Traffic Tickets, Licence, Registration, Insurance and Smog Tests Are All Scams

[ucw458]

Disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. This is what I have found after researching these subjects for months. Do your own homework. Study the laws. This information can help you if you are willing to learn.

 

 

 

 

Licence, Registration, Insurance and Smog Tests

 

Your Rights

You have a right to free travel that is protected by the constitution. That right extends to common transportation of the day, IE automobiles. Courts have upheld that the government can not transform a right into a privilege and charge a fee for it. Furthermore the roads are owned by the people so you may use them as you wish as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights.

 

Driving vs Traveling

First off get the word driving out of your head. NEVER use it. Traveling is going to the store, visiting someone, going on vacation etc. Driving is a legal-ease term for using the roads for commercial gain. For example, taxi drivers, bus drivers or any automobile use that you are getting paid for is considered driving.

 

What does that all mean?

If you are not using the roads for commercial gain then you are not required to have a drivers licence, registration, insurance or be subject to smog tests/vehicle inspections. If an officer wants to arrest you for traveling without a licence you inform him he is kidnapping you because legally that's what he is doing. You can press kidnapping charges against the officer. Same goes for impounding your car. Legally the officer would be stealing your car. You can press charges for that too. Usually informing them they are stealing or kidnapping makes them think twice about their actions.

 

Consequences

You will have to fight for your rights. Most cops do not know this. You will have to defend your rights in court. But if you study the law you will win. You may also be able to sue the "authorities" for infringing on those rights. Most important, if pulled over DO NOT give the officer licence, registration and proof of insurance. You are NOT required to give them that. When pulled over in any state you are considered to be "under arrest". When you are arrested the only thing you are legally required to give the officer is your name, birth date and social security number. Handing over your licence is proof they can use against you in court.

 

 

 

Many have stood up for this right and won. Information is widely available on court cases and laws. Search for yourself. Stand up for your rights. I will add that I think insurance is still a good thing to have.

 

 

 

http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

 

http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-supreme-court-says-no-license.html

 

 

Skip 40 seconds in. Intro is a bit long. Video on Charley Sprinkle. He sued governor Ronald Reagan and others over a no drivers licence arrest.

 

[ucw458]

Disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. This is what I have found after researching these subjects for months. Do your own homework. Study the laws. This information can help you if you are willing to learn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic Tickets

 

 

All traffic tickets are scams

All traffic tickets are alleging you committed a crime. Look up "Corpus Delicti". In Latin it means "Body of Crime". In laymen's terms it means evidence of a crime. There are two elements of a crime under Corpus Delicti. Death/injury and loss/damage. If your ticket doesn't involve those two elements then you haven't committed a crime. Therefore the courts have no standing to prosecute you.

 

What this means

You can have any traffic or parking ticket thrown out of court if you know the law. You don't argue your side or your speedometer was off or claim you are innocent or any other BS excuse. You argue the law. You have to beat them at their own game.

 

Exceptions

If you were speeding and that caused you to lose control and crash into someone then there is standing for a traffic ticket. Corpus Delicti applies in that case because there was damage. But you still have two ways to get the ticket dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Dismissing traffic tickets

 

 

There are four ways to get a ticket thrown out. Before going to court, arraignment, motion to dismiss and trial.

 

After you get the ticket

If you look at the ticket where it has a date you must appear by you will notice it says "appear on or before". Most people put it off because they are angry and want to delay having to pay. But you shouldn't do that. The most important part of that statement is "before". Three days after the you get the ticket go to the court clerk with your ticket. Get the encounter on video. That is your proof you appeared. The clerk will say we don't have it in the system you have to come back. You reply, the ticket says on or before, this is before. It's not your fault they weren't ready. You followed their instructions of "on or before". You demand the ticket be dismissed. If a person shows up in court not ready for trial it's their fault and not grounds for appeal. The legal term for that is "latches". The same rule applies when the court isn't ready. If they do have you in their system (not likely) then you schedule an arraignment date or ask to see the judge that day.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssg43-Ga-jk

 

 

At arraignment

Look for the gold fringes on the US flag. That signifies it's an Admiralty/Maritime court. They DO NOT have jurisdiction over you. Nor do they have jurisdiction over traffic tickets. Those courts have jurisdiction over international cases. You unknowingly "agree" to them having jurisdiction by stepping through the small gate to get to the podium and enter a plea. Going through the small gate is considered boarding their ship or entering into their jurisdiction. Entering a plea is considered your verbal acceptance of their jurisdiction. Once you do those 2 things they have you under their rules.

