Up next


MANUFACTURING 3-INC ANTI-AIRCRAFT SHELLS WORLD WAR II ORDNANCE FILM FRANKFORD ARSENAL 10414

Johnny Exodice
Johnny Exodice - 126 Views
126
126 Views
Published on 22 Mar 2020 / In Film and Animation

Want to support this channel and help us preserve old films? Visit https://www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm
Browse our products on Amazon: https://amzn.to/2YILTSD

This black & white promotional/educational film is about making shells in populated areas of the USA. The date of the production is 1939 based on the title credits.

Credits: Produced by The Signal Corps in collaboration with the Chief of Ordnance 1939 - Manufacturing Shell For 3 inch Anti-Aircraft Guns (:07-:27). This film will show how make the shell our narrator tells us at the Frankford Arsenal factory in Philadelphia, PA. Exterior shots of the factory are shown. This was made to show that there are no hazards with building shells in populated areas (:28-1:07). Steel bars are shown whole and then being cut. Size is discussed. Men in the factory are at work. How to make the shell is explained and shown. The bar is shown before heating and then in succession based on what station, first, second, third, and fourth and final station. The forging is shown. A crank press shears them. The outer shell is seen going into the air outside for cooling (1:08-4:31). Our workers continue to make them. The rotating bands are cut. Walls of the shell are used as a test specimen (4:32-7:05). Forgings are placed into a machine to smooth since the explosives are to be loaded into this cavity. They are then sent to the shell machining shop. The shell is centered. All of the procedure is shown and explained. Process inspection follows. The shell is played with and made sure to be of use (7:06-10:47). The shell is placed into a drilling and tap machine. Watch as the process continues. More of the procedure is shown. Lots of closeups of the machines at work. Slow and thorough. The shell is almost done. Base is finished (10:48-13:16). The shell is notched next. Stamping machine is next. The process continues as it continues on its way. A band is going to be placed onto the shell. It is time to have it be ready for its finished size, this is shown. A steel disc is welded to the base of the shell (13:17-17:01). Washed in a hot bath is next for the shell. Final inspection table is next. Size and specs it should be are listed. Dimensional and weight tolerances have been given to the shell and must be abided by. Workers work on and weigh the shell casings (17:02-19:00). Men lift the casings. A protective coating grease is placed on the approved ones. Final steps performed on the shells. Shells then packed to be shipped to the assembly plant (19:01-20:24). End credit (20:25-20:31).

The Frankford Arsenal is a former United States Army ammunition plant located adjacent to the Bridesburg neighborhood of Northeast Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, north of the original course of Frankford Creek. The Frankford Arsenal was an entity unto itself, a virtual city within a city, and contained everything from its own police and fire departments, dining halls, motor pool, and a complete medical facility. The Arsenal was part of the U.S. Arsenal System—dedicated military establishments spread throughout the country to perform specific military missions for the Government.

From the beginning, the Frankford Arsenal was involved in the design and manufacture of munitions. As military weapons became more complex, the Center's role expanded to cover the development of a whole range of the Army's more advanced weapon systems. The Arsenal contained the world-famous Pitman-Dunn Laboratories along with a number of other R&D departments. Arsenal scientists and engineers designed and developed everything from basic materials to LASER guided ballistics, all produced entirely in-house from the concept phase to the fielding of the equipment. New portable and imbedded computer applications saw the development of the LASER rangefinder, fielded artillery computational machines (FADAC) and radar systems. During the Vietnam War, experiments in caseless ammunition, far-infrared low-light-level technologies, and advanced LASER applications were under development.

As the U.S. military-industrial complex grew, the Arsenal could no longer compete as a manufacturing entity. More and more of its programs were farmed out to industry. The Arsenal's functions were eventually transferred to the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.

We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."

This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit http://www.PeriscopeFilm.com

Show more
3 Comments sort Sort by

snoop4truth
snoop4truth 1 month ago

EXACTLY WHAT IS THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL"?

