Korryn Gaines And The Right to Travel | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » General Chat
Admin Aug 3 '16

Korryn Gaines was not mentally ill, nor was she in violation of any commercial revenue generating statutes of the Bodi Corporate Politic known as the State of Maryland, as was suggested by the Baltimore County, Maryland Police that accosted her for not complying with commercial regulations that do not apply to the fundamental natural right to travel.

It is not a crime to be "anti-government" particularly when the government is structurally racist, arbitrary, and totalitarian and the Maryland Declaration of Rights at Article 6 makes this abundantly straightforward and plain:

Art. 6.That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. " ---Maryland Declaration of Rights.

We all enjoy a common law right from free association, from the government as declared in Articles One and Twenty -three, respectively:

Article 1.That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Pursuant to the Constitution for the United States of America and Article 1 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Maryland Statutory Laws only apply to those Living Souls who have signed a compact to be bound Maryland's statutory  jurisdiction, by and through Elective Franchise, and other consensual contracts made with the Corporate Bodi Politic.

Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights is straightforward on the recognition of Natural Law and religious freedom:
Art. 36.That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

And Article Five of the Declaration of Rights makes it abundantly clear that Korryn Gaines and all other non-citizen native inhabitants of Maryland have a common law right, to travel, because Maryland recognizes English Common Law:

Art. 5. (a) 

(1) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the Courts of Law or Equity; and also of all Acts of Assembly in force on the first day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; except such as may have since expired, or may be inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution..;".

Considering all of the above Maryland State Constitutional law to support Korryn Gaines assertion of her right to travel, there is also Supreme Court case law which supports our right to travel, as distinguished from a privilege to drive.

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

Maryland’s Transportation Article is subjected to federal Transportation Law and the federal law makes a distinction between commercial drivers operating vehicles in commerce as opposed to individual Souls exercising the right to travel from point a  to point b, using the highways and private modes of transportation.

For those who are not lawyers this may be convoluted, and even for the lowly police officer, this is way above their pay grade, but Maryland’s Transportation Article is clear:

Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 11-109  (2016) § 11-109. Commercial driver's license  

   "Commercial driver's license" and "CDL" means a license issued in accordance with Title 16, Subtitle 8 of this article or by another state pursuant to the federal Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 to an individual which authorizes the individual to drive a class of commercial motor vehicle.

Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 11-128  (2016)

§ 11-128. License (to drive)

   "License", as used in reference to the operation of a motor vehicle, means any:

   (1) Driver's license; and

   (2) Any other license or permit to drive a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this State, including:

      (i) Any temporary license;

      (ii) A learner's instructional permit;

      (iii) A provisional license;

      (iv) The privilege of any individual to drive a motor vehicle, whether or not that individual is formally licensed by this or any other jurisdiction;

      (v) Any nonresident's privilege to drive, as defined in this subtitle; and

      (vi) A commercial driver's license.

Korryn Gaines was not mentally ill, nor was she anti-government, she knew her status and relationship with government and she was also cognizant of the fact that government has become so arbitrary and oppressive that, the government would send the police to unlawfully through State Sanctioned Domestic Violence force Korryn Gaines to “Comply or Die”----Korryn Gaines decided to stand up and sacrifice her life standing on the truth.

Not knowing what this all means could actually lead to your death if you engage in this sort of Separation from the tentacles of forced coercive government. Korryn Gaines knew the consequences of her actions, she died as a free woman fighting for Black Liberation.

Joshua Aug 4 '16
I understand now. What her situation means. I most certainly appreciate the part "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.". My eyes are opening to the reality. It's an absolute necessity to read and comprehend these laws. Not just for liberation, but for self-defense. Every time a police officer pulls us over it is a crime on THEIR part. That is heinous beyond reason. Peace y'all. 
Admin Aug 4 '16

Today I was arrested and briefly detained for removing state property from my "Private" property. I was taken to the Pikesville Precinct photographed, released and taken back to my private mode of transportation.

I was cited under duress with the following violations of the Maryland Commercial Transportation Article Statues.
The Officer clearly states that the Vehicle Registration is "PRIVATE", that being the case, the State has no public interest in PRIVATE matters.

The Officer alleges that TA 13-411(a) was violated in that there was an alleged "Failure to attach vehicle registration plates at Front and Rear.

The second Citation is an alleged violation of TA 13-703 (g), in that there was an alleged "Unauthorized Display and Use of Registration Plate.

There is no way that I could have failed to attach vehicle registration plated and at the same time engage in an "Unauthorized Display and  Use. I was also cited for failing to stop at a stop sign, failure to produce a license and registration all for a "PRIVATE" vehicle that according to the Police is not subject to Public Statutory Law.

Admin Aug 6 '16
More on the Right to Travel from the Supreme Court of the United States:

383 U.S. 745

United States v. Guest (No. 65)

Argued: November 9, 1965

Decided: March 28, 1966

246 F.Supp. 475, reversed and remanded


"The fourth numbered paragraph of the indictment alleged that the defendants conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Negro citizens of the United States in the free exercise and enjoyment of: 

The right to travel freely to and from the State of Georgia and to use highway facilities and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce within the State of Georgia.  [n13]  

The District Court was in error in dismissing the indictment as to this paragraph. The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. In Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, invalidating [p758]  a Nevada tax on every person leaving the State by common carrier, the Court took as its guide the statement of Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492: 

For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.

See 6 Wall. at 48-49.

Although the Articles of Confederation provided that "the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State,"  [n14]   that right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.  [n15]   In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. See Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 177 (concurring opinion), 181 (concurring opinion); New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1, 6-8; 12-16 (dissenting opinion).

In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, invalidating a California law which impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent, the Court based its reaffirmation of the federal right of interstate travel upon the Commerce Clause. This ground of decision was consistent with precedents firmly establishing that the federal commerce [p759]  power surely encompasses the movement in interstate commerce of persons as well as commodities. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 203; Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 218-219; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 320; United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 423. It is also well settled in our decisions that the federal commerce power authorizes Congress to legislate for the protection of individuals from violations of civil rights that impinge on their free movement in interstate commerce. Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80; Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816; Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454; Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241"] 379 U.S. 241; 379 U.S. 241; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294.

Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further.  [n16]   All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. § 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633. We reaffirm it now.  [n17]   [p760]

This does not mean, of course, that every criminal conspiracy affecting an individual's right of free interstate passage is within the sanction of 18 U.S.C. § 241. A specific intent to interfere with the federal right must be proved, and at a trial the defendants are entitled to a jury instruction phrased in those terms. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 106-107. Thus, for example, a conspiracy to rob an interstate traveler would not, of itself, violate § 241. But if the predominant purpose of the conspiracy is to impede or prevent the exercise of the right of interstate travel, or to oppress a person because of his exercise of that right, then, whether or not motivated by racial discrimination, the conspiracy becomes a proper object of the federal law under which the indictment in this case was brought. Accordingly, it was error to grant the motion to dismiss on this branch of the indictment.

For these reasons, the judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion".----United States v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966)


© 2016 David Anthony Wiggins©, All Rights Reserved

The Forum post is edited by Admin Aug 6 '16