 

Instead, don't go through the gate but state you want to remain on land out of their jurisdiction. State you are making a "special appearance" to challenge their jurisdiction. They do not have jurisdiction over you unless you submit. Stand your ground, argue the law correctly and you will get the ticket dismissed. If a judge ignores your statements all they can do is enter a not guilty plea. That gives you grounds for appeal.

 

 

Motion to dismiss

You are going to argue the same thing in your motion as you would in trial. (standing, jurisdiction, conflict of interest etc) The case doesn't always get dismissed because prosecutors are stubborn sometimes. But if it gets dismissed it saves you from having to go to court. If it's not dismissed the judge will have a copy of your motion when you get to court. The judge will likely dismiss the case before it gets started. The judge will see from your motion that you know the law and can make him/her look bad in court in front of all the other pending defendants. They don't want to look bad. So to keep the ruse going they will likely dismiss your case.

 

 

Trial

You're gonna argue standing and conflict of interest. Those are your biggest weapons and they can be very effective.

 

Start off with asking the judge two questions. The reason will become clear later. Question one, Do I have the right to a fair trial? Question two, Do I have a right to be informed as to the nature and cause of these proceedings? Those two questions set the stage for you to disqualify the judge later if you need to.

 

Next you are going to ask the officer two questions. These two questions will get him disqualified as a witness. Question one, Did you bring a valid cause of action against me to this court? Remember a valid cause of action under Corpus Delicti MUST include death/injury or loss/damage. The officer will say yes because he has to. Question two, can you describe to the court the two parts of a valid cause of action? At this point the prosecutor usually objects by saying the witness is not qualified to answer the question. Then you motion for the witnesses written and verbal testimony to be dismissed because the officer is an incompetent witness. Remember the ticket is the officer's written testimony. No testimony, no case equals case dismissed. If the prosecutor doesn't object then either the officer answers correctly thereby proving his first answer was a lie and the court has no standing to prosecute, case dismissed. Or he answers incorrectly in which case you correct him by quoting the law proving the officer is incompetent and proving the court has no standing, case dismissed.

 

 

 

Now if the judge doesn't want to dismiss after you discredit the prosecutors witness we go back to the two questions we asked him earlier. Ask the judge who he/she represents. Judges hate this question and usually refuse to answer. Why because judges represent the state. That's right, they represent the same people trying to prosecute you. That's a conflict of interest. You can't get a fair trial. So if the judge answers the question you point out that is a conflict of interest and motion for the case to be dismissed because all traffic court judges represent the state so no fair trial can be had. If the judge refuses to answer the question then you remind him/her that he/she stated you had a right to be informed when you asked earlier. Furthermore the cannons for judges require them to disclose any possible conflict of interest even if they think it's not an issue.

 

If after all that the judge still wont dismiss your case (exceedingly rare) then you have grounds for an appeal to a higher court where they will dismiss it. You may also have grounds for suing the judge for violating your rights.

 

[ucw458]

Here are some more videos with great information. Yes they are long but are worth watching.

 

 

This former officer doesn't touch on Corpus Delicti or standing but has valuable traffic stop advice.

 

 

Carl Miller videos on the constitution. Long series but again great information. The above video on no plates is an excerpt from this series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also I suggest you visit Mark Stevens's website

 

http://marcstevens.net/

[ucw458]

Reserved for future content.

[ucw458]

Reserved for future content.