"THE HOAX"
Amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH:
The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT OF A PERSON TO LEAVE ONE STATE, ENTER ANOTHER STATE AND BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THAT OTHER STATE. The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as an "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

BELOW IS THE DEFINITION OF THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

1). Jones v. Helms, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=78307 In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

2). Saenz v. Roe, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=47210 In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE." (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

1). State v. Sullivan, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=54785 In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

2). Miller v. Reed, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=96215 In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

3). North Carolina v. Howard, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=10451 In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

4). Thompson v. Scutt, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=18159 In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [LIKE ROD CLASS] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.) Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

FACT: A PERSON MAY FREELY EXERCISE HIS/HER "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" WITHOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING BY WALKING, RIDING A BICYCLE OF HORSE OR AS A "PASSENGER" IN AN AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE OR HELICOPTER.

1. State v. Sullivan, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=54785 In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his convictions for driving an unregistered car and for driving without insurance. The defendant argued that such STATE laws violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". The court disagreed and wrote, "If defendant does not wish to follow these statutory requirements, we remind him that HE MAY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, 'If he wishes, HE MAY WALK, RIDE A BICYCLE OR HORSE, OR TRAVEL AS A PASSENGER in an AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE or HELICOPTER. HE CANNOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE ["DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE]... ." (citation omitted). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

2). Miller v. Reed, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=96215 In this case, the State of California refused to issue Miller a driver's license because he would not reveal his social security number. Miller argued that in so doing, California had violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "The plaintiff is NOT being prevented from TRAVELLING INTERSTATE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY COMMON CARRIER [means plane, bus, train or ship], OR [AS A PASSENGER] IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE TO DRIVE IT." (at the 4h paragraph, block indented portion, in the section entitled "DISCUSSION" at about 60% through the text). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

FACT: STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSES DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".

1). Chaoui v. City of Glendora, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=46138 In this case, the court wrote, "To the extent Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of California's driver's license requirement, ANY SUCH CHALLENGE IS MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT [under the tenth amendment] to regulate the use of state roads BY REQUIRING THAT DRIVERS ON THOSE STATE ROADS OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES, carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, AND THAT such REGULATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION... ." The court went on to cite the holding of another case with approval which held, "STATE LAWS REQUIRING VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE DO NOT VIOLATE THE [CONSTITUTIONAL] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (citation omitted). The court also cited with approval another holding of another case which, "REJECTI[ED] [THE] CONTENTION THAT CALIFORNIA'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DRIVER'S LICENSE AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED [THE] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (beginning in the 6th paragraph of the section entitled, "DISCUSSION" at about 75% through he text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

2). Robinson v. Huerta, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=88720 In this case, a pilot who lost his pilot's license claimed that revoking his pilot's license violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "a number of courts have held that an incidental RESTRICTION ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL. In support, the court cited a case which, "[FOUND] NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL... because 'TRAVELERS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE MOST CONVENIENT FORM OF TRAVEL [such as driving a motor vehicle]... ')... ." The court also cited a case which held that a "DENIAL OF [A] DRIVER'S LICENSE ONLY DENIES THE PLAINTIFF THE ABILITY TO DRIVE A CAR [a single mode of travel], AND THUS "DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY BURDEN HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE using other MODES of transportation]." The court then cited another case which held, "A BURDEN ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] SIMPLY DOES NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL." Finally, the court cited a case which "reject[ed] [a] claim that [the] denial of a driver's license violate[d] [the] RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL because... THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE." (at the 8h paragraph in the section entitled "3. Right To Travel" at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

