Common Law Remedy — Articles on Law and Traffic Issues 6/3/21, 6:44 PM

Articles on Law and Traffic

Issues
The force of law and its applicability to a specific event depends upon
the law’s jurisdiction over the particular person having been established on
the record of the matter. The issue of jurisdiction is everything when it comes
to victimless offenses being asserted by a fictional accuser over a natural man
or woman presumed to be acting in the capacity of a legal fiction.

The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is

What I Have Learned So Far

Concealment Of Material Facts Triggers Estoppel

Right To Travel by Jack McLamb, retired police officer

Updated Significance of Jack McLamb’s Article “Right to Travel”

One Thing Jack McLamb Got Wrong

And The Right Of Avoidance

Just What Is The Law?

And To Whom Does It Apply?

What Does That Phrase (The laws sometimes sleep...) Mean?

What Is Public Law and Private Law, Part One

And Why You Need To Know The Difference

http://beattraffictickets.org/articles.html Page 1 of 8
Common Law Remedy — Articles on Law and Traffic Issues 6/3/21, 6:44 PM

What Is Public Law and Private Law, Part Two

And Why You Need To Know The Difference

What Is A Special Appearance In Court?

Special Appearance In Court And Your Right Of Avoidance

Breaking the Choke Hold of the Code

The Two Faces of Jurisdiction

What You Need To Know To Assert Remedy

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

Can Remedy Be Found To Override Statutory Law?

The Procedure Of Honor And Dishonor In Dealing With Government

What Is A Demurrer?
How Does It Relate To A Victimless Traffic Violation

What Is An Abatement?
And How Can It Be Used For Remedy?

Upcoming Articles Under Composition:

The Twelve Presumptions Of Court

Which Must Be Overcome

Take Control Of The Name

http://beattraffictickets.org/articles.html Page 2 of 8
Common Law Remedy — Articles on Law and Traffic Issues 6/3/21, 6:44 PM

With An Assumed Name Certificate

The next article

The next article

Common law maxim:

Jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest. A public right cannot
be changed by private agreement.

Maxim reflected in case law:

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted
into a crime.” – Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)

From the previous article, we have learned that the development of public law
in the Union of states in America grew out of an adherence to the
constitutional republic set up under the Constitution for the United States of
America, which itself was based on the common law. That was the basis of
law and how the government was run at its inception in 1781 (under the
Articles of Confederation, which later combined with the Constitution) for the
next eighty years up until about April of 1861 when by that time eleven
southern states lawfully seceded from the union. From that watershed
moment on, not only did the manner of law begin to change, but also the
political system which ran the day-to-day business of government began
undergoing a radical transformation.

Serious students of the historical machinations behind these changes will find
a great many interesting facts never taught them in school in a three-part
treatise by The Informer entitled The United States Is Still A British Colony
which talks about the hidden history behind the American Revolution and the

http://beattraffictickets.org/articles.html Page 3 of 8
Common Law Remedy — Articles on Law and Traffic Issues 6/3/21, 6:44 PM

so-called “Civil War,” and in a couple of scholarly essays on Lew Rockwell’s

site titled “Was the Union Army’s Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful
Act? An Analysis of President Lincoln’s Legal Arguments Against Secession”
by James Ostrowski, and “A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War” by Donald W.
Miller, Jr. If read with an open mind, you will find the facts stated in these
pieces to be historically verifiable.

Getting back to an examination of the history of law, under the Constitution,

the republic of the continental united States provided for legal cases in three
separate categories (i.e. three types of courts): (1) at Law, (2) in Equity, and
(3) in Admiralty or Maritime.

In the first of these categories, law is the collective organization of the

individual right to lawful defense, generally considered under the common
law. In this context, law is viewed as being the judicial will of the majority
within an organization or society providing for the natural right of lawful
defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, using
law and the court to do only what the individual forces have a natural and
lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties, and to
maintain the right of each, in order that justice may be had by all.

Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or
property of another, then the common force — law and the court — for the
same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or
property of individuals or groups. In other words, actual law (which goes
unwritten) allows a person to do anything they want as long as they do not
infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of anyone else. Also, within the
context of the common law, law does not compel performance; something to
keep in mind as we compare the types of law which can come into play in a
legal action.

http://beattraffictickets.org/articles.html Page 4 of 8
Common Law Remedy — Articles on Law and Traffic Issues 6/3/21, 6:44 PM

The maxims of law, such as those proposed by John Bouvier in his 1856 Law
Dictionary, simply reflect the common sense reasoning of the common law
while also forming the basis for all so-called written “law” (or rather rules,
regulations, ordinances, codes, and statutes). It is interesting to note that
today’s “laws” (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts,
etcetera) are often erroneously perceived as law. But just because something
is call a “law” does not necessarily make it a law. There is a difference
between what can be deemed “legal” between artificial persons and what is
perceived as being “lawful” among natural men and women. In other words,
while the artifice of government may deem an action “legal,” this does not
necessarily mean that it was “lawful,” ethical, and moral. And herein lies an
important difference in how government views its rules for operation as
opposed to how people may view these same rules as an abuse of natural law.