[SOTTY]

I once used the 'right to travel' while driving a certain unregistered and questionable legal 88conquest from Texas to Nevada on a Xmas day a few years ago and while being questioned by a border patrol officer , guy was cool , loved the car and knew what it was, we talked for 10 or so minutes about cars , he told me my car was 'iffy' but let me go , I also crossed the Hoover dam which at this time was on mega 9/11 high alert , while others got waved into the check lanes I quietly off boost trundled the unregistered turbo turd past the high security, after making it home a friend commented 'you got a huge pair ' however my 'pair' has shrunk some since then and I wouldn't do it again . Edited March 27, 2015 by SOTTY

[Guest]

This is where one of those "stuff white people might do" meme would come in handy.

 

I can guarantee you any person of color tries to pull that "traveling" excuse will find themselves in whole heap of trouble.

 

Forget the day in court, a person of color may not make it past their initial encounter with the law if they try to pull something like that.

 

It's just a sad and unfortunate reality of race relations and the law.

 

 

 

 

 

[jjohnson]

Great info i need to studdy this.

[Malykaii]

This is where one of those "stuff white people might do" meme would come in handy.

 

Disturbingly true.

[Malykaii]

While I skimmed cause tl;dr I understand the technicality of the argument based on 200 plus year old documents. Remember the electoral college is based on the very idea that people are too dumb to make good decisions, so they elect representatives in their state to do the voting.

 

I'd love to the chaos of a bunch of entitled unlicensed drivers on the road. Anarchy would ensue.

 

1) vehicals are very dangerous, and not everyone is skilled enough to not hurt others. Makes it a privilege.

2) safety inspections make sure you have brakes and don't kill people. Legit

3) you are entitled to transportation, hence 50cc scooters and bicycles. I may as well want to drive a Soviet tank and own an uninspected 60s plane since it's transportation.

4) if we the people own the roads, then we should maintain them. Traffic tickets pay for road repair. No revenue, dirt path. So, question of the day, have we all paved our share this week?

5) these 200yo technicalities defending our right to transportation are preventing it. We are the only 1st world country without an adequate train system, because vintage documents and rights prevent it. Right to transportation denied by conflicts with others rights to business...

[ucw458]

While I skimmed cause tl;dr I understand the technicality of the argument based on 200 plus year old documents. Remember the electoral college is based on the very idea that people are too dumb to make good decisions, so they elect representatives in their state to do the voting.

 

I'd love to the chaos of a bunch of entitled unlicensed drivers on the road. Anarchy would ensue.

 

1) vehicals are very dangerous, and not everyone is skilled enough to not hurt others. Makes it a privilege.

2) safety inspections make sure you have brakes and don't kill people. Legit

3) you are entitled to transportation, hence 50cc scooters and bicycles. I may as well want to drive a Soviet tank and own an uninspected 60s plane since it's transportation.

4) if we the people own the roads, then we should maintain them. Traffic tickets pay for road repair. No revenue, dirt path. So, question of the day, have we all paved our share this week?

5) these 200yo technicalities defending our right to transportation are preventing it. We are the only 1st world country without an adequate train system, because vintage documents and rights prevent it. Right to transportation denied by conflicts with others rights to business...

 

 

So you would choose to give up your freedom. Good to know.

 

 

Now lets talk about the rest of your statements.

 

1 Having a licence doesn't make you skilled. Plenty of bad drivers out there. I knew someone who was legally blind and could only see what was directly in front of him. He had a licence.

 

2 Most states don't have safety inspections.

 

3 You didn't read. Common transportation of the day. That's cars not tanks or planes.

 

4 Taxes pay for the roads

 

5 The constitution is not a technicality. Common law is not a technicality. Many court cases proving your right to travel is not a technicality. Other countries like the UK for example having the same rights to travel isn't a technicality. Trains are a business. They don't go everywhere you want to go. If trains were economically feasible then there would be more trains.

[Turbo Cary]

Working as a technician I agree with safety inspections. There are people with 1/32 of an inch brake pad thickness or metal to metal brakes who wont buy new brakes.

 

They get their friend of a friends so called mechanic to fix it with no lube, warped/ground rotors. then they bring it to my shop wondering why their car shakes and makes noise.