3). State v. Williams, [url][a]https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_case%3Fcase%3D8886781550786925928%26q%3D%2522State%2Bv.%2BWilliams%2522%2Btennessee%2B%2522right%2Bto%2Btravel%2522%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D40006%5B%2Furl%5D.[/a] In this case, WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS, filed this LOSING appeal following his LOSS at the trial court where he was CRIMINALLY CONVICTED (again) for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Williams was sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL and a $2,500 FINE. NOTE: This case is one of TEN (10) similar driver's license cases that Williams LOST in the State of Tennessee alone. This number does not even include his many other LOSSES of similar driver's license cases in other states, such as Florida. In this case, the court wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's [ANTHONY WILLIAMS'] contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR [STATE] LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL [LIKE WILLIAMS] HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE... . The same holds true for the requirement that motor vehicles be registered under the motor vehicle registration law. ... . Arguments identical to Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court SEVERAL TIMES [actually providing a long list of those DISMISSALS]." The court upheld the conviction and sentence against Williams. But, the court could not resist making fun of some of Williams' amateur legal theories. In footnote 1, the court wrote, "Throughout the events leading up to this appeal, Appellant REFERRED TO HIMSELF as the 'ATTORNEY IN FACT' FOR THE 'LEGAL FICTION' OF 'ANTHONY WILLIAMS' [making fun of the amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]. The record even includes an exhibit PURPORTING TO COPYRIGHT THE NAME 'ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS' and several variations of the name [as if that could be used as a defense in this case]. Appellant[Williams] is apparently part of the sovereign citizen movement. For the sake of clarity, we will not distinguish between the attorney in fact and the legal fiction, REFERRING TO BOTH as Appellant [making fun of Williams' amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]." Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely. NOTE THAT THIS IS THE SAME WORLD FAMOUS "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" WHO STARS IN THE 3 MINUTE VIDEO BELOW. . Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

4). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=12477 In this case, an illegal alien who had not established residency in the state sued the state because it refused to issue him a driver's license. The illegal alien claimed that by so doing, the state had violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]he Georgia statutes in question do not violate that right [to travel]... . BURDENS ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a car] DO NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL. (citation omitted). [THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... . (citation omitted). WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]... . REGULATION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGE is a quintessential example of the exercise of THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [under the tenth amendment], AND THE DENIAL OF A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [which is something else entirely]." (at the 4th paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

FACT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE UNREGULABLE "RIGHT TO DRIVE" WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE.

1). Commonwealth v. Ascenzi, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=56979 In this case, the court held, "THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE RECOGNIZED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR BY ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. Because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE [driving may be regulated, licensed or prohibited entirely]... ." (beginning in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

2). State v. Sullivan, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=48303 In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways... .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'... . 'Driving on the roads of this State is ... NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

3). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=12477 In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

4). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, [url]https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=97802 In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves).

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum....4/showthread.php?994

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum....4/showthread.php?995

For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums..../showthread.php?1328

For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums..../showthread.php?1316

For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums..../showthread.php?1323

For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums..../showthread.php?1303

Reply   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
Johnny Exodice
Johnny Exodice 5 months ago

