Know The Law Being Applied In Traffic Court And How You Can Gain Remedy
Prior to the late nineteenth century, there was no written law regulating the flow of covered wagons and horses across the town roads, trails, and plains of America.
The people living during that time, by precedent and natural right, had an inherent right to travel between one place and another without hindrance.
That right and precedent is still in effect today if people wish to use it.
Yet through ignorance of law and social conditioning, most people are not even aware of this.
It wasn't until the 1880s and 1890s that local and municipal governments began the political regulation of conveyances.
One of these examples was the city of Chicago, which had a "Wheel tax" ordinance in effect in 1898 that placed an annual license fee from all wagons, carriages, coaches, buggies, and bicycles.
And in 1901 New York State first attempted levying a registration fee specifically for automobiles.
It was New York City, however, which adopted the world's first traffic code in 1903.
The registration of motor vehicles with local governments started out innocently enough, often beginning on a voluntary basis in which the government offered a free service as an additional means of identifying a vehicle in the event of theft.
Yet, with the proliferation of cars on the road by 1926 the push to standardize traffic codes among the various state governments began to take hold resulting in the first national Uniform Vehicle Code under then Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover.
However, as so often happens, accepting what seems to be an innocent privilege (in the form of automobile registration) from government can also turn into the encumbrance of a franchise, for which the government expects performance.
Except that there is no actual contractual quid pro quo with regard to auto registration or licensure.
And without that element, those government franchises are lawfully unenforceable.
To be clear here, let's examine just what a franchise is and what constitutes a franchise in the eyes of government.
In this effort, the following definition is taken from Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth edition.
Government franchises reduce a person's status to the level of a subject of government.
It makes the person who accepts them subservient to the dictates of government.
And what does that mean in terms that you will easily understand? It means that as long as you (unknowingly in many cases) waive your unalienable rights as a natural person through your consent to be identified as a legal fiction through the use of the franchise, you are at the mercy of the government codes or statutes.
Otherwise, the codes and statutes cannot legally be applied to you.
It is really just that simple.
Although most people today will find this hard to accept.
Another way to view this is in terms of a privilege being granted by government.
So, if you understand what a "privilege" is as opposed to a natural "right," then you will also understand the same truth.
Privileges are the result of the grant by a recognized superior (in this case, a fictitious sovereign entity calling itself "government") to do something that some other class of individuals or companies are not able to do according to the written law for its citizens or corporations.
Whereas a natural right that is unalienable (such as the right to travel unhindered by government edict) cannot be abrogated (cancelled) by government without your express or implied consent.
If you would like to learn more about how to hold onto your unalienable rights and gain remedy in traffic court in a world where increasingly rights that we thought we had as autonomous individual beings are being circumvented by government, we invite you to download our free book Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets from the link below, where you can learn how not to consent to government franchises while maintaining your rights and liberty.
The people living during that time, by precedent and natural right, had an inherent right to travel between one place and another without hindrance.
That right and precedent is still in effect today if people wish to use it.
Yet through ignorance of law and social conditioning, most people are not even aware of this.
It wasn't until the 1880s and 1890s that local and municipal governments began the political regulation of conveyances.
One of these examples was the city of Chicago, which had a "Wheel tax" ordinance in effect in 1898 that placed an annual license fee from all wagons, carriages, coaches, buggies, and bicycles.
And in 1901 New York State first attempted levying a registration fee specifically for automobiles.
It was New York City, however, which adopted the world's first traffic code in 1903.
The registration of motor vehicles with local governments started out innocently enough, often beginning on a voluntary basis in which the government offered a free service as an additional means of identifying a vehicle in the event of theft.
Yet, with the proliferation of cars on the road by 1926 the push to standardize traffic codes among the various state governments began to take hold resulting in the first national Uniform Vehicle Code under then Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover.
However, as so often happens, accepting what seems to be an innocent privilege (in the form of automobile registration) from government can also turn into the encumbrance of a franchise, for which the government expects performance.
Except that there is no actual contractual quid pro quo with regard to auto registration or licensure.
And without that element, those government franchises are lawfully unenforceable.
To be clear here, let's examine just what a franchise is and what constitutes a franchise in the eyes of government.
In this effort, the following definition is taken from Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth edition.
- FRANCHISE.
A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right.
Elliott v.
City of Eugene, 135 Or.
108, 294 P.
358, 360.
In England it is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject.
Government franchises reduce a person's status to the level of a subject of government.
It makes the person who accepts them subservient to the dictates of government.
And what does that mean in terms that you will easily understand? It means that as long as you (unknowingly in many cases) waive your unalienable rights as a natural person through your consent to be identified as a legal fiction through the use of the franchise, you are at the mercy of the government codes or statutes.
Otherwise, the codes and statutes cannot legally be applied to you.
It is really just that simple.
Although most people today will find this hard to accept.
Another way to view this is in terms of a privilege being granted by government.
So, if you understand what a "privilege" is as opposed to a natural "right," then you will also understand the same truth.
Privileges are the result of the grant by a recognized superior (in this case, a fictitious sovereign entity calling itself "government") to do something that some other class of individuals or companies are not able to do according to the written law for its citizens or corporations.
Whereas a natural right that is unalienable (such as the right to travel unhindered by government edict) cannot be abrogated (cancelled) by government without your express or implied consent.
If you would like to learn more about how to hold onto your unalienable rights and gain remedy in traffic court in a world where increasingly rights that we thought we had as autonomous individual beings are being circumvented by government, we invite you to download our free book Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets from the link below, where you can learn how not to consent to government franchises while maintaining your rights and liberty.
Source...