 

Emissions tests are a shakedown. Any car will produce higher emissions as the engine wears. Some states suspend your registration if you cant pass those. I agree with emission control, but not to the point of having your car impounded or kept off the road.

 

Tickets are a scam too. A seat belt violation was raised in my state to a first degree offense. Meaning if they see you driving without one you get pulled over. I wear mine and make my passengers wear theirs but if you dont wanna wear one in your car thats on you. 25 for the first time and 100 for the second. Suspension of license and higher fee after that.

[JohnnyWadd]

I like all the info. However if you are are smart enough to find all this and put it into action in your life, then you are probably not in need of it anyway because you already have a decent job or decent insurance etc etc

 

All laws are needed for community life. e pluribus unum

 

All the ways we give away our money to others in society is a scam in one way or another.

[Malykaii]

No offense, but that's a technicality and fallacy right there dude. False dilemma. There's a grey area and I'm in it, there's more than two answers here. Like you stated, we have rights as long as they don't infringe on others. What I'm saying is that letting a bunch of dodo birds out on the road unregulated IS A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS. See how I do believe in my rights? We both are interpreting the same concept differently.

 

1) we need better licensing standards. I heard about that blind guy. Disgusting.

2) all states should have safety inspections. Cars drive out of state, we should have a unified inspection standard.

3) your absolutely right, I didn't read too clearly there. Appologies

4) even if we eliminated tickets, the revenue needs to come from somewhere, so taxes would go up. Put whatever name you want on it

 

5) while I aknowlege and respect all your points up to now, here I think your a bit off. I've been to EU and my entire family is there. The trains do actually go where they need to go. It is reasonable,and affordable. My sister visited my entire family sprawled all over Europe using a unified international system. Here, local government technicalities violate our transportation rights. We as the self proclaimed greatest nation can't put down express tracks between two states without 10 years of negotiations while the EU is done doing it between different country's. Google tapan zee bridge. Its 10miles out of the way and over the widest part of the river spanking almost 5 miles... Because two,municipalities had a passing match at our expense. Another worst violation.

[Malykaii]

Do you have a stance on parking tickets? I saw mention of moving violations, just wondering how you interpret it.

 

Also, don't take anything I say as heated. I see your a coherent intelligent person, just debating views.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Malykaii

[speedyquest]

\_/ <--- popcorn

 

 

 

In all honesty I don't know enough about this subject to even say anything.

[ucw458]

Regardless of what rules we think may be frivolous or pertinent, they are all enforced with a gun. Compliance under the threat of bodily injury is not liberty.

 

 

Some traffic laws I sortof agree with because they keep people safe. But that's just common sense not because the law says so. You don't need the law to tell you stealing and murder are bad. Likewise you don't need the law to tell you 100 mph in a school zone isn't safe. But what about seat belt laws? Yes I think seatbelts are a good thing. But if I don't wear one I'm only hurting myself. I shouldn't be fined and threatened with jail if I don't.

 

Having lots of money doesn't make it right either. The government is basically saying pay us or else. That's like a bully stealing your lunch money in school.

 

 

Parking tickets are another grey area. I see the need for things like red zones and handicapped spaces. Parking meters and other violations I have a problem with. The city will steal your car and extort money from you before they will give it back. Happened to a SQ I owned. Sitting in front of my house for two days not bothering anyone. More parking around the house than anyone needs. Yet my SQ was taken from my house and it cost $300 to get it back. Was that fair?

 

 

You can't compare UK trains to the US. The UK is tiny compared to the US. Tracks cost money. Trains cost money. No one is gonna build tracks where they will lose money. Cars are cheap. In areas like NYC cars don't make as much sense so they have a train and bus system. NYC is full of taxis. In CA it's rare to even see a taxi.

[ucw458]

\_/

 

 

 

In all honesty I don't know enough about this subject to even say anything.

 

But that's the best part about it. A year ago I didn't know about this stuff. Not knowing lets the government take advantage of you. Information like this is only meant to help you. You may not understand it all now but it can be learned.

