I decided to create a new thread on this topic, so it would not get buried in the other thread.
First off, it is blatantly false that the income tax was created to pay for World War 1.
The tax was passed in 1913. The war did not start until 1914, and the US did not get involved until 1917.
So, there is no evidence that it was created to pay for the war.
But it WAS passed in 1913, and just before the Federal Reserve Act, which was passed in the dead of night two days before Christmas.
Regarding the income tax, I decided to go to the ONLY official source of the original statute.
This is found at the Statutes at Large. The SAL are the chronological documentation of ALL bills passed by Congress, starting with the first one by the First Congress, and going through to the most recent one (that has been published -- they are behind a little of the SAL publications).
This is the ONLY official source for ANY statute passed by Congress.
Here is the SAL publication for the 63rd Congress in 1913:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c63/llsl-c63.pdf
Now, regarding the income tax ... this is REALLY WEIRD:
It looks to me like there was never an official "Income Tax" passed by Congress.
Instead, it was a GENERAL tax, which covered hundreds of things to be taxed, and then the income tax was inserted WAY, WAY, WAY down and buried inside all the legalese of these other taxes.
Starting on page 114, you see under "Chapter 16," the words of introduction to this piece of legislation:
An Act To reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the Government and for other purposes
Notice: It does not say an act to impose an income tax. The purpose was to reduce tariff duties and provide revenue.
The next paragraph says:
... there shall be levied, collectd, and paid upon all articles when imported from any foreign country when imported into the United States or into any of its possessions the rates of duty which are by [the following rules].
Notice: There were certain ARTICLES (i.e. types of actions for which a tax would be levied), AND ... ONLY ... for IMPORTING something into the US or its possessions (territories).
This is CRUCIAL, because the federal government does NOT have ANY authority to pass GENERAL LEGISLATION WITHIN THE STATES, except for those items specifically enumerated in the Constitution. One of those enumerated powers if FOREIGN COMMERCE.
When YOU go to work at the office or factory, YOU are NOT engaging in foreign commerce. Only the companies and individuals who BRING FOREIGN GOODS INTO THE USA are engaged in foreign commerce.
So ... this was constitutional, as it was originally written (but NOT as it is currently implemented).
Next, it goes on to list HUNDREDS of "items" that would be subject to this new tax "to REDUCE tariffs and to provide revenue."
A few of these are taxes on:
(1) Boracic acid, citric acid, formic acid, and other acids.
(2) Acetic anhydrid.
(3) Acetone
(4) Dried egg albumin
(7) Ammonia
(10) Barium chloride
(12) Bleaching powder
(13) Caffein
(15) Chalk
(41) Lime citrate
(43) Menthol
(44) Oils of various types
(47) Opium
(68) Sponges
(69) Talcum
(84) Glass bottles
(93) Opera and field glasses
(106) Iron or steel anchors
(119) Automobiles, valued at $2,000 or more
(129) Sword blades, and swords and side arms
(136) Fish hooks, fishing rods and reels
(201) Pickles
(202) Cider
(213) Straw
(217) Apples and other fruits
(237) Brandy and other spirits
(243) Champagne
(300) Carpets
(305) Hair of the Angoran goat
(311) Silk
(351) Human hair
(354) Hats, bonnets, or hoods
(402) Arrowroot in its natural state
(403) Arsenic
(424) Books, engravings, photographs
(477) Drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, buds, bulbs ... [interesting that these were "drugs" back in 1913]
(500) Gum
(501) Gunpowder
(503) Hair of horse, cattle, and other animals
(602) Skeletons
(605) Soda
(614) Stone and sand
In all, there are a list of 657 items that would be considered "articles" for which a tax would be levied ... IF (and only if) ... they were IMPORTED INTO THE US OR FEDERAL TERRITORY ... because Congress had the constitutional authority to regulate FOREIGN COMMERCE.
Now, I will break it down even further, but keep in mind THESE IMPORTANT POINTS:
-
The way the statute was structured was that "Section I" would be a list of all these items that would be "articles" that could be taxed by this new legislation. (The words "Section I" is not there, but the next sections (Sections II, III, and IV) are, and that is very important. So, keep in mind how this statute was structured.
