Right to travel

[Farmer]

This brings us, hyperbolically, to the issue of anti social behaviour orders whereby one may be prevented from going to a particular place. Clearly these are unlawful and anyone subject to them is being unlawfully letted and hindered.

In that case, imprisoning someone for theft (restricting their right to travel), as an example, would also be unlawful. It's the jury that decides, and it should be a grand jury that decides whether a jury hears the case.

[holy vehm]

Would this be a fair enough interpretation?

You have the right to travel without let nor hindrance so long as you cause no loss, harm or injury.

Then that right will be revoked (depending on what has taken place)

But it should be revoked by jury and only when doing so is clearly in the public interest.

A man who rapes should be hindered in his movements (until such time he is no longer a threat)

[musashi]

This brings us, hyperbolically, to the issue of anti social behaviour orders whereby one may be prevented from going to a particular place. Clearly these are unlawful and anyone subject to them is being unlawfully letted and hindered.

In that case, imprisoning someone for theft (restricting their right to travel), as an example, would also be unlawful. It's the jury that decides, and it should be a grand jury that decides whether a jury hears the case.

Good point!

Musashi

[huntingross]

Interesting discussion

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=80827

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html

MILLER v. REED
Donald S. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally R. REED, California Department of Motor Vehicles;  Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 97-17006. 

9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals - May 24, 1999

"Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied."

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

Whilst I can’t find that quote within that citation, of course the problem with this argument is this……driving a motor car without a licence predates the introduction of the licence (by definition)….it was your right to drive up until 1903 when the Motor Car Act introduced the need for a licence when it became a privilege.

The right to travel as worded in Ex parte Lewis and the Acts of Union makes no reference to limitation of that right. Whilst an ancient text could not have the foresight of mechanical propulsion it is not without the wit of man to include for limitation by such phrase as ‘or as limited by law or statute’ for example.

A general cornerstone of common law is, ‘everything is permitted that is not expressly prohibited by law’, unlike civil law systems where the inverse applies.

The scare mongering arguments of needing to restrict people by licence to allow penalty for infraction of some law or other is self defeating as an argument because having licences doesn’t prevent the infraction, just as laws don’t prevent bad people from doing bad things.

[Dreadlock]

Of course that argument only applies to persons

“If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a persons privilege.”

It cannot be applied to people and hence cannot be used to gainsay the common law. People cannot be restricted by license, only persons can.

[huntingross]

A problem with naysayers attempts to arbitrarily limit the extent of the constitutionally recognised right to travel by claiming there is no reference to mechanical propulsion in the constitution is this.....there is no reference to any from of propulsion in the constitution, therefore ruling out horses for example. This means by their spurious claims that the only right to travel is under your own power.

Constitutions are to be interpreted widely unlike ordinary legislation and so without specific words limiting the rights described, the inclusion of horses or cars is a logical extension of mans right to travel on public rights of way.

DPP v Jones and Another [1999] Lord Irvine LC.

“The law should not make unlawful what is commonplace and well accepted.”

[squark]

I have read a little deeper on common law and its definition in the latest Oxford English Dictionary informs us that common law was taken and written from local customs of England. (unwritten common law I presume)
This leads me to ask, how do we know what the customs were? which I presume the answer should be that they became written in our early charters yes?

Key point I think!
There is a department of Revenue and Customs?

Re Venue (?) Some new "place". A fictional place where fictions fit?
And Customs, and customs of the original inhabitants. It's gonna be important I can feel it in my waters. And it's not going to get even a mention in any government document....we should just know what custom is or was...will be!

Has anyone been keeping up with the Spaniard (YouTube) and his Local Government Act 1888, section 79, subsection 2, ideas.
I called the County Council (Staffs) and they promised to call back, I hope the very explicit promise to pay doesn't go the same way! They didn't call back!