I love this topic. I have heated arguments with lawyers, professors, and many others who believe that a drivers licence is something magical that bestows abilities and powers that one would not normally have in life.
They refuse to believe, what it really is. It is a contract. That’s it. It makes so much sense when you understand the government is nothing but a corporation. A corporation or a government cannot force you to do something against your will. It needs your agreement in order to perpetuate the myth you are free. They don’t like not being in control so they have made up the myth that we must have permits, licences and such to do things we could do without that little plastic card. They use their legalese to achieve this. To get us to sign documents. Let me break down some words so you understand.
When you apply for something you are in law, begging permission to do something to which you would normally not be allowed to do.
The roads are public roads. In law, a public road is defined as a public way to which everyone has the RIGHT to use.
So let me take the drivers licence again. You apply for the licence. You are asking permission to drive on the roads which by definition, you have every right to use.
Technically in law you wouldn’t have to get a licence. So they trick you into believing it. Now, what they are doing is getting you to sign an agreement with them. A contract. There are a few things that make a contract legal.
1. Two or more parties on the contract
2. Negotiation, Full disclosure.
3. A benefit to both parties
4. Agreement of the parties.
This is what any licence is . It’s a contract. The terms and conditions are listed out in the act associated with the licence. In the case of the drivers licence it would be the highway traffic act. The benefit to you is that they don’t arrest you. The benefit for them is they make billions of the public.
Now when you break one of the terms of the contract, you get issued a fine, or a ticket. It’s a document which is basically the same as a bill you would get in a restaurant. It has the name of the company, the violation, the cost and the signature of the person who issued it.
You go to court and you can either pay it or fight it. Most people just pay it. 98% of cases are won in favor of the crown attorney. The reason is that they keep the fine low enough that most people just couldn’t be bothered to fight it and just pay it. So as such they bring in billions every year in traffic violations alone.
In the court if you decide to fight it, then the odds are not ever in your favor. Again, the crown attorney and the judge are paid from the same pot. Second, if you have a drivers licence then you agreed to the rules and the licence is the proof of contract (even though they won’t tell you that). It’s also a civil matter. Not a criminal one. This should be proof enough to most that it is a contract. A contract is civil and the terms can be violated. A crime involves usually another person and some harm is usually involved. A contract violation isn’t a crime, but a breach of a term.
So with that understanding, that’s why they call it a violation, and not a crime. I’ve seen some judges try to justify it when put into a corner by lying and saying it’s a Quasi crime.
It’s simply a violation of a contract. Now the sticky part on lower court judges is when the people who don’t fall for the propaganda don’t get a licence and get stopped. Then the court is in a bind. They will do everything to try to get the defendant to admit he broke some law. In they don’t, they use a little known court room rule.
The court room rule book has a rule to which the judge can make a judgement without any law, precedent, and go based solely on his personal opinion. In other words, he can throw out the rules, ignore law, supreme court cases and just make a ruling based on how much he likes you or doesn’t.
Go look up the courtroom procedure rules for your local courthouse. It’s in there. That one rule allows a judge to ignore law. How fair and just is that?
The other thing to keep in mind is that a judge is not held accountable for his/her rulings. At least as far as if, they rule and their ruling turns out to be incorrect or seems to be biased, they can’t be sued, or arrested. Even if they send someone to jail for life and it is found out 20 years after that the person was innocent and the judge was biased. He is still a free man and the person lost 20 years of their life due to that improper judgement. How fair is that?
Lower court judges will ignore supreme court rulings. They will ignore case law. If they don’t like you then your toast. Doesn’t matter if you have court cases a mile high to back your case. They can and will ignore that. They will tell you things like “that is your interpretation” and because it is not theirs, they will ignore it. They will say things like your not a member of the bar, so your not qualified to interpret law. Yet, apparently, ignorance of the law is not an excuse either.
So in the lower court you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. My best advice to people is try to stay out of that court if your not prepared to fight, spend some time in jail or pay money.
The lower courts are also defacto courts. Lawyers and judges hate that word, and claim they are not defacto. Here is what it means.
What is DE FACTO?
In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful. legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office orsupreme power, but by usurpation, or v.-ifiirespect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent, Comm. 30. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. As to de facto “Corporation,” “Court,” “Domicile,” “Government,” and “Officer,” see those titles. In old English law. De facto means respecting or concerning the principal act of a murder, which was technically denominated factum. See Fleta, lib. 1, c. 27,
Law Dictionary: What is DE FACTO? definition of DE FACTO (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Defacto means they are not there by any constitutional means but is corporate in nature. A company. And the law society is a registered company. So it is defacto, because it’s members are all part of that society and because that society is a registered corporation it is illegitimate.
However, unless the masses wise up and start ignoring them, then they will continue to operate as if they are Dejure.
Now, when dealing with the police. This is tricky. Police are not trained to interpret law, and are backed by the Crown attorney and the judge. A cop is supposed to be peacekeeper first and enforcer 2nd. Unfortunately they are not trained in peacekeeping as much as they are enforcement.
If you take a traffic ticket to court and fight it, then the ONLY evidence a crown attorney has, is the cops word. (Traffic cameras excluded). His testimony is deemed as truth and has more force than your arguments, cases etc in the judges eyes. This is why so many wrongs happen in court. There are effective ways to get a judge to throw out the cops testimony and leave the crown attorney with nothing but his opinion. You have a slight chance of winning then, but it’s doubtful, and you would still have to appeal but the appeal with have more force without a cops testimony. Also, keep in mind the crown attorney doesn’t even look at the case until that day, sometimes not until the case is even called. So if you do your work and try to get copies of the “evidence ” before, keeping records and copies of any correspondence with dates and times, and even tracking information. Then your chances increase a tad, because you have tried to get what is called “discovery”. A crown attorney has to give you discovery before your court date, but you have to demand it. And if they don’t provide it, a judge can and will throw a case out. Or in some cases will berate the crown and give them more time to give you discovery. Discover is a nice thing that has force in law. If they have no evidence then they will revoke their claim and the case is dismissed. Sometimes you get idiot crown attorneys who will refuse to believe a civilian can beat them in court and will take it to the hilt. That’s fine. If you do your homework, learn how to defend yourself effectively in a courtroom setting then you won’t be the one to look bad.
This is not legal advice. Just personal knowledge based on research and discussions from documentation, videos, audio and more. There are others out there who can effectively help you with traffic or tax cases in court if you need it. Marc Stevens is one. I highly recommend you contact him. Doesn’t matter where in the world you are. He can provide solid advice based on personal experience in court rooms. And no he is not a lawyer but a radio host.