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

Sadly I have to add myself to the category of stupid, as the title of the thread suggests.

So, what is it that I missed, and all of us seem to have missed?

What we've all missed is really very simple, and very effective.

I'm fortunate that in my family we have a multi-national group, and therefore access to passports from three nations. I was busy looking at one of them tonight and I spotted something stunning on the first page of my passport. So I took out my wife's passport, from her home country, and it said exactly the same thing. I was curious now, so I took at look at my son's passport, from his country of birth, and lo and behold it said the same thing.

All three of them can be considered a contract. Upon handing it to any airport security official you are showing them your declaration of intention to travel and to 'pass the port' - hence passport. They accept your passport as your declaration of person, and your intention to travel. This most important document bears a message, which they agree to by their actions i.e. not turning you away.

Here's what we've all missed:

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.

Canadian Passport: The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada REQUESTS in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance as may be necessary.

American Passport: The Secretary of State of the United States of America requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in the case of need to give lawful aid and protection.

The proof is below. All personally identifiable information such as passport numbers have been redacted. Check it out, and let me know what you think. Does ANYONE have any OTHER NATIONAL passports saying the same? Post your pictures here, but remember to remove identifiable information.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5d64ae8aa80.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d732c938cdd5.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4db60f82ac05.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

reply to post by andy1033


One of the things I have spent the last year looking at is the history of the legal world. Passports are legal documents. They are statements of intentions. In this case, your peaceful intention to travel. The legal statement at the beginning of the passport, notifies whomever has cause to see the document, that your 'head of state' backs you, and that they should offer you any and all assistance in order to allow you to reach your destination safely and securely. Which would include not molesting you.

So am i correctly understanding you?, that by showing a valid passport at any airport, there should be no " hindrance " or in my way of thinking, no illegal " pat downs "?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
So am i correctly understanding you?, that by showing a valid passport at any airport, there should be no " hindrance " or in my way of thinking, no illegal " pat downs "?

You aren't understanding me... take a look at YOUR passport... what does it say? Does it say the same? If so, you are correct in that it says they may not hinder YOUR journey.

very interesting find and indeed I am sitting here looking at my passport and the above is true. What I would like to see are some legal experts using this as leverage against the TSA in a lawsuit. Perhaps they have already noticed it and plan to do so..can anyone find any info on that?

reply to post by Xavialune


I plan to fly from the UK in the coming month. I'm going to see what happens when I point this out to them. See what they have to say, and I'll keep you all up-to-date with my progress.
I'm going to follow the example of this fellow (www.noblasters.com) and stay cool, calm and collected when I try it all out. It should be interesting to see how it all pans out.

I'm thinking of showing this to my whole school, but my mom first. I'll see if we have it in my brother's passport.

reply to post by mr10k


Are you from anywhere other than the US, UK or Canada? If so, could you scan the relevant page and upload it here?
I'm really curious to see if any other nations have the same in their passports. If so, we could be on to the winner to defeat this terrorism by the state on the people.

yeah keep us posted. I'm flying out to manchester in january but unfortunately, since I absolutely HAVE to get there and in a timely fashion, I am not going to be able to afford to challenge the TSA with the possibility they will delay me/make me miss my flight or might not let me fly at all. If you do so and point this out to them, post a thread about your experience.

I really think OP is on to something..I think this should be brought to light if the lawyers challenging this stuff haven't noticed it yet...

reply to post by dampnickers


Well I dont have a passport, but my first assumption based on your most recent response holds true.
Very good find!

reply to post by Xavialune


I did wonder if the lawyers challenging the TSA already knew of this, and haven't done anything about it. In Magna Carta (Article 21 I think), it talks about the common law right of every man, woman and child to travel freely without let, or hindrance. Common law supercedes Acts of Parliament/Congress/etc.
Lawyers the world over know this. Magna Carta is something that most of the Western World have used as a template for their "human rights" Acts.
Lawyers aren't totally honest, and often take up the crusade because there's a lot of money in it for them... which is why we have to fight the good fight ourselves in order to win.

Nice find.

However, now look at the terms and conditions of using the airport, port, or airline that you are travelling on.

These terms and conditions state that you agree to subject yourself to security procedures as required by those carriers and ports of entry/exit, hence overriding the passport as you freely agree to the terms and conditions imposed when you use those services (IE airport, port, airline etc).

Nice try, but irrelevant.

You need to check out the "General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage" on your airline's website. For example, BA's can be found at www.britishairways.com...

However, there are some very important points in that document too.

reply to post by babybunnies


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

I have to agree with babybunnies on this one.

That 'contract' that the passport seems to present is only a contract between the individual and the issuing authority. Airports are private, and in this world private policy trumps any and all contracts by law concerning the individual and their governments. I don't think this is necessarily right in most cases, but it's the way it works.

And what about domestic flights where there is no cause for use of a passport? Is there no contract like this? Not one that I've ever heard of.

What really gets me is that there are TSA officials and employees in foreign countries assuming duties of security. Since when did DHS become an international police force? Since it's inception, I gather.

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

reply to post by dampnickers



was thinking about this earlier on... thanks for the synchronicity.. happy 11:11.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Nice find.

However, now look at the terms and conditions of using the airport, port, or airline that you are travelling on.

These terms and conditions state that you agree to subject yourself to security procedures as required by those carriers and ports of entry/exit, hence overriding the passport as you freely agree to the terms and conditions imposed when you use those services (IE airport, port, airline etc).

Nice try, but irrelevant.

You need to check out the "General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage" on your airline's website. For example, BA's can be found at www.britishairways.com...

However, there are some very important points in that document too.

edit on 3-12-2010 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)

Not irrelevant by a long chalk. I'm assuming you know nothing of Statute Law and Common Law. Common Law superceds Statute Law... Common Law cannot be swept aside with a private contract. Private Contracts are no different than Statutes. Check it out in your copy of Blacks Law Dictionary. Statute and Contract Law requires all parties to agree on them before they can be enforced. However, where a private contract interferes with Common Law, unless it is specifically agreed upon by all parties, Common Law overrides the contract.

Hence "GENERAL conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage". You will also note the use of the words "persons" and not human beings. There is even a huge and distinct difference between persons and human beings - legally and lawfully. Ask a lawyer... or look it up.

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

Not to 'enter' to 'pass', there's a difference there. It's subtle, but it's there.

Entry into the port isn't the same as passing the port. It all stems from Admiralty Law, which Statute Law is based upon. It doesn't ask other nations either... rather just 'whomever it may concern'. Could that include entitities other than countries???

The interesting difference between the three I have posted is that the US and Canadian ones make "requests", whereas the UK one "requests" and "REQUIRES"... I'd love to know why that is. A requirement isn't an option... As I understand it, to defy a head of state is to enter into a state of conflict (war?)....

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.