-
ALL of these items/articles are for FOREIGN COMMERCE by way of IMPORT under the foriegn commerce clause of the Constitution ... OR (also VERY important) ... for anything that has to do with these items/articles WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES (Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). ... but NOT the States.
-
The US federal government has TWO constitutional authorities: (1) the subjects that are ENUMERATED in the Constitution, and these apply within the States, such as post offices and foreign commerce, and (2) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION over everything that goes on WITHIN the federal territories (Washingon DC is treated like a State, in that the Congress is like the State legislature for that and the other federal territories).
Again, this all starts on page 114 of the 63rd Congress for 1913:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c63/llsl-c63.pdf
NOW ...
At page 166, under "Section II," we have the "Income Tax," although it is NOT OFFICIALLY called that (there is merely a footnote in the margin).
Under Subdivsion 1:
That there shall be levied, assessed, levied and paid annually upon the entire net income ...
This is where they stuck in the "income tax" in the middle of a foreign commerce tax bill. Very sneaky and underhanded -- to say the least.
It then goes on to Section III, which once again goes back to amend a previous law about foreign commerce.
Section IV continues with the foreign commerce authority.
This was a MASSIVE piece of legislation, passed October 3, 1913.
I am not going to read through the entire thing, looking for the "this is only temporary" clause. I doubt it is there because, again, this was a MASSIVE piece of legislation.
I doubt more than a few members of Congress had any real idea what they were voting on.
It was the setup for the Federal Reserve Act, which was passed December 23, 1913.
There is ZERO chance that it was meant to be temporary, though I would not be suprised if the people behind the scenes who pushed both laws were planning on also pushing World War 1 on the Europeans, but the members of Congress probably had no clue (most of them), if that was the case.
Now ... let's dig further.
This legislation was all about taxes on (a) foreign commerce and (b) activities connected to the federal territories (such as Washington, DC).
Who was considered liable for the income tax?
Page 166, A. Subdivision 1:
... every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof ...
Now, are YOU a "citizen of the United States?"
Let's set aside what that definition means in legal terms. If YOU state, and sign under penalty the truth of the statement, that YOU ARE a "citizen of the United States," then this law APPLIES TO YOU.
Abracadabra ... YOU have volunteered that YOU are one of these people subject to the tax.
This is WHY the US federal government constantly TRICKS you into claiming that you are a "citizen of the United States," because that pushes you into this box.
Checkmate.
Sort of.
That is WHO. But what about the WHAT?
WHAT exactly is taxed?
... a tax ... upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.
That was the original language, that is more or less similar to today's language, which we will explore, but first, let's talk about the US Supreme Court case that declared this statute as constitutional.
That was Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916).
Frank Brushaber was a citizen of New York. He owned stock in Union Pacific Railroad, which was a FEDERAL CORPORATION, created by Congress to build the railroads.
He received a dividend, which is covered on page 167:
B. ... dividends ...
So, Frank challenged the income tax on his dividends, but SCOTUS ruled that he had to pay. The real reason for this is that the company paying the dividend was a federal corporation, and receiving a dividend from a federal corporation was a PRIVILEGE and not a right. Therefore, since the Congress created the corporation, it could tax the dividends paid.
But this has morphed into Congress taxing dividends from ALL (non-federal) corporations. BUT ... they have done so by subterfuge, not by honest legal means.
Let's go to the current "Income Tax Code" found at 26 USC, and look under Subtitle F, Chapter 79, "Definitions."
The original act said that an income tax would be imposed on NET income of every "citizen of the United States," and to every "business, trade, or profession" of non-citizens.
But what are these definitions?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
(a)(30) United States Person:
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States
What is the definition of "United States?"
(a)(9) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
What is a "State?"
(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
So ... this whole thing is ONLY for the things that the federal government has CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for: (a) foreign commerce and (b) exclusive legislation for FEDERAL TERRITORIES, and NOT that 50 States. They had to RE-DEFINE the word "State" to mean something OTHER THAN the 50 geographical States, in order to stay within the constitutional confines of the Constitution.
