Having trouble in traffic court?
You probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
The root of your confusion rests in the use of "legalese". Please realize that the legal profession is very skilled at changing the meaning of words (that you think you understand) in order to confuse you.
"Traveling" ≠ "Driving"
"Car" ≠ "Motor Vehicle"
"Traveling" on the public roads is a Constitutional right, not a state granted "privilege". You may walk on the public roads, and you may "travel" in your "automobile", "car" or "truck". You helped to pay for public roads with your tax dollars. You own the public roads in common with all other people. If you are "traveling", you are simply enjoying a God given right. NO ONE has the authority to take this unalienable right away from you.
"Traveling" is not the same as "driving", which is a corporate privilege extended to those who are using the publicly owned roads for commercial, money-making purposes (Taxis, trucking companies, etc.). A "Motor Vehicle" is a commercial device that may be given the "privilege" of using the public roads. It makes sense that corporations are regulated by the government and that they should have to register their vehicles in order to use the public roads.
The problem is that YOU have been mislead regarding the definitions of these words. If YOU mistakenly think that you are "driving" a "motor vehicle", and YOU volunteer to give up your "rights" in return for "privileges", why should the "government" disagree with your volunteer efforts? They will gladly take your money.
Numerous courts have ruled on this issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment.
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 1253.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:
The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a right to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public.
Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.4
While a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a mere privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.
State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171
Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.
The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a "common and fundamental right" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra
Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934;Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 60h
The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner.
Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;
For an enormous amount of information regarding this issue, please visit the site below...
Motor Vehicle Registration
Another scam has most people believing that they own their cars. What most people do not realize is that they have been mislead. When you "register" your car, you are actually giving up ownership to the state! A registered "motor vehicle" is actually property of the state.
What has slipped under the radar of your awareness, is the fact that a MCO (along with a bill of sale) is the actual proof of ownership of the vehicle. The Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO) or Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MCO) verifies where the car came from and other details unique to the vehicle. Once the new car hits the showroom floor, the MCO is surrendered to the state (by the dealer).
When you eventually buy a vehicle for whatever price, you are given a "Certificate of Title" which is merely proof that the MCO exists. You simply were misinformed. Rather than accepting a "Certificate of Title", you should have demanded the MCO and a bill of sale. This "Certificate of Title" that you accepted is really only legal jargon which DOES NOT PROVE OWNERSHIP!! You only think that it does. The "Certificate of Title" is merely evidence that a MCO exists. Your car's legal title is the MCO, which the dealer surrendered to the state.
If you have the MCO to your vehicle (along with a bill of sale), then you not only own that vehicle, you are also exempt from any taxes that your state may attempt to levy against it. With the proper documentation, you would no longer have to pay taxes on that vehicle or "registration" fees. IT CAN NOT EVEN BE IMPOUNDED IF YOU GET PULLED OVER.
The act of "registering" a car or truck with the Department of Motor Vehicles is a claim that you are going to start using a government owned "motor vehicle" in a commercial fashion on the public roads. If that is what you are doing, then you should follow those procedures. After you ignorantly give your new car or truck to your state, they own it!!
"No wonder state law officers stop people for no reason!" said a housewife. "If your car's got a state license plate, it's theirs, and they can do anything they like to you!"
For further details on this issue, please visit...