[allainah6]

I just learned this evening about Natural vs. Artificial persons. A few years back I started to accumulate traffic tickets which resulted in the suspension of my License. The fines left the courts and were bought by a Collections Agency, leaving me responsible to pay some $5,000 before a new License can be obtained. I am aware that I became responsible for this debt when I signed as an Artificial Person and am now wondering what I can do to get my license back? Or, can I just start driving and use a certain "language" if I am to get pulled over, etc. I'm VERY new to this concept but have a 15 month old daughter going into winter months here and will be attending college in January. Needless to say, it would be very convenient if I could just drive. Thanks for you time. :) Peace.

[AK lawyer]

... I am aware that I became responsible for this debt when I signed as an Artificial Person ...

So you are saying that you are an Android?

[ScottGem]

I'm not clear what you are referring to, between artificial/natural persons.

But driving is a privilege granted by the state. If you disobey the rules granted tor the use of that privilege thing the privilege can be taken away. If you continue to violate the rules, your freedom can be taken away.

[AK lawyer]

I'm not clear what you are referring to, between artificial/natural persons.
...

Me either, which explains my flip question.

Evidently OP, as a corporation, or some such "artificial person", or possibly using an alias name, signed an agreement with a collection agency. I can't think how this agreement would affect the validity of the underlying traffic tickets. "Artificial persons" are not licensed to drive cars, so the tickets would be against OP as a "natural person".

On the other hand, if the debt was sold to a collection agency, it is arguable that the tickets were "paid". I have never heard of traffic ticket debts being assigned to collection agencies. It does seem odd.

[ScottGem]

Yep, that's my interpretation of the artificial/natural person thing.

I have heard of traffic fines being assigned to a collection agency, but not sold.

[allainah6]

Maybe you guys need to research artificial vs. natural persons. :) It is our jobs as humans to seek truths... there are so many things we pass as "just the way it is" without doing any further research. This is one of those things. Check this site out...

http://www.natural-person.ca/artificial.html

If you have difficulty understanding the article, there is a verbal explanation here...

http://youtu.be/v2krWnfh9yM

[ScottGem]

Well this is why we asked you to clarify what you meant. The term has different meanings in different contexts. I did scan through that site and frankly, their arguments do not hold merit. They are similar to anarchist arguments that have been around for a while.

If you want to live in a remote cabin with no electricity and use no Government services then you can do without being subject to laws. Otherwise, forget it.

If you try to use this argument to get out of violating any statutes, you will be lucky if the other just laughs at you.

[Fr_Chuck]

Driving laws are state laws and as such are both under statue, for the laws, and admin rules of the DMV.

Your article is poor law at best and would be laughed our of court if even allowed to be presented.

No unless an agreement with the DMV and/or court is reached you can not even legally apply for another drivers license or ask to have yours taken from suspended.

[JudyKayTee]

... It is our jobs as humans to seek truths.....there are so many things we pass as "just the way it is" without doing any further research. This is one of those things. Check this site out....

Natural-Person Artificial-Natural Page

If you have difficulty understanding the article, there is a verbal explanation here...

The Freeman and Strawman Explained - YouTube

Well, the Court should get a good laugh out of the idea.

I think this concept was dreamed up by the same guy who argues every year that income taxes are unconsitutional. People believe him, follow his advice and spend time rethinking the theory in a cell.

I also don't get my info from YouTube.

Let us know how this plays out in Court.

[AK lawyer]

"... So, the Government tricks John Doe to become the Officer for the JOHN DOE CORPORATION by signing such contracts as Driver's Licence, ..."

A driver's license is not a contract and, even if it were, it would not be with the corporation, but would be with the individual who may happen to be an agent or employee of a corporation ("John Doe" in the example). So this sylogism is logically flawed.

[JudyKayTee]

"... So, the Government tricks John Doe to become the Officer for the JOHN DOE CORPORATION by signing such contracts as Driver's Licence, ..."

A driver's license is not a contract and, even if it were, it would not be with the corporation, but would be with the individual who may happen to be an agent or employee of a corporation ("John Doe" in the example). So this sylogism is logically flawed.

All logic flew out the window when the "artificial vs natural" person topic was posted.

[ScottGem]

[INDENT]. So this sylogism is logically flawed.

If I had the time or inclination I'm sure there are huge holes that can be torn in the logic of the argument. But the main point is the law is not going to recognize an argument that invalidates the law.