Travel often? Get molested by TSA? Then YOU are stupid. You missed it. Thicko!

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by dampnickers

 

I'll see it now. Just got home. I'm Jamaican so i don't know if I may have it or not.

Let us know. I for one would be really interested in finding out what it says in your passport, and if it matches what it says here.

reply to post by dampnickers


Are you by any chance a 'freeman on the land?'

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by babybunnies

 

But terms and conditions do not supersede a governing jurisdiction, in this case a countries government issuance.

Maybe, but the airlines can still refuse to fly you if you don't submit to security procedures.

And in any case, the Canadian passports says that they "request" free passage, not require. Making it a moot point. The British passport says "request AND require".

I'm sure if you point this out at the TSA inspection (or at any airport in the world) they will tell you that you can refuse a scan, pay a fine, and discuss it with your lawyer. You WILL miss your flight in any case if you refuse to go through security based on this "free passage" claus.

Originally posted by Crakeur
actually, the US passport is calling on other nations to allow the holder of the passport to enter without incident.

Well ain''t that hust typical of the Americans

Originally posted by dampnickers
British Passport:Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State REQUESTS and REQUIRES in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.

I think the last part is equally as relevant here too (nice catch btw) - 'and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.' - So the pat downs could be considered the necessary protection... One bomb on a plane is everyones problem, well that's what they will say anyway.

i dont think its a contract, i think its more like the bc, a bearer bond and free travel is our payment upon showing it


btw this whole thing is a little contradictory because the fact that you have signed the passport declaring your self as your legal fiction, then you are technically a corporation and therefore they have every right to do anything they want to you

basically the first part applies up until they check the part with your picture, then your fair game because you gave up your rights!

whether this is legal or moral doesnt matter

many people tend to forget we are playing the game by their rules

reply to post by dampnickers


Wow, S & F,

I have to say "well spotted"!

It will be interesting to see what happens if people follow through on this brilliant advice.

Meh, words are just words, contracts dont mean anything now adays.
Try showing that to a 25,000 a year TSA worker and see if the give a $%!7.

It sounds great, but in reality, its not rainbows and unicorns, and nothing works as its supposed to.

reply to post by R3KR


But, R3,

a passport is a legal document.

So what is written on it is the law of whichever country issued it.

Uh oh, I now see a possible flaw - the country you are entering may not agree with that law. And the country you are leaving, if it is not their passport, may not agree with that law.

Since your senators and congressmen break the law daily then what makes you think this means anything? It means zilch, nada, nothing to them. Show to a cop at a checkpoint then call a bail bondsman cuz you are going to jail. LOL

I got a Norwegian passport and it's written no such thing. But we got an RFID chip in it, so HAH! Oh, wait a minute...

Interesting concept, OP. I checked my Australian passport and it matches my British one in the key wording.

But here's a question: does this mean that anyone possessing such a passport should be allowed to enter without let or hindrance, regardless of what they might be carrying, or of any other possibly negative circumstances?

I don't think so. I expect that there is a common understanding between nations that as (for example) a citizen of one nation could be carrying illegal or dangerous items on their person and attempting to bring them into another nation, then that other nation's authorities have a right to make sure that such items are not brought in. For example, if anyone crosses the border into the country where I live -- even by car or on foot -- then the authorities here have the right to stop them and conduct a search.

I suspect that the "without let or hindrance" wording is applicable after (or if) the authorities are satisfied that the person is a) not smuggling anything and not carrying any disease that could harm the populace, b) not the subject of a warrant for arrest, c) not on a list of "undesirable aliens", and d) not otherwise likely to bring harm to that nation in any way. (I'm sure I've missed a few criteria but you get the idea.)

Put it this way: would we all prefer that passport holders were truly allowed to pass with no let or hindrance whatsoever, in spite of the risks associated with that?

EDIT to add: just for example, can being made to stand in line at an airport to get an entry stamp ("visa") be considered a let or hindrance? If it is, then what's the solution to it, if we want to be sure we're not letting in crims on the run, for example? (Assuming they're dumb enough to use their own, real passport.)

Mike

I don't own a passport, nor a birth certificate, nor any identification for this reason: I am my own person. Not a person of the state.

For example, if you don't "register" you child, it is illegal for CS to take you children away. Why? Because you didn't hand your kid over to the state.

Same with your car, your house, and hell, your gun and dog.

reply to post by dampnickers


You are missing something.

The Secretary of the State of the United States of America hereby REQUESTS....

Notice that little word REQUESTS., before the phrase "pass without delay...."

Originally posted by andy1033
Nice thread, just shows that all of us would never use our brain or intelligence until we are forced.

The ptb use this against us.

Nice thread, if true.

I agree with andy. Many of us are on automatic pilot so to speak and sometimes our minds have to be literally shoved out of "the box" like sleeping kittens! I like the way you think OP.

Similar phrasing in japanese passports and vietnamese passports. Cant scan and upload as the most tech Ive got is my mobile (and grudgingly at that unfortunately a necessary evil)
. Its in all passports that Ive seen..

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by dampnickers

 

You are missing something.

The Secretary of the State of the United States of America hereby REQUESTS....

Notice that little word REQUESTS., before the phrase "pass without delay...."

What did I miss? Did you mis-read my posts? Where did I say that the US passports REQUIRES (as you seem to be suggesting)??? The UK one says REQUIRES however. Perhaps you missed that part.

Please re-read the OP and take it from there.

reply to post by JustMike


Some very interesting points Mike.

My first thought is that we do sign the passport, which probably does set us up as a legal fiction, but it would be interesting to test all of this and find out.

Which I intend to do just as soon as I have the opportunity.

reply to post by dampnickers

It will be interesting to see what transpires. I raised those points as a "devil's advocate", really. I also feel that the current state of affairs, with the largely innocent public being treated en masse like criminals, is really taking things too far and probably not doing anything to avert any actual terror threats. Except for the occasional stooge or misguided loony, any would-be terrorists are far more likely to get themselves and/or their lethal materials into countries like the USA by other means. That is, providing they even need to do that.

As far as I recall, prior to "9/11" the largest terrorist attack in the modern era in the USA (namely the Oklahoma City bombing) was perpetrated by Americans, using materials obtained within the country and which were transported (as the finished "IED") to the detonation site in a rented truck. The most recent major terrorist attack in the UK of 7/7/2005 was carried out by UK residents, apparently with bomb-making materials they acquired and assembled within their own region. Ditto the attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004: the materials were apparently sourced locally, though I recall that a Moroccan national named Jamal Zougam was found guilty of carrying out the attacks.

I don't see how these airport searches are going to alleviate the potential threat of the "local" terrorist in any way -- not in the USA or just about anywhere else in the western world. Far from it. So as the authorities would be well aware of this, we have to wonder what their real motivation is. Testing the limits of the law, maybe? I don't know. But there's no way they're doing all this to try and catch terrorists smuggling bombs through the airports.

Mike