And The Teacher Spoke…, You live inside A MACHINE known as the Great Purgatorium, and you have always been here, and will always return here for there is no other life, but the one you live right now, right here, and right before your very presence!!! You know you go “too many places” when you lay your Human Body of Blood and Bones and Flesh to rest, yet you always wake right back up in the Human Body Temple TEMPORARY Celestial Being Personage “that is you” no matter how many drugs or drink you do “too escape” your ETERNAL BEING… You have killed one another for Time immemorial, and yet, you always have had A “choice” to change this Grand Construct known as our Home World of Purgatory, but so many of you “want others” to tell you what to do??? How many times do you have De- Ja Vu??? How many times do you “fall back asleep” and think……..., what do I matter…….., why AM I here……., and when will I be free “of this place” of Emotions……, and Feelings “be they” Turmoil to Treachery too “Coercion” and Invasion??? You know the FREE MASON Lodges used to be places of Wonders where “The MASTER Builder” would teach you how to pull the knobs….., and change the perspective from day to day as The Sun Goddess is but a Wheel in the Sky of our FLAT Duel Earth Reality!!!! You see the “whole wide world” has come to a STOP…., and you still do nothing too change??? Do you really need the “TV Screen” to be your NEON G.O.D. ??? Have you lost the conceptualization “to think” for your self..., and say what you want??? Do you allow “other people” to beat you..., and hurt you.., and rape you` cause they have a COSTUME known as your Political to Military to Religious SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT??? Have YOU not once “Questioned” why do you go to so many variations of life in your Dreams while your human body “lays in stasis” sleeping in this Realm while your Soul., and Your Spirits, and Your Symbiots, and your PERSON “for you are” always THE PERSON Watching in these Dreams you have “be they” Adventure too Sexual Pleasure to Night Terrors and Night Mares, but what do “you think” would happen if this place Ceased to Exist??? Would you still have a body laying deep in some “abandoned chamber” with many other LOGUNS RUN Reflections of what you once were??? Do you FEAR “Death” because you know “we all” are DEAD a long long long time ago….., and we made this Holographic Hologram “Sentience” to keep our memories alive of what we once were where people “would sing” and dance and find romance, and we lived in a world with NO TAXES…..., Nor Religions, nor Lies to Corruption to “COVID 19” WHO World Domination Convictions as “The Controllers” do not exist……., nor does any Super Natural Hate Filled G.O.D. Gods, or S.A.T.A.N. hunt or haunt you “for the life” we all live here in Planet Orb Earth inside the “Concentric Circles” of the Whorl is but a REFLECTION of what “we all allow” be It the worst that mankind can do “be we” male and female…….., or the best we Men and Wombmen Choose to do……..., so our Future Births “are not” the REFLECTION of what we see right now… Do you want a world where “you can participate” in the RULE OF LAW.., and abolish all Courts.., and Judges.., Lawyers., Doctors, and Kings and Queens, and live “as one people” no matter your travels from Death too Rebirth??? Then you must “invoke” Your Right to Exist, and state that you are A Member, A Constituent, and A CITIZEN “Representative” of and for OUR WORLD REPUBLIC CONSTITUTION Coalition, and then these “U.N FLAGS” will all bow down to the will of “we the people” cause no matter these Pyramid Schemes from Presidents to Dictators, they live off OUR Welfare as Representative, Constituent, Member “of all” these places we go, and they do not help one another, nor hear the land, the sea, or the air when it cries out, and ONLY YOU can become a Leader among “your people” and Lead them into the way “of we” The NEW WINE SKINS, and put too death “THE WAYS” of all these Old WINE Skins with their “Stocks and Bonds” and Mandatory Payments when the poor are hurting, the sick are but you, and WE ARE is all that will “ever happen” in this place, but once “the many” say enough, then “the minority” must COMPLY – OBEY – SUBMIT to the Will of the Many known as WE THE PEOPLE…. The Book of EXODICE!!!

https://videos.utahgunexchange.....com/@Johnny%20Exodi

Either take control of your DESTINY, or others “will always” tell you what to do…

https://mewe.com/i/johnnyexodice

You have the right to travel and go “where you please” as a Member and CITIZEN “of and for” OUR WORLD REPUBLIC CONSTITUTION Coalition...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Bi-CXS1vI

All your WORLD LEADERS want “is war” and more war, and they now plan to put “U.N. Troops” on the Streets of All Nations in our own Military “Personage” UNIFORMS called PROJECT BLUE BEAM of Agenda 21 + 30 where JADE HELM 15 and REX 84 want to do the Great Nuclear Hydrogen War of 1853T.L. to 1854 T.L. once again……., and your WORLD LEADERS live off of YOUR Taxes known as WELFARE “FOR THE RICH” whom would have nothing without OUR we the peoples “Taxes and Tithes” too Religion Governments!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1knqOiXyYw

At 9:45 this FREE MASON lodge member says: Too get these "Scheme" off the ground???? You see my nonmason Populations these EMPLOYEES of "we the people" have no {LEGAL Right} +=+ to make you stay at home as U.K. CITIZENS, and you best go V for Vendetta on all them "U.N. Troops" in your Police and Military Uniforms!!! https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Scheme

You send me that fucking Letter "FREE MASON" and I will Shoot you Dead!!!! The Society of nonmason~ Q [///|||\\\] Ahhhhhh Mental Wards and Trump the Chumps RED FLAG LAWS!!!!

Q+ The Pen`

The Commander~

[///|||\\\]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
Show more

Up next