Are The Laws (And Limitations) Of
The Republic Still Applicable?
Remedy Be Found To Override Statutory Law?
Over the past several decades many people have noticed that the way the
law (i.e., statutory law) is adjudicated in America doesn’t
seem to be in the same spirit as the way things were meant to be at the
country’s founding. No longer are people considered, as they
once were, innocent until proven guilty; in many courts today the
person seems to be considered guilty until he proves himself innocent.
This leaves many people confused by our system of law, wondering
whether or not the limitations of the republic still exist to be
applied. The short answer to this question is: Yes, those limitations
exist. But... you
must be the one who applies them, and you
how to go about doing so, if you want to achieve moral and
ethical justice in a matter.
One of the simplest actions in law from which to learn the truth about
how law works in America, and therefore to learn how to use the law to
one’s own advantage, is the action based upon the common
victimless traffic ticket. Since many of these infractions
are relatively minor in terms of their severity (speeding, running a
red light, expired license tags or any number of other victimless
traffic violations), this can provide a person with a perfect
opportunity to learn about the law and the way the legal system
functions while facing what amounts to a rather benign action. Meaning
that even if one loses their first battle with the system, they can
learn something about how it works without having to face serious
Most people’s first contact with our courts and legal system
will likely be through the issuance of a simple traffic ticket.
Unfortunately, the majority of people wait until the last minute to
learn about the things that can insulate them from becoming a victim of
the system. They fear what they do not know, and they won’t
apprise themselves of the knowledge they need in order to obtain a
positive outcome. In such cases, the unprepared person, out of simple
ignorance of how to assert his rights, will likely enter a plea of
guilty or nolo contendre, pay the fine, and move on. When they do that,
they cheat themselves out of a valuable life lesson about what the law
of an expedient way to end their confrontation with the
As was mentioned in our article “What
Does That Phrase (The
laws sometimes sleep...) Mean?
”, if you
openly object to the type of law being adjudicated in a court or
type of court you are in, then you have no reason to presume that your
preference of law will be recognized to overrule the law being used in
a court. This was plainly stated in the case of Bennett v. Boggs
Baldw. 60 (1830), where it stated: “Statutes that
violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common
reason are null and void.”
Yet, beyond the above quoted case holding and in addition to it, there
is the instance of the status of the person who lives within the
republic and is as yet outside the legislative democracy in this
county. That such a person should expect that the guarantee of a
republican form of government be recognized and given credence over
against unconstitutional (or private law) statutes. This latter is just
what the traffic code represents: private law unconstitutional
or codes which can only be enforced on those who consent to such
laws through a valid agreement or contract. What this means is: if
there is no verifiable agreement or contract that can be entered into
the case (i.e. brought forward as evidence), there is no
What most people today do not realize is that there are no victimless
crimes in a republic. In addition, in a republic there are no crimes
against the state
The reason why is simple: the state, being a fiction
(a creation of man’s mind), has no unalienable rights. Under
the laws of Nature, no natual man is to be harmed under the pretext of
an injury to a fiction. In other words, the State has no inherent right
to prosecute a man itself acting as a plaintiff in the action because
the State is a
fiction at law and therefore cannot be injured or harmed. On the other
hand, there can be many victimless crimes in a legislative democracy
because the structure of a democracy is such that it is a political
entity wherein those who claim membership in the political society may
by majority vote make any act a crime for other members of the
political society (through their representatives in the legislature).
A republic and a democracy are identical in every respect except one.
In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a
democracy, however, the sovereignty resides in and is exercised by the
whole body of free citizens, with the group as a whole. In a republic,
the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to
reject the majority opinion of the democratic political society. In
other words, in a democracy the
minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted
it by the dictatorship of the majority. If you should, in your
sovereign capacity, choose not
to be a member of a political democracy, you remain within your right
to reject (rebut) the presumption that you are a member of the
political democracy and thereby to seek your remedy. Now do you
difference between a republic and a legislative democracy?
If the state were to judge you guilty under the pretext of injury to a
fiction, at law
(meaning at common law) it would have acted criminally under color of law
Because the state proceeds in its own inferior legislative or
administrative court, it has the appearance of being legitimate; but in
reality, it lacks the necessary elements to define an actual
Therefore, any injury that government causes to an individual (who is
not a member of its political society) through
its court proceedings is a crime itself because it lacks the necessary
authority if that authority is adequately rebutted.
Color of law is defined as follows:
Color of law.
The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right.
Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible
only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action
taken under color of law. – Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth edition.
When you insist that the law of the republic be recognized and upheld
as the law to which you adhere, you are acting within your right to
choose which standard
of law to which you are to be held. No one can force you into a
jurisdiction or political choice, whether it be a legislative democracy
republic, that goes against your conscience and conscious consent. Such
an act would be a crime against your person.
So the question remains: do you live in the republic, or do you live in
the legislative democracy? The choice is solely your own. If
do not rebut the State’s presumed assertion that you are
to its jurisdiction, through the concept of escheat, the State will
apply its law upon you because you abandoned your choice of law.
If you would like to learn more about these concepts so you can avoid
the whole mess without having to “appear” in court
you can download our free ebook Common
Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets
and learn about the
secrets that the courts and legal profession don’t want you
If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can
serve you, don’t hesitate to check out our Articles
on Traffic Law
section. Discover some of the secrets of law that you’ve
never been taught!
Ubi factum nullum ibi sortia
nulla. Where there is no deed committed, there
can be no