• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Poll: Drivers Licensing ?

Does Driver Licensing Violate the U.N. Treaty on Human Rights?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
BarnacleBob,


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).[5] 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.
Snoop
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
13,731
Likes
23,477
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
BarnacleBob,


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: In section 20.012(2)(c), the Florida Constitution 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).[5] 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.
Snoop

(c) In all cases in equity including all cases relating to juveniles [/B]except traffic offenses as provided in chapters 316 and 985;

LMAO.... Statutes dont override the public State Constitution. There is no such exception "except traffic offenses as provided in chapters 316 and 985" in Article V of the Fla. Constitution! Secondly the case was argued around 2002/2003, said statutes you cited didnt exist at that time...

Looks like your twisting & contorting things!

Law Merchant is private civil equity law, it is civil law that possesses criminal penalties & fines, etc.. Hence not all "Law Merchant" customs are codified into writing...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,350
Likes
6,503
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
do I need to read all this shit? Snoop ur stuuupid as you have no "right" to "drive" it has been explained before that if you need a license then you are engaging in privet law.

now little puppie dog could you plz explain why legislators pass this crap and call it public law yet when analyzed at its bassist merits it is private law.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
(c) In all cases in equity including all cases relating to juveniles [/B]except traffic offenses as provided in chapters 316 and 985;

LMAO.... Statutes dont override the public State Constitution. There is no such exception "except traffic offenses as provided in chapters 316 and 985" in Article V of the Fla. Constitution! Secondly the case was argued around 2002/2003, said statutes you cited didnt exist at that time...

Looks like your twisting & contorting things!

Law Merchant is private civil equity law, it is civil law that possesses criminal penalties & fines, etc.. Hence not all "Law Merchant" customs are codified into writing...
BarbacleBob,

1. YOUR COMMENT: Article V, section 20 (3) Florida Constitution. The Circuit Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction *****in all cases in equity including all [such] cases relating to juveniles. http://m.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution
RESPONSE: Your comment reflects a reading and comprehension problem. You read these foregoing words to mean that "Circuit Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases relating to juveniles." BUT, THIS IS NOT SO. These words actually mean that Circuit Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in ALL CASES IN EQUITY INCLUDING ALL CASES IN EQUITY relating to juveniles." Just so that you know, a traffic violation case IS NOT A CASE IN EQUITY, even if the juvenile committed the traffic violation. CLICK HERE. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A5S20

SO, CIRCUIT COURTS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS INVOLVING JUVENILES.

2. YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENT ON THIS SUBJECT:
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.
RESPONSE: Not only were you unable to comprehend the meaning of the Article V, Section 20(c) of the Florida Constitution (above), you are also unable to comprehend F.S. 985.0301 which you cite below.


3. YOUR COMMENT; 985.0301 Jurisdiction.—
(1) The circuit court has exclusive original jurisdiction of proceedings in which a child is alleged to have committed:
(a) A delinquent act or violation of law.
(b) A noncriminal violation that has been assigned to juvenile court by law.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...g=&URL=0900-0999/0985/Sections/0985.0301.html
RESPONSE: You misunderstood these words above to mean that "the Circuit Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over all proceedings in which a child is alleged to have violated any law, including a traffic law. "BUT, THIS IS NOT SO. You failed to determine what these words above actually mean. The case below explains what they actually mean under the law.

State v. CM, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...5,266,267,316,317,318,325,326,327,328,329,330. In explaining what F.S. 985.0301 actually means, the court wrote, "a 'violation of law' or 'delinquent act' [under F.S. 985.0301 which you site] is defined as "a violation of any law of this state, the United States, or any other state which is a misdemeanor or a felony or a violation of a county or municipal ordinance which would be punishable by incarceration if the violation were committed by an adult."

Just so that you know, a traffic violation is not a violation of a law which is a misdemeanor or a felony or a violation of a county or municipal ordinance which would be punishable by incarceration if the violation were committed by an adult."

SO, CIRCUIT COURTS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS INVOLVING JUVENILES.

4. YOUR COMMENT: LMAO.... Statutes dont override the public State Constitution.
RESPONSE: Perhaps you should not be laughing your ass off. You are mistaken. Florida Statute 26.012(2)(c) does not override the Florida Constitution (WHICH YOU MISREAD AND WERE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND). Instead, F.S. 26.012(2)(c) is in complete harmony with the Florida Constitution. F.S. 26.012((2)c) 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. CLICK HERE and scroll down to (2)(c). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0000-0099/0026/Sections/0026.012.html.


5. YOUR COMMENT: There is no such exception "except traffic offenses as provided in chapters 316 and 985" in Article V of the Fla. Constitution!
RESPONSE: CORRECT. That exception appears in F.S. 26.012(2)(c). CLICK HERE. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A5S20. You misread (and were therefore unable to comprehend) Article V, Section 20(3) of the Florida Constitution. CLICK HERE. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A5S20


6. YOUR COMMENT: Secondly the case was argued around 2002/2003, said statutes you cited didnt exist at that time...
RESPONSE: Not so. The date at the end of the statutory citation IS NOT THE DATE THE STATUTE WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN. Instead, that date is the date of the most recent publication of the statute (Florida publishes its statutes every two years). For your information, F.S. 26.012(2)(c) was written in 1972 and was last revised in 2004.


7.YOUR COMMENT: Looks like your twisting & contorting things!
RESPONSE: It is spelled "you're" and I am not twisting or contorting anything. The truth does not have to be twisted or contorted. Only lies have to be twisted and contorted.

8. YOUR COMMENT: Law Merchant is private civil equity law,
RESPONSE. In the REAL law, the term equity is used to describe relief sought or provided WHICH DOES NOT INVOVLE MONEY or DECLARATORY RELIEF. Specifically, EQUITY INVOVLES COURT ORDERS like a "restraining order" or an "order to cease and desist".

9. it is civil law that possesses criminal penalties & fines, etc..
RESPONSE: In the REAL law, traffic violation cases are QUASI-CRIMINAL cases. When used in connection with traffic cases, the term "civil" is a reference to the severity of the charge and a reference to the penalty that can be imposed. Crimes can involve jail or prison. Civil offenses cannot. In civil offense cases, fines are imposed as an alternative to jail or prison.

10. Hence not all "Law Merchant" customs are codified into writing..
RESPONSE: In the REAL law, nothing has the force of law UNLESS IT IS IN WRITING AND THEN ONLY IF IT WAS WRITEN BY A CONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATE, AN ELECTED LAW MAKER OR AN ELECTED/APPOINTED HIGHER JUDGE. In the REAL law, no principle applicable to commercial law or merchant law has any application to traffic or criminal cases. The fact that fines are imposed in traffic and criminal cases, does not make them "commercial" cases or "merchant" cases.

If you had bothered to research the case law on this subject, this is what you would have learned:

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).[5] 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).​
Snoop​
 

Attachments

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,690
Likes
6,391
Location
right here right now
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :belly laugh::dduck::belly laugh: