SUCCESS! Torrance Traffic Commission Requires More Info, Asks City Council for Different Proposals

Torrance Residents:

GREAT NEWS!

The Torrance Traffic Commission heard from three residents opposing the camera enforcement mechanisms at the June 1st, 2026 meeting.

That is unprecedented for a commission hearing.

Here are their comments:

Rick Marshall (State Senate Candidate!)

                  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpp9HnbRaMc

My comments:

              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVqn5fsAiio

Brooklyn Native who moved to Torrance:

             

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE2YEWT7ou0

The commission listened to our concerns about privacy and the costs associated with these scams.

They will tell the city council to provide the commission with information on OTHER means for creating safer streets as well as more information about the effectiveness of these camera enforcement mechanisms.

              

Before the meeting, I spoke with a resident from the New Horizons HOA, and she was grateful for all the information that I shared with her—and she will pass it on to her fellow HOA members!

This is a big win for us.

But the fight is not over.

PLEASE contact the Torrance City Council and tell them:

NO ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS FOR TRAFFIC ISSUES!

Tell them to stop wasting the Torrance Traffic Commission's time on automated ticketing schemes:

No red light cameras

No speed cameras

No automated ticketing for parking violations

ALL OF THESE CAMERA PROPOSALS MUST BE REJECTED!

(310) 618-2801

GChen@TorranceCA.Gov

JKaji@TorranceCA.Gov

BLewis@TorranceCA.Gov

ASheikh@TorranceCA.Gov

SKalani@TorranceCA.Gov

JGerson@TorranceCA.Gov

AMattucci@TorranceCA.Gov

MassResistance Update on Whatcott Trial: Canada’s Attack on Free Speech Continues!

 

Canada’s attack on free speech continues!

Canadian LGBT lawfare: Bill Whatcott on trial again in Toronto for the same “hate speech” charge he was acquitted of in 2021.

His crime? Ten years ago he passed out a Christian flyer on “gay” health risks!

A judge ruled him “not guilty” in 2021. But the Ontario government appealed – claiming that expert testimony from a radical LGBT “professor” was wrongly excluded.

A new judge agreed to put Bill on trial again! Canadian law allows this.

Could such an abuse of justice come to the U.S.?

June 1, 2026

 At the "evidentiary hearing" prior to the second trial. From left: Bill Whatcott, the judge (wearing COVID mask!), the Crown prosecutor (standing), and one of Bill's attorneys.

Bill Whatcott is an extraordinary and completely fearless Canadian pro-family activist. Too many conservatives (and even conservative media) wither away or tone themselves down as their “progressive” government becomes increasingly oppressive. But Bill understands that those are the times when standing on principle counts most!

 In 2018, Bill rallied activists for Canada MassResistance at a pro-family conference in Alberta.

Last week Bill was brought into court and put on trial a second time for an absurd “crime” charge that he’d already been acquitted of. Such “double jeopardy” is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, but in Canada it is allowed.

What was the government’s “appeal” that allowed this? This article recounts how the pro-LGBT Canadian government – having already spent millions of dollars in its over-the-top “lawfare” against Bill – used that process to bring him back to trial, despite the efforts of his top-notch defense lawyers. (Upcoming posts will cover the trial itself and the judge’s verdict when it is announced.)

Background

Bill’s so-called “hate crime” consists of a flyer that was passed out ten years ago. Below is the basic timeline of events. (See our full MassResistance coverage of this.)

• June 2016. Bill passed out flyers at a gay pride parade. Bill and some unidentified friends registered to march in the 2016 Toronto Gay Pride Parade as masked “gay zombies.” The parade was a spectacle of depravity, including contingents of completely naked men, anti-Christian imagery, and allusions to sexual perversions. As Bill and his group walked in the parade, they handed out to onlookers thousands of “safe sex” flyers. The flyer included strong warnings on the negative health effects of homosexual behaviors along with Christian gospel messages.
 The "Gay Zombies" handing out flyer packets as their group marches in the 2016 Toronto Gay Pride parade.

The "safe sex" packet with the flyer inside that they passed out. Ten years and millions of dollars later, the government won't let it go!
• August 2016 – Attempted LGBT lawsuit against Bill. A prominent government-supported LGBT group attempted to sue Bill for $104 million. But they gave up after two years when they realized that Bill had no money.
• June 2018 – Government decides to prosecute Bill, issues nationwide arrest warrant. A full two years after the incident, the Canadian government (known as the “Crown”) decided to prosecute Bill for “hate speech” and issued a bizarre nationwide warrant for his arrest. When Bill heard about it, he simply turned himself in. Of course, in the U.S. and most of the world, this wouldn’t be an actual “crime” at all.
 Bill Whatcott (center) turns himself in at Calgary police station after hearing about his nationwide arrest warrant.
• December 2021. Eight-day trial, and acquittal. After various preliminary hearings, the Ontario Attorney General finally put Bill on trial, which lasted a grueling eight days. However, Bill’s lawyer was John Rosen, arguably the top criminal defense attorney in Canada. Rosen did a brilliant job. As a result, the judge (surprisingly) ruled that Bill was innocent. He determined the flyers included factual information and sincere Christian messages, not “hate” speech. The Crown was shocked at the ruling!

The Ontario government appeals the judge's “not guilty” verdict

Most Americans are unfamiliar with the “double jeopardy” concept or its use. The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibits a person being “put in jeopardy” twice for the same crime. In the U.S., a person can appeal his conviction, but the state cannot appeal a “not guilty” verdict.

Canada allows the prosecution to appeal acquittals. But it only happens rarely – in less than one percent of cases. The Crown must show there was a significant error of law in the trial - for example, if important evidence had been wrongly excluded.

However, the fact that the government would continue to pursue a case where no actual “crime” took place, and where there were overwhelming facts for acquittal, is extremely disturbing. It is “lawfare” at its very worst.

In February 2022, the Ontario Attorney General filed an appeal of Bill Whatcott’s “not guilty” verdict.

In its appeal, the Crown claimed that three significant “errors of law” took place in Bill’s 2021 trial:

1. Excluding flyers that Bill had passed out years earlier. The judge had ruled not to admit as evidence flyers that Bill passed out in Saskatchewan in 2000 and 2001, twenty years earlier. He said their “prejudicial effect” was not substantial.
   
2. Excluding an LGBT “gender” professor as an expert witness. The Crown attempted to have Professor Nick Mulé of York University testify as an expert witness on various types of “anti-gay discrimination.” Besides being a long-time LGBT activist and apparently a broad sexual deviant, Mulé teaches at the university’s School of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies where he is coordinator of the sexual studies program. In his lengthy ruling excluding Mulé, the judge recognized that Mulé’s blatantly biased approach would lead to problems as an “expert witness.” There was also a question of whether his “expertise” is relevant to this situation.
   
3. The judge misinterpreted Canada’s “hate speech” law. The Crown claimed that the judge erred in concluding that the statements in Bill’s flyer did not comprise hatred within the meaning of the “willful promotion of hate speech” according to the law. (This is difficult to prove.)

All three of those objections seem ridiculous and a waste of time for any court. But the fact that the Ottawa Attorney General is spending so much money and going to these absurd lengths over a flyer passed out ten years ago reveals how insane the Canadian legal system has become.

Judicial panel rules that appeal can move forward

In June 2023, a three-judge appellate panel held a hearing and unanimously approved the appeal for a re-trial. There would be an upcoming “evidentiary hearing” to determine whether the excluded flyers and excluded testimony would be allowed in the new trial.

News of a second trial shocked Canadian conservatives. John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms said the charges against Bill Whatcott should never have been brought in the first trial. “It’s scary to live in a society where you can get prosecuted for spreading ‘hatred’ over a flyer like that,” he said.

At some point after that, Atty. John Rosen retired. However, his firm has continued to represent Bill and has continued to receive criminal defendant funding from the Canadian government to take his case – one lone positive aspect of the Canadian legal system (at least in this situation).

The five-day “evidentiary hearing” on allowing the excluded testimony at the new trial

The October 2025 evidentiary hearing was an intense five-day ordeal – much like a court trial – to determine whether Bill’s flyers from 20 years ago and testimony from the “professor” would be included in Bill’s upcoming “hate speech” re-trial. (See our detailed day-by-day write-up of of the entire hearing.)

Though Zoom links were provided, it was hard to watch. The judge was clearly a very woke woman wearing a COVID mask (years after the COVID scare) and was visibly contemptuous of Bill’s attorneys, and even rude to them.

The attorneys and judge went back and forth at great length over Bill’s earlier flyers regarding whether they showed that he had an internal “hatred” of homosexuals. At one point the judge admitted that she was unclear about some of the medical terms used regarding LGBT behaviors and their health consequences.

From Queer Liberation Theory to BDSM, the lengthy cross-examinations of Dr. Mulé provided a tour through radical LGBT ideology via a pantheon of sexual perversions. 

