Are The Laws (And Limitations) Of The Republic Still Applicable?

Can 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 do still exist. But... you must be the one who applies them, and you must know 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 consequences.

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 is in favor of an expedient way to end their confrontation with the legal system.

As was mentioned in our article “What Does That Phrase (The laws sometimes sleep...) Mean?”, if you don’t openly object to the type of law being adjudicated in a court or to the 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, 1 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 statutes, ordinances, 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 jurisdiction. 

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 (through their representatives in the legislature) make any act a crime for other members of the political society.

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 democratic majority 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 understand the 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 crime. 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 or representative 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 you do not rebut the State’s presumed assertion that you are subject 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 concepts of law 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 to know.

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 consequence.