What is the definition of "Trade or Business?"
(a)(26) The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
AGAIN ... staying within the CONFINES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The way the law is WRITTEN is constitutional. BUT ... it is not promoted the way it is written.
What is the definition of "employee?"
There is only a specialized definition in Subtitle F, and that only applies to something specific that does not apply to most people:
(a)(20) ... For the purpose of applying the provisions of section 79 with respect to group-term life insurance purchased for employees, for the purpose of applying the provisions of sections 104, 105, and 106 with respect to accident and health insurance or accident and health plans, and for the purpose of applying the provisions of subtitle A with respect to contributions to or under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity plan, and with respect to distributions under such a plan, or by a trust forming part of such a plan, and for purposes of applying section 125 with respect to cafeteria plans, the term “employee” shall include a full-time life insurance salesman who is considered an employee for the purpose of chapter 21.
That is the only definition of "employee" found in Subtitle F.
But ... the definitions in Subtitle F apply to ALL of Title 26 ... UNLESS ... a different definition is found elsewhere that applies more specifically to a particular section of Title 26.
So, let's look at Subtitle C, "Employment Taxes" --
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-C
Notice: There are are 6 chapters within Subtitle C.
The employment taxes are collected by the employer, right?
Chapter 24 -- Collection of Income Tax at Sourse on Wages, Section 3401 ("Definitions"):
What is "Employee?"
(c) Employee. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
So, elected officials of the United States or "a State" (which means Washington DC and federal territories, based on general definitions, and constitutional prohibition from the federal government taxing the States, other than via apportionment), any AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY of Washington, DC, such as Union Pacific Railorad, or Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association), a corporation created by Congress for buying mortgages, or an officer of such a corporation.
What you will find about the income tax is that it was originally passed as part of a tax bill for foreign commerce and taxes related to the operations of the federal territories, and the modern day definitions still agree with this concept ... BUT ... it has since been fraudulently promoted and unconstitutionally applied and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, which is NOT a federal agency and its agents are NOT federal employees.
It is a clever con game.
Do I file tax returns? Yes, because I understand the game and I know where to find the "hidden" aspects that are often only found in the federal regulations and only hinted at in the actual statute or code.
But we would all be better off if we just got rid of it, along with the privately owned (and more important: privately controlled) central bank, which has never had a meaningful public audit of what it REALLY does with all of its fake money creation.
To those of you who have read all the way through all of this, I have repeatedly told people here, on GAW, and also on Patriots aka The Donald, that ALL of this shit comes directly from the Massive Changes that Congress made to the BODY of the U.S. Constitution....
Ponder that, Congress Changed the Key Elements in the BODY of the Constitution, and they used the 14th Amendment to do just that....
It's quite Nefarious, and you literally have to gain an actual solid grasp on certain parts of the English Language, both Daily Speak English, and Legal Speak English, to read the changes they made, and to comprehend WTF they are saying in these Changes....
We are ALL considered to be Born as Foreigners to our States, Born INSIDE of Congress Hall, and not at all State Citizens, literally OWNED as Chattel Property by the U.S. Congress, mainly for Taxation, Financial Insurance Investments, and Cannon Fodder....
Yes, Tax Cattle, Insured by the U.S. Govt., so that when one of us dies, they get a Payout, and to go and Fight needless Wars so that Members of congress AND the Federal Banking Reserve Corporation, can make themselves Rich off our lives....
They claim that WE are Traitors to our States, and with that claim, stemming directly from Lincolns War, they believe it gives them the Rights to treat us as Traitors, and Enslave us all, directly under their 13th Amendment....
Just to add to this, there IS an escape route codified in law, but it's not taught for reasons that are obvious when you understand they do not want people to escape. The Matrix is built to deter people from finding this info or putting it to use, but if you look there is a long path of people figuring it out through trial and error, arguing in court, going to prison, etc.
The key is always understanding that we were created by God and not the government. The government can only tax that which it created. They did not create the man or woman, but they did create the name on the birth certificate - the name that is on your bank accounts and social security card and everything else attached to that federal ID number. That is what gets taxed. Your UPPERCASE NAME is a separate legal entity than your flesh body. One is real and one is a fiction. They make you believe they are one in the same and that's how the mind control works.
There's a difference between "you" and your "person". "Person" includes corporations which are fictional entities. Fictional entities are dead and cannot speak for themselves so they must speak through an attorney. Attorneys are certified by private bar associations, which is why they can only say certain things and none of them usually involve your best interest as a defendant.
You have to learn to speak for yourself and be the living man or woman otherwise you will always have attorneys speaking for you and keeping you trapped in the system.
Yup, ALL of that comes directly from the 14th Amendment, absolutely ALL of it....
It turns People into Corporations by Default and Word Magic....
The Actual Real Solution is in 15 Stats, but it's a heavy search to find it....
The Easy way, is to look through the Book that is either the full Index or the Full Table of Contents in order to find the One Asterisk *, it indicates that Past that point in 15 Stats at Large, the LAWS are no longer Positive Law....
It was made Before the 14th Amendment, on purpose, in order to leave for themselves(Congress and Monied Elites), a way OUT of the Trap of the 14th Amendment....
Funny thing is that Expats have used it very effectively, but stupidly, and with throwing away their Federation 14th Amend. U.S. Citizenship, by their own Wording and Actions, have also thrown away their Article 4 Section 2 STATE Citizenship....
No no, don't DO that, instead Pull your Lands out of the Commercial Realm, and revamp them under the Land Grants or Land Patents which are Lawfully Protected from Taxation and Invasion....
The U.S. Marshals are the ones who have been given the Task of Punishing anyone that Trespasses upon those Lands, IF they survive being shot by the Owner....
It all sounds very Intricate, but upon studying all of this, Plus the Right to Travel, not Drive, But Travel without Encumbrances like Drivers License, Insurance etc., it paints a Mirror Picture of how life is supposed to be, and should be....
The difference between Traveling and Driving, is easy, too easy for most people to comprehend....
Traveling is just going from Home to Church, School, Club, Cruising, and Joy Riding, on PERSONAL Terms and Conditions....
Driving is an Occupation, a Job, Employment, by some form of Contract, for Pay, or Remunerated, for an Exchange or for Money....
ALL of the Laws we need in order to Defend ourselves are in place, and Killery tried to call Trump out on them, and he turned the tables on her, if you'll recall her comment about the 14th Amendment....
Because it was written by a Corporation for a Corporation as bylaws. Not for a Republic and it's people , their Government collapsed for lack of quorum in 1861. After their Congress was tricked/bribed into memory holing the Original 13th amendment.
AHA!!!
So you know about TONA....
I suspected as much, Thaks Fren....
they hid OUR Law that would set them on their butts, and threw in their law to set is into their Prisons....
When MAGA is victorious, we will not be a corporation—we will be a bonafide Republic. We will be FREE!
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
It makes sense to read it, but learning to speak it and understand it and not mess up are whole other things.
You and u/Space_Monkey are on important philosophical tracks but they do not have the power you think. Of course the spiritual enemy wants to treat us as property and wants to claim nexus over us, but their claims are not valid and we do not consent to them. We are still the sovereigns who created the states that created the fed, and we will still act like it. We do not yield to others the right to write our God-given names in uppercase or the right to contract with any of the several states for citizenship. When we do yield those rights we look silly and people are directed away from the necessary truths of who they are in God and then how God wants them to handle their property in a social system easily manipulated by the godless.
Well in the, not Spiritually, but Worldly, grand scheme of things, we must play the Only Game in town, that is Survive....
It has Subsections, like Wife, Children, Friends, Extended Family, Community....
Each one of these is a Form of Contract, aka Agreement....
And even, or maybe especially, in a Theocratical Society, these ties bind a bit more than they do otherwise....
Either way, One is either Stateless, or holds a Citizenship....
If you'll take for Note, in Law, STATELESS, means Nationless, this is primary proof that each State, is a Sovereign Nation unto itself....
WE, are not Sovereigns, especially if we must live in a Community with others of Equal Status, hence we can both be, and hold separate Nationalities, such as a Virginian, a Citizen of Virginia, or a Menonite, or possibly a Utah Mormonite....
All are Protected Class, First Rate Citizens, the difference between the Virginian and the others is that he, the Virginian is Protected by Common Law Contractual Agreement via his State[NATION] Govt, and the Menonite is protected, wherher the Catholic Church like it or not, under Catholic Canon, and the Utah Mormons under their Religious Canon, but ALL Three are seen by the Federal Government as Article 4, Section 2, State Citizens, untouchable by Federal Government, and even State Government is questionable, which leaves only the County Sheriff to uphold Laws, even within the Theocracies if asked....
The problem we come to again, the 14th Communist Amendment....
Yes, we have been under Secret attack for a very long time, quite Nefarious, very evil....
I have citizenship in the kingdom of heaven, and in one of the several states, and in the federal government when it's convenient for me to use. We usually don't have need to throw out state citizenship, so how much more should we guard our heavenly citizenship.
I have sovereignty by coregency with Jesus Christ, and so do a lot of people. Being a coregent does not conflict with any other arrangement because, any disagreement between Jesus and myself, we settle internally (hint: he's always right). For that reason my sovereignty doesn't conflict with anyone else's sovereignty in Christ. If your sovereignty is in Joseph Smith, or Menno Simons apart from Christ, why then it's possible our sovereignties might conflict just like kings do on occasion; but we sovereigns are pretty good at being diplomatic and not coming to blows about it.
The 14th is then just a stray ambiguity interpreted wrongly by our servants' servants and of no injury to our sovereign selves. If someone under color of law pretends to misapply it to us, we simply invoke our sovereignties and citizenships by determining what Jesus wants of the situation and how to use the gifts he has given. (Sometimes, as with Peter, he even tells us to pay a tax so as not to offend!)
Citizenship in Heaven, under Gods Rules is one thing, and rarely has it been a Protection from Mans Laws on Earth....
On the other hand, God Made Nature, and we have effectively Codified Natures Laws and Natural Law, into Laws for Nations, hence DeVattels The Law of Nations, I highly recommend reading it, the entire thing, beginning at the following link, it's a PDF, just for a heads up::
https://files.libertyfund.org/files/2246/Vattel_1519_LFeBk.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A308%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22Fit%22%7D%5D
The best part about this is that the Federation, and the Nations within it, must both abide by it or risk violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;....
As for the Rightful rendering of Respect, in my understanding we are as Knights, we have our Sovereigns, whose names are not necessary for this convo, and yes I do very much so realize I sound quite Secular, but I enjoy splitting hairs for the purpose of separating the various things of pertinence into their own classes, not that I am Atheist or anything of the sort, quite the opposite....
I see no logical reason to commingle Religion Canon with Secular Law, the Catholics have been doing that forever, and it's just a mess, and so have many other so called ""religions"", all in the futile effort to gain the upper hand, bad strategy, low IQ Effort, like attacking a Fortress from the heaviest guarded side, with just a handful of Warriors....
And once again, as for the 14th, it is written ambiguously on purpose, by if I recall, an Insurance Company Lawyer, with the Direct Purpose of misdirecting those who may read it, and not know how to remove the irrelevant parts found elsewhere in other parts of the Constitution or other Amendments that it either Repeats or Directly violates....
Just for Section 2, Sentence 2, one must know the Amendments, and how to do a Proper Diagram of a Run on Sentence, just to remove the things covered by other Amend., and to correctly put the sentence together when done, and the hidden message is nothing short of a False Accusation, on top of another, on top of Treason....
I agree with you and you seem much more knowledgeable than me on this subject. I was describing mainly what I have derived from studying and putting various pieces together and that's how I think of it all the time.
I learned about it because I was being charged with DUI where nothing happened but the cop followed me and friends after leaving a bar and said he saw me drive over the center yellow line, pulled me over, and I refused to give a breath sample on my 5th Amendment right. I felt it was an ambush setup and I didn't trust that the breathalyzer was going to be accurate so I simply refused to blow and they arrested me for it.
