1. Your Comment: Yea, yea, yea... All drivers licensing & subsequent penalties are enforced via the states private "law merchant" jurisdiction. This is self evident especially in the State of Florida where the States Constitution & Statutory schemes provide the Circuit Court with original "exclusive" jurisdiction in all matters relating to delinquent acts & violations of law by juveniles.
IOW every underaged user of an automobile that is cited with a violation of Floridas DHSMV's regulatory scheme & subsequent statutes would fall under the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts, not the County or Traffic Courts. Hence all juvenile persons under the age of 18 charged with a violation of Floridas traffic regulations could not be adjudged by any courts inferior to the Circuit Court.
I argued this very point to a County/Traffic Court judge when my 17 yoa son was charged with several moving violations. The judge refused to dismiss the case on lack of subject matter jurisdiction grounds.
The only means of defending ones self from the states traffic scam is using the written codied UCC & the unwritten law merchant.
MY RESPONSE: Section 26.012(2)(c), of the Florida Statutes reads,
2) They [Circuit Courts] shall have exclusive original jurisdiction:
(c) In all cases in equity including all cases relating to juveniles except traffic offenses as provided in chapters 316 and 985;
State v. CM, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18028153580641215532&q=985.0301+"traffic+offense"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10,60,121,253,254,255,262,263,264,265,266,267,316,317,318,325,326,327,328,329,330. In this case, "the trial court correctly denied appellee's motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction. Circuit courts "shall have exclusive original jurisdiction" in "all cases relating to juveniles except traffic offenses as provided in chapters 316 and 985." § 26.012(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013). (at the 5th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Under Chapter 316, circuit courts also have jurisdiction over minors alleged to have committed felony traffic violations, while county courts have jurisdiction over minors alleged to have committed any non-felony traffic violations. (at footnote 1 near the end of the text).
State v. WW, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6418574976895721089&q=985.0301+"traffic+offense"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10,60,121,253,254,255,262,263,264,265,266,267,316,317,318,325,326,327,328,329,330. In this case, the court wrote, "In N.J.G., we determined that where a juvenile is charged with a misdemeanor traffic offense only, jurisdiction lies with the county court. Our decision was based primarily on section 316.635(1). That statute provides:
A [county, traffic] court which has jurisdiction over traffic violations shall have original jurisdiction in the case of any minor who is alleged to have committed a violation of law or of a county or municipal ordinance pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle; however, any traffic offense that is punishable by law as a felony shall be under the jurisdiction of the circuit court. (beginning in the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through the text).
2. Your Comment; The only means of defending ones self from the states traffic scam is using the written codied UCC & the unwritten law merchant.
RESPONSE: Not so. Under the REAL law, the UCC cannot be applied to any traffic or criminal case (one way of the other). Likewise, under the REAL law, there is no such thing as "unwritten merchant law". In the REAL law, all law is in writing. And, in the REAL law, no form of commercial or "merchant" law can be applied to any traffic or criminal case.