The second of the categories, equity, is the jurisdiction of compelled

performance (for any contract a person is a party to) based on what is fair in a
particular situation. The term “equity” denotes the spirit and habit of
fairness, justness, and right dealing during the course of regulating
commercial intercourse between parties. A party has no rights other than
what is specified in the contract. Additionally, equity carries with it no
criminal aspects.

The third and final category, admiralty or maritime, involves compelled

performance with the added element of a criminal penalty — a civil contract
with a criminal penalty.

When, in 1913, at the urging and heavy lobbying of the international banking
community the federal government handed over currency creation to the
Federal Reserve System (a private corporation), things began to change in

http://beattraffictickets.org/articles.html Page 5 of 8
Common Law Remedy — Articles on Law and Traffic Issues 6/3/21, 6:44 PM

terms of the legal implications of the institution being created in partnership

with the federal government. All of a sudden, anyone endorsing the handling
of the new currency (Federal Reserve notes as opposed to United States
Notes, the latter being lawful money which by tradition was backed by
substance, i.e., gold and silver) in any capacity at all came under admiralty
law. The problem for the government to resolve was in how it was going to
make a smooth transition to be able to deal with an issue that involved an
admiralty jurisdiction on land without having to explain how this was at all
possible by having to explain the admiralty connection of Federal Reserve
notes. In other words, the endorsed use of these notes on land brought the
admiralty jurisdiction onto the land of the common people, although the
people were never informed of such (meaning it was not commonly known).

By 1938 a new system of law was being put in place to replace the old and
familiar common law upon which our country was founded. This new system
of law involved the gradual procedural merger between law and equity
actions (that is, one court, rather than three separate courts, had jurisdiction
over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters). In 1933, at the height of the
Great Depression, the federal government was bankrupt. In order to deal with
its creditors (in equity), Congress pledged all the government’s assets (all the
land, housing, government buildings, the States and their legislatures and
executives, the Congress, the courts, the Chief Exectutive, and the future
labor — gross national product — of the people) in mortgage to the
international bankers to stave off foreclosure and default on the national
debt.

These events forced a change in the country’s system of law from public law
to private commercial law, which was first recognized by the U. S. Supreme
Court in the Erie Railroad v. Thompkins case of 1938, which, among other
things, stated that there was no longer “general federal common law.” This

http://beattraffictickets.org/articles.html Page 6 of 8
Common Law Remedy — Articles on Law and Traffic Issues 6/3/21, 6:44 PM

case marked the precedent wherein the procedures of Law were officially
blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all Supreme Court
decisions were based upon public law — or that system of law that was
controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U. S. Supreme Court
decisions have been based upon what is termed “public policy,” meaning
according to equity wherein a party has no rights other than what is specified
in the contract in question as well as compelled performance. And what
contract might that be? The acquiescence to using a private currency (Federal
Reserve notes) in the normal course of transacting business without
conditional endorsement.

Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable

Instrument’s law, which is a branch of the international law merchant. The
legislation forseeing these changes can be traced back to House Joint
Resolution 192 (HJR 192) approved in June of 1933 which states that it is
against public policy for anyone to insist upon payment of a debt with
substance or lawful money (i.e. gold and/or silver, or a currency backed by
these precious metals).

What HJR 192 effectively accomplished was a shift away from the standard
substance of the law, and law follows the standard substance of money which
according to the Constitution is gold and silver. When Congress, acting under
public policy, suspended the standard gold substance in “payment” of debt,
this affected the way law dealt with certain matters. This meant that, similar
to corporations, HJR 192 offered individual Americans an artificial
connection (or franchise) to and relationship with the federal government
outside the literal common law of the constitution. This shift occurred
because everyone was given a quasi corporate privilege under HJR 192 of not
paying their debts with substance, even though it is demanded under the
common law of each state in the Union according to Article I Section 10 of the

http://beattraffictickets.org/articles.html Page 7 of 8
Common Law Remedy — Articles on Law and Traffic Issues 6/3/21, 6:44 PM

Constitution.

In essence this means that the court now presumes by implication in the civil
law — otherwise known as “operation of law” — that a charter (franchise)
exists between parties, because people are voluntarily availing themselves of
the privileges pertaining to HJR 192. Therefore these people come under a
‘quasi in rem’ jurisdiction of the civil law in order to regulate and control
those who are outside the literal common law principles. Remember that
under equity, “equity compels performance.” The law views unincorporated
associations (such as the franchise relationship that individuals can have with
government as mentioned above) as a derogation (discrediting) of the
substance of the common law because it deviates from what is considered
lawful payment by instituting a debt/credit system in its place.

Now, is it clearer in your mind why it matters that you know the difference
between public law and private law? And why you want to stay out of a
private law court’s jurisdiction if you want a remedy for your traffic matter.

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!

You can lead people to the truth, but you can’t make them see it.

http://beattraffictickets.org/articles.html Page 8 of 8