point you in the right direction, but I'm not your law library. I had to research this 20 years before Google.

I can show you what to read. That's it. Anything ELSE is ACTING AS A SOLICITOR. I'm sorry I am not leaping up to accommodate your sloth-like interest in the subject matter, but I actually had to WORK for my knowledge, and so will you.

And you got the ANSWER. TRANSCRIPTS COST MONEY. Sorry I'm not willing to spend MY equity on your hurt feelings.

You have more information than you came with. THAT should be good enough! If you READ you will see I GAVE YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, YOU STUPID UNGRATEFUL FUCK!

Highway v. highway - Consumers Gas Co. v. Toronto [1941] - Unless its meaning is affected by context or association or definition, "highway" means, in its common uses, a public road or way open EQUALLY to EVERYONE for TRAVEL.

Prov. Sec. of PEI v. Egan [1941] - The regulation and control of traffic on a highway, as well as the regulation and control of motor vehicles operating in the province, come under the heading of the BNA 1867[now Constitution Act 1867] of Property and Civil Rights, in respect of which the province has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction. The fact that a violation of the Act is punishable by fine or imprisonment does not not make it criminal law and thus, OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE PROVINCE.

Derek Moran: why is the definition for "traffic" from the Ontario Highway Traffic Act hidden in The Railway Act?.. and why is The Railway Act hidden in the archived Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1950?...........hmmmmmmmm

http://archive.org/stream/v04revisedstat1950ontauoft#page/214/mode/2up

Scott Duncan: Car(riage) is a commercial vehicle, not a vessel.

Roguesupport Nx: Car is short for "carriage"?

Scott Duncan: I'm afraid so!

Scott Duncan: Is your body a vehicle or vessel (for your "soul")

What part of NAVAL VESSEL did you miss? Boat - Water - Carries SOULS in the manifest, and has a crew.

Car - Carriage - Land -COMMERCE.

Justin Moule: Vehicle vessel i was talking about the automobile

Justin Moule: http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/forms/btr/85054.pdf

Scott Duncan: It seems you register your BOAT there too! GOOD SCAM!

Justin Moule: and the highways are shipping lanes

Scott Duncan: yup!

Justin Moule: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/station STATION, civil law. A place where ships may ride in safety. Dig. 49, 12, 1, 13; id. 50, 15, 59. station legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com Definition of station in the Legal Dictionary by TheFreeDictionary.com

Rainhard Pitschke: So, I made a 'special appearance' at a court in Newmarket yesterday. Trial for suspended driving and running red light. (I didn't see the blushing red light in the room so I would have gotten off by 'pleading' not guilty anyway.) I slapped down the two packets of 'disclosure' in front of the persecutor. I said I looked at all this and don't wish to contract with you. I also gave a copy of Scott Duncan's (thank you for posting it here!!!) Notice of Mistake. And my unique Birth Cetificate...more about that another time.

The calling of the name of course happened after all other entities had been dealt with. Funny enough...the two ladies called my given name. To which I replied hesitantly...yes....? Then they repeated with the surname to which I quickly replied no....but I'm here for that matter. Then I was invited to 'come aboard'...(matey). I declined respectfully....and was invited again. The Goddess...the judge must have been a goddess since all were calling her 'your worship'...said I was disrespecting her and the court. I had of course already informed her that I was claiming commonlaw jurisdiction, all rights reserved, waive all benefits and privileges....so it was my court, yes? In any case she then asked if I was a 'freeman on the land'. Sheesh! What's that I asked?...yuk, yuk. Then she insisted again to entice me onto her ship...Oh...let me add...what is the union jack...the British flag doing in the corner?!...Is this an embassy or ship in dry dock...I wanted to ask but we couldn't get past the railing issue. She warned me she would have me removed.....she did...had me escorted from the room...she said my 'papers' are on the last row of seats by the door...lol. I removed my bc and Notice of Mistake...and left their 'defendant' solicitations...and walked out.

But...I had a spy who remained. He heard them talk in secret like cowardly conspirator in dishonour. They sent one of the armed thugs to retrieve the 'papers'. She asked him if there was anything 'interesting' among them. No....yuk, yuk...their own stuff is of course not interesting. Then they decided to arrange for 'ex parte' hearing for next year in or for my name. Are they obligated to tell me this?