US Bureaucrats take aim at the Right to Travel, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 8-10-2009 @ 05:58 AM by crimvelvet

Some idiot in the US government has decided that a certain class of innocence US citizen must now provide the United States government an itinerary of their travel plans including not only where they want to go but a detailed list of their cargo. These same people already must inform the US Government whenever they leave their property and are subject to random searches of their kitchens and baths!

Who are these “dangerous people”? Are they convicted felons, sex offenders, arms dealers, immigrants from possibly hostile countries, suspected terrorists?

No these people, who are considered by the US government to be so dangerous to the US public that their Constitutional freedoms must be trampled, are the people who show up at your child's birthday party with a bunny or lamb for the children to pet! These are the people who the US government considers so dangerous movement off their property must be monitored.

How many of these people are their in the USA? Five years ago I personally knew 11 in my area. Then the US Government decided to regulate them. Now most of those I knew have been driven out of business and there are only 400 left in the entire USA according to the government.

To the general populous this does not seem a big deal, however petting farms are just a trial balloon. With the food safety bills this type of regulation is aimed at ALL farmers and anyone who fits the bills description. A description that includes just about everyone.

In reading the bill HR 875 also known as the "Destruction of American Small Farms and Gardens Act" I did not find a list ANY EXCLUSIONS! On the contrary it specifically states link

"..facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients." link

Notice it does not say a person SELLING food, it says a person holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients. Trial runs against ordinary citizens have already occurred: Inspector Targets Old Ladies Selling Homemade Pie at Church Fish-Fry

This is the e-mail I received. The 8.6 itineraries per year tells you just how out of touch the US government is with reality. The only time traveling exhibitors are NOT on the road is when the weather is too severe. Heck, before I sold-out I had a petting farm under a tent at an event during a hurricane as well as during snowstorms. You go to work every day unless specifically told not to why would a professional traveling exhibitor be any different? You can not make a living with 8 - $200 - $1000 gigs a year. The new regulations make sure operating is just too expensive and the paperwork to much of a headache for anything but very pigheaded professionals to be left.

For those of you who are traveling exhibitors, here are the new proposed
changes to usda regs (see attached PDF file). We have until Nov 1 for
public comment – they are wanting to require complete itineraries for
EVERY offsite exhibit/show. They are guessing that with weekly
itineraries, each of us will only submit 8.6 itineraries per year – not
52 per year. They have no idea of how much some of us travel...please
send them your comments ASAP.* *

usda proposed changes.pdf
ttp://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/8451785/776494880/name/usda%20proposed%20changes%2Epdf>

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me. Niemoller

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 06:35 AM by DataWraith

reply to post by crimvelvet

Just like the Nazi warfilms on TV and the old USSR routine of having travel papers, Good luck with that.

Whatever happened to the US of A being the land of the free?

Sounds like to going to be more like USSA , Land of the repressed and Home of the Naive.

[edit on 8/10/09 by DataWraith]

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 06:45 AM by ReelView

This is a good example of the difference between the true law and statutes,regulations,acts, policies, etc.. If we where paying attention to the law, we would need to be concerned about three things: harming someone, interfering or harming someones property, misleading them in agreements. Those are the basics of common / natural law.

Creating a statute that claims certain individuals must do this violates part 3 and part 1. It misleads people (or tries to) with a false agreement (the statute) that doesn't apply to a living human and it leads to interfering or harms them as a living human. This is the same con as the traffic ticket or any of the other 50 million + contract issues that don't really apply to living humans.

Dallas county is working on a statute that says if you have unpaid parking tickets you can not renew your vehicle registration. Well that is extortion on top of fraud and the very same misrepresentation as above.

See how easy it is to take all this power away from these people by insisting that they operate under the true constitutional court for criminal real criminal activity which is the common law court? If people would insist on common law and only common law we would be free of 50 million plus criminal actions institated by the treasonous "government officials" via the legal society.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 05:55 PM by crimvelvet

reply to post by ReelView

See how easy it is to take all this power away from these people by insisting that they operate under the true constitutional court for criminal real criminal activity which is the common law court? If people would insist on common law and only common law we would be free of 50 million plus criminal actions institated by the treasonous "government officials" via the legal society.

I absolutely hate "regulations" they are written by non-elected bureaucrats but have the power of law. Our only recourse is through the jury system.

Judges are very careful not to instruct juries on their actual rights and duties. a Jury can determine a law (or regulation) is Unconstitutional. " Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being applied for political reasons." Fully Informed Jury Assoc.

GRAND JURY:
Our founders intended that our independent grand juries protect people from ambitious or tyrannical government employees and laws.

The U.S. Attorneys Manual states that prosecutors “must recognize that the grand jury is an independent body, whose functions include not only the investigation of crime and the initiation of criminal prosecution but also the protection of the citizenry from unfounded criminal charges” (USAM, Section 9-11.010). The Manual recognizes that targets of investigations have the right and can “request or demand the opportunity to tell the grand jury their side of the story” (USAM, Section 9-11.152).

The Supreme Court states that the independent grand jury’s purpose is not only to investigate possible criminal conduct, but to act as a “protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action,” and to perform its functions, the independent grand jury “deliberates in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry” (United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)).

An independent grand jury is to “stand between the prosecutor and the accused,” and to determine whether a charge is legitimate, or is “dictated by malice or personal ill will” (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)). The grand jury is to protect citizens against “hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution” and to insure that prosecutions are not “dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill will” (Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962)).

The independent grand jury is described as “a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation” (Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)). “Without thorough and effective investigation, the grand jury would be unable either to ferret out crimes deserving of prosecution, or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution.” (U.S. v. Sells Engineering, 463 U.S. 418 (1983))