The statute in that state said that refusal to blow can be used as evidence and probable cause for an arrest, but only if the person has prior DUIs, which I didn't. I talked to several attorneys who all told me to take a plea deal. I decided to go pro se and went to the first court hearing on my own even though I didn't really know what I was doing. The judge said they would set the case for trial and then a couple weeks later I got a notice in the mail from the prosecutor saying the case was dismissed.
You should grab a few of the older online Legal Dictionaries, and look up, and Compile the Various Definitions of Pro Se, Pro Per, and Sui Juris....
Once you have them all Compiled for cross reference, you'll see something interesting.....
Older Dictionaries are better, and stay away from the Blacks after 4th Edition, that's when they started to FA with the Definitions....
Don't be cryptic.
Just tell us what you found.
Most of us are not going to do that, especially if you keep it a secret.
What did you find out about "pro se" vs. "pro per" vs. "Sui Juris?"
I have heard people say that "pro per" is better than "pro se."
BUT ... I have also heard other people, whose opinion I respect more, say it doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, my position is that it is better to speak in a language that the judges and attorneys will understand and respect, if at all possible.
More flies with honey than vinegar type of thing.
Good for you!
MOST attorneys don't do SHIT for most people. They just want the money.
I spoke with an attorney at a bar once. He said he had a DUI case where the guy he was representing was charged with his 6th DUI.
The attorney and prosecutor had a conversation. The prosecutor offered a deal. The attorney said, "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But stretch it out for awhile. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."
That's how those cockroaches are.
Oh, I am sure there are a few good ones. FEW being the key word.
My own experience is similar. It was a speeding ticket, not DUI. I made lots of mistakes, but I hit them with something they didn't know how to handle.
The ticket would have been $150, but if I went to trial, it could have been as high as $300.
I told the prosecutor before talking with the judge that I was not going to agree to a plea for a lower fee.
She offered this and that, and eventually offered me to pay $20 and it would go away. I said, "NO."
LOL.. Shows how serious they really were if they would let it go for 20 bucks.
She asked (incredulously), "Why?"
I said because I was going to challenge subject matter jurisdiction.
SMJ requires a proper charging document, which I knew they didn't have (but I didn't tell her that).
When I finally spoke to the judge (traffic court, which is not a REAL court, but merely an administrative hearing disguised as a court), the first thing she said was, "I understand that you want to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. What do you mean?"
Well, I KNEW I HAD HER at that moment. Obviously, since I did not tell the judge this, I knew that the judge and prosecutor talked about my case between themselves WITHOUT ME PRESENT (they have zero respect for anyone who is not "represented by a licensed attorney").
This action on their part was an "ex parte hearing," which is a VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.
If a court (judge) violates due process, the judges LOSES JURISDICTION and must dismiss the case!
But I didn't say anything about that. Just kept my mouth shut other than to say, "Yes, I am challenging subject matter jurisdiction."
At this point, the judge is REQUIRED to have MY ADVERSARY PROVE that the court had jurisdiction. But that never happened.
They ALWAYS cut corners, because that is how they "do business" everyday. This is why they don't like people like you and me holding them to the LAW. They have no respect for the law. They only virtue signal that they do.
Anyway ... the judge turned into a RAGING BITCH and refused to let me say anything, and set a date for trial.
Fine. I'm cool with that, because I was ready.
On the day of the trial, I show up. And I am told that the "prosecutor is not here today." Not the cop, but the PROSECUTOR.
As if. That is their ONLY job, to show up and prosecute traffic tickets so the city/state can ring the cash register.
Anyway, no prosecutor, no trial. Case dismissed.
Cost: $0.
Value of experience: Priceless.
Congratulations! That's how to fight the system, the worst that can happen is you get dinged by the state and you accept it because you dug in over a matter of conscience. The system protects itself, encourages everyone to behave its preferred way (i.e. against self-interest), and obfuscates its Nietzsche-described lack of teeth by pretense and quiet avoidance.