However, Bill’s defense attorneys were sharp, well prepared, on their toes, and sufficiently aggressive through all of it. In a normal courtroom they would have easily prevailed.

The judge’s decision: On January 31, 2026, the judge ruled (not surprisingly) that Bill’s flyers from 2001 and 2002, as well as “expert witness” testimony from Professor Nick Mulé, would be allowed at Bill’s upcoming re-trial.

Bill Whatcott’s re-trial begins

Bill Whatcott’s re-trial began last week (on May 25) and is expected to end sometime this week. Then the judge’s decision would probably come in about a month.

The good news is that this judge, like the judge in Bill’s first trial (and unlike the woke judge in the "evidentiary hearing"), seems to be surprisingly reasonable. In fact, Bill’s lawyers had originally sought a jury trial, but after seeing the judge, they opted for a bench trial.

Although there are no Zoom links available for the re-trial, we are in close contact with two people who are in the courtroom each day.

We will have a full report when the trial ends, and another when the judge renders the decision.

 Marching right in front of Bill and his "gay zombies" in the 2016 Gay Pride parade was this group of naked men. There was another group of naked men behind Bill's group. But no Canadian authorities even objected to them, much less took any steps to prosecute them.

Final thoughts

We suspect that we know a big reason why the government is pushing so hard to convict Bill (which could even include jail time). What he did is an existential threat to Canada’s jack-booted hold being imposed on free speech regarding this hot-button issue. If Bill gets away with publicly telling the medical and religious truths about the consequences of LGBT behavior, anyone else in Canada could also do it. And that’s dangerous for a “progressive” government.

But it’s especially troubling that virtually no Canadian conservative media (including the self-ballyhooed Rebel News) are covering this inflammatory case. (There was one article in 2016 by LifeSiteNews and a MassResistance alert regarding it posted by Action4Canada. Bill actually got more coverage in Canada's leftist media.) Nor is the U.S. conservative media interested in this. Only MassResistance is reporting on it. (In Bill’s first trial, our reporting was even cited by the judge and opposing counsel.)

We will remain on the frontlines!

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Tell Torrance City Council: NO RED LIGHT CAMERAS!

Torrance residents:

PLEASE ATTEND the Torrance Traffic Commission meeting TONIGHT!

June 1, 2026 (TONIGHT!)

Time: 7 pm PST

Location:  West Annex Commission Room (3031 Torrance Blvd.)

The specific agenda item is Item 7a.

Thank you!

We need to stop this Red Light Camera/Automated Ticketing madness.

PLEASE attend the Torrance Traffic Commission Meeting tonight (June 1, 2026), and speak out against the proposal of automated traffic ticketing scams.

NO RED LIGHT CAMERAS!

NO SPEED CAMERAS!

The police need to do the job, even if that means the city has to reroute police patrols to monitor high-impact intersections.

The surveillance state is encroaching on us, even into the city of Torrance.

I have heard complaints from the city council and residents about traffic scofflaws running through red lights.

The answer is not to violate our rights.

There are a host of problems with this proposal.

Here's a comprehensive list of reasons why automated ticketing cameras should be banned in Torrance:

1. Studies and stats show an increase in accidents after camera systems are deployed. Independent, DOT, and University Studies:

    ▪ Florida 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fyDOZtYwYo || http://warondriving.com/post/138704116207/florida-red-light-cameras-american-traffic-solutions-acc

    ▪ Arizona

    ⁃ https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2016/02/03/arizona-house-bill-would-prohibit-red-light-speed-cameras/

    ⁃ Peoria 400% INCREASE in accidents http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2887.asp

    ⁃ Tucson http://thenewspaper.com/news/48/4824.asp

    ▪ Texas

    - Round Rock 2014 http://legacy.kvue.com/story/news/investigations/defenders/2014/07/14/despite-cameras-more-injured-at-round-rock-intersections/12641313/

    ▪ Dozens of other studies from Universities and DOT’s dating back 20 years show an increase in collisions http://www.campaignforliberty.org/state-blogs/arizona/red-light-camera-studies-show-increase-in-accidents

2. Cities and towns are constantly being caught shortening Yellow Times to increase profits:

    ▪ Major scandal across entire state of Florida; Millions of dollars in tickets to innocent drivers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdD5fvYHtKQ

    ▪ Paradise Valley caught with dangerously short yellows, Refunds issued ($200K) http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/06/arizona-group-forces-city-to-refund-tickets-over-short-yellow/

    ▪ AAA catches short yellow light times all over New York http://nypost.com/2012/10/08/citys-gotcha-traffic-cameras-use-short-yellow-lights-to-increase-ticket-revenue-study/

