What your mama never
told you about traffic court!
Just what kind of court is Traffic Court anyway?

Asking a traffic court judge to inform you about the type of court you are in and about the rules of the court, is like Alice asking the Mad Hatter for the time of day. Just as the Hatter will always leave Alice perplexed about the real time of day, traffic court judges will do the same to anyone who inquires about the rules governing traffic court. Seemingly, traffic courts must reside in the nebulous realm of "Judicial Wonderland."

All courts, including traffic courts are either civil or criminal and are governed by either, the Rules of Civil Procedure, or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Most states classify minor traffic offenses as infractions. Infractions are legally termed quasi-crimes and are not punishable by jail time. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7ed., legally defines Quasi as – Seemingly but not actually; in some sense; resembling; nearly.

Under the law, what is not criminal is civil. Because infractions by legal definition only resemble a crime, but are not actually, then it stands to reason that infractions fall under the non-criminal or civil category of law adjudicated under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The common law default is a civil procedure and the default process found in every state’s Rules of Civil Procedure is based upon the civil default derived under the common law.

In a small number of states, such as Texas, the vehicle codes are incorporated into the criminal codes and the traffic courts in Texas are designated as criminal courts and are governed by the Rule of Criminal Procedure.

Since the common law default is a civil procedure, can it be properly used to default the prosecutor in traffic courts legally designated as criminal courts?

Under the common law the common law default does not distinguish between civil or criminal. The common law default is not defined as civil or criminal. The legal workings of the common law default are regulated to whether or not the person making the legal claim lawfully rebuts a lawful counter claim of the person accused. Should the person making the legal claim fail to lawfully rebut the counter claim of the accused, then the legal claim (be it civil or be it criminal) is settled in favor of the defendant by default of the accusing person.

Under the provisions of our Constitution, all public office holders and people elected to or appointed to positions of public trust, including prosecutors, must take an oath of office. The oath of office is a contract between the office holder and the people, whereby the office holder swears to uphold the constitution, the law and the duties of his office. All contracts are civil. The prosecutor holds office and derives his power under the provisions of civil instruments, such as the Constitution and his oath of office, and any challenge to the power or jurisdiction of the prosecutor must be made by means of a civil instrument or document. A civil challenge to the authority or jurisdiction of a prosecutor in a criminal court or any other court, is the only legal avenue available to the people in making such a challenge.

Personal sovereignty
...had mama only known!

As a sovereign you are not subject to any law besides that of common law. I realize that this idea is totally foreign to most of you, as we have been erroneously taught all of our lives that we are subject to laws passed by the legislature or those in the lesser bodies of government. In United States Supreme Court decision of Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 in 1886 the Supreme Court agreed with the fact that flesh and blood people are sovereigns in their own right, not subject to legislative or administrative law. This United States Supreme Court decision was handed down before our legal system became nearly as corrupt as it is today in America.

The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins takes place in the late 1800's and is about Yick Wo, an immigrant Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco who was fined and then jailed for failure to obey a local ordinance passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors requiring all laundry owners to relocate laundries housed in wooden structures to brick or stone structures or to close down their businesses. The case is most often cited as a civil rights case because the all white San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Hopkins selectively enforced the newly passed ordinance along racial lines.

The white laundry owned laundries were mostly housed in brick or stone structures, and the few white owned laundries located in wooden structures were all given a free pass, while not one of the immigrant Chinese laundry owners were exempted from the ordinance. Most of the immigrant Chinese laundry owners were poor and could not afford to relocate their laundries to brick or stone structures. The Chinese laundry owners, like Yick Wo who continued to operate their laundries located in wooden structures in defiance of the order were fined and then jailed when they didn't pay their fines.

On August 24, 1885, Yick Wo petitioned the supreme court of California for the writ of habeas corpus, claiming he was illegally deprived of his personal liberty by the defendant Sheriff Hopkins, the sheriff of San Francisco County.

Justice Matthews states in the U. S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Yick Wo: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."

Justice Matthews makes a very profound statement in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins; clearly stating that we (you and I) are 'sovereigns', not subject to law. Justice Matthews did not just dream up the concept that we are sovereigns and as a sovereign we are not subject to law. Of course not, he had very sound bases for his profound proclamation, which was based upon his knowledge and belief that God created man and decreed man to be a sovereign. Justice Matthews also based his opinion upon the knowledge and belief that our nation's founding fathers strongly held this same belief and incorporated it into the fabric of our constitution.

Justice Matthews reminds us; while, yes it is true that our government has sovereignty delegated to it by the people, the people are the creators of the government and of the administrative law and we the creators or sovereigns are not subject to the law as its creators.

Remember and teach your children well that you and they are the true sovereigns. Your place is above government and never beneath the feet of government. God is the Sovereign Creator of our universe, we serve God and never does God serve His creation; man. Man is the sovereign of his domain and created government to serve him within his domain. An axiom of truth decrees that; the creator never serves his creation. Ask yourself who is serving whom today? How did it get to this point? The true responsibility and blame lies with us and all Americans who preceded us following the Civil War.

Will you be the master or will you continue to be the slave? The choice of slave has already been made for you and your children unless you have the will and courage to change it.


(PAGE 2 OF 3)

      ... is 'HIS NAME'really 'My Name' too?
The Ticket Slayer Traffic Court Experience