 

 

The best thing I've taken away from learning this stuff is I'm no longer afraid of getting a ticket. I now have some of the best tools needed to fight any ticket. Traveling in my car feels even more like freedom now.

[ucw458]

The problem with the licence vs bad driver argument is most bad drivers have licences. Getting a licence and having regulation doesn't prevent lousy drivers from being on the road.

[scott87star]

So Jeff, I assume you've stopped getting the required smog tests, stopped registering your car(s), stopped insuring anything, true? Not trying to instigate anything and you do live in the worst State of the 50 for crappy over-reaching rules and regulations but are you following this approach?

[ucw458]

Yes I plan to use this approach on my SQ. At the moment I still need to learn more in order to be more competent in defending myself when I de-register my SQ. I plan to keep insurance because I think that's a wise thing to do. My truck will stay registered because my wife uses it and she can't stand up for her rights as well as I can. Many in CA have done this sucsessfully.

 

 

What's more pertinent for me at the moment is defending against a bogus ticket. The day I flew out to Texas for the meet I was stopped at the illegal checkpoint before the airport. It was on a public street not on airport property. I stated I do not consent to searches which is my right. After saying that I was surrounded by 10 cops with guns all threatening me. They demanded access to my vehicle saying if I didn't comply I would be arrested and my truck impounded. I would have missed the Texas meet if they did that. So I complied, they glanced in the window of my truck and handed me a ticket for littering and no insurance. I hadn't littered and I had insurance. But it's my wife and I's word against 10 cops. Who is the court gonna believe? The littering ticket is $800 and no insurance is $1200. I was being bullied. That's when I started looking into how to fight it and found all this info. My court date is in July and I'm filing a motion to dismiss. I'm confident I'll get this thrown out.

 

I tried not to let it show at the Texas meet but I was still pretty pissed off about it. Meeting you guys and having some fun helped.

[Malykaii]

I agree with most of what you said. Good stuff. I agree it's all gun in face bullying. Ferguson proves that. What made me sick was when those promoting a weaker government recently shut down the system and held it over our heads. Complete bullying at the expense of the little guy.

 

Meters have to exist here to keep spots free In prime locations. I don't see another way. Suggestions?

 

License vs bad driver... I know, it's a tough one.

 

I agree with certain rules are obvious, but not to the majority. There's idiots who still go 80mph through a school zone. Seat belts however, survival,of the fittest I say. Want to die, be my guest.

 

 

[Malykaii]

I've been following all your points, and am interested. I hope you can follow me on one too. Lets both learn.

 

I'm not talking about the UK, an,isolated island the size of Texas. I'm talking about the EU, two dozen countries on one continent spaning from Portugal to Poland. I'm not talking about local subways going from queens to Brooklyn or hypothetical trains to rural Alaska.

 

I mean we have second rate countries running express or bullet trains internationally. You can cross three countries in less time and money then going from Baltimore to Boston. Seriously.

 

Cars as dominant transportation is a US concept. I have two cars in the largest city in the US while 4 friends share one car in very deep rural Ireland.

 

Since we're on the topic of government bullying, it's the gov't that put us up to it through people like Robert Mosses. He even designed roads to prevent busses from entering and used eminent domain just to build roads he wanted.

 

If knowledge is power, we need to understand the gov't stole the trains from us.

[ucw458]

What the no plate issue boils down to is those willing to fight for their rights have a way to do so. The masses will still follow what they want to. It's not fair that the government says I can't use my SQ because it's not smogged or registered. I want to take the plates off my car because the smog laws are too strict. 25 years old and newer should be the norm, not 1976+. Some rural parts of CA don't have smog test requirements. Not to mention the whole front plate issue ruins the look of the car.

[scott87star]

The first thing my brain popped to was "it's too good to be true", I guess that's my defense against scams. After reading through what you've posted and checking out some of the videos I would say that while there may be some merit to the argument you have to choose when and where to present. The ticket thing is just taking advantage of procedures or processes, if everyone tried it they would change the process. The rest is the governments (any government) ability to make you waste dollars fighting them. I've always tried not to look like I needed to be pulled over, don't tempt the devil.