    ▪ Chicago’s notoriously dangerous, short yellow light times (Redflex) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-yellow-light-timing-met-20141223-story.html

    ▪ A compilation of data from six California cities shows red light violations go down when the yellow signal is increased http://thenewspaper.com/news/47/4716.asp

    ▪ Virginia Department of Transportation funded report that confirms the link between short yellow times and red light running http://thenewspaper.com/news/47/4707.asp

3. Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) voted out and canceled contracts, and declared illegal by courts

    ▪ 2015

    ⁃ Tucson, AZ Prop 201 http://www.epictimes.com/shawndow/2015/11/tucson-az-red-light-camera-ban-passes-prop-201/

    ⁃ Arlington, Texas Voters Dump Cameras And Pro-Camera Mayor http://thenewspaper.com/news/46/4698.asp

    ⁃ Colorado Legislature Votes To Ban Traffic Cameras http://thenewspaper.com/news/46/4696.asp

    ⁃ Two more CA cities dump red light cameras (More than 60 total statewide) http://thenewspaper.com/news/46/4642.asp

    ⁃ Florida town sues Red Light Camera vendor http://thenewspaper.com/news/46/4686.asp

    ⁃ Red Light Cameras out in Conroe, TX http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/red-light-cameras-out-in-conroe/article_deecc0fa-28f5-5a3b-8eaa-a4847f559564.html

    ▪ 2014

    ⁃ Sierra Vista, AZ http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/27347516/sierra-vista-traffic-camera-enforcement-comes-to-a-stop

    ⁃ South Dakota, statewide ban http://thenewspaper.com/news/43/4372.asp

    ⁃ Missouri Courts repeatedly shut down Redflex and ATS ticket camera schemes http://thenewspaper.com/news/45/4597.asp || REFUNDS http://thenewspaper.com/news/46/4614.asp

    ▪ 16 States have Red Light Camera/Photo Radar Bans http://thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp

    ▪ Cameras crushed at ballot box in 90% of elections across the US http://thenewspaper.com/news/36/3655.asp

4. Redflex executives, lobbyists plead guilty to bribery, fraud and under ongoing Federal investigation; Ties directly to Arizona

    ▪ Redflex CEO Karen Finley of Arizona pleads guilty to bribery, convicted http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-red-light-bribe-plea-ohio-20150619-story.html

    ▪ Rahm Emanuel’s Transportation Manager, John Bills convicted of bribery and mail fraud http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Red-Light-Camera-Trial-Ex-Chicago-Official-John-Bills-Redflex-Verdict-366574951.html

    ▪ Lobbyist John Raphael is the latest on the Red Light Camera “Perp List” http://www.epictimes.com/shawndow/2015/10/red-light-camera-bribery-perp-list/

    ▪ Did Karen Finley and Redflex bribe Arizona Officials? http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/did-karen-finley-and-redflex-bribe-arizona-officials-7434616

5. Other scandals, including ATS and Redflex

    ▪ ATS under Federal Investigation in Texas, over sloppy and potentially criminal behavior in its contractual dealings with Tyler County http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-News+Local/230803/a-year-later-questions-still-loom-over-smith-county-speed-camera-deal

    ▪ American Traffic Solutions Deception - VP Grilled on Air in Seattle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viKQQIShquY

    ▪ Former Federal Agent Exposes American Traffic Solutions and City of Scottsdale Fraud and Corruption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl2LR9gi_dg

    ▪ American Traffic Solutions Automatically Charging Credit Cards For Camera Tickets https://youtu.be/-OEIH1HERHc

    ▪ American Traffic Solutions Lied About Ticket Money Going to Trauma Centers https://youtu.be/jv3XugP3iGw

    ▪ Louisiana: Redflex Lobbyists paid a cut of each camera ticket http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/02/claims_in_red-light_camera_lit.html

6. Constitutional Violations and other legal problems for camera systems:

Photo Ticketing has been ruled or deemed Unconstitutional by a federal court, state court, or county prosecutor’s office where that system was operating:

    ▪ Arizona (County Attorney’s Office) - http://thenewspaper.com/news/26/2698.asp

    ▪ Florida (U.S. District Court of Appeals) - http://www.local10.com/news/red-light-camera-lawsuit-filed-on-behalf-of-fla-drivers

    ▪ Missouri (Multiple Courts) - http://thenewspaper.com/news/42/4288.asp

    ▪ Minnesota (State of MN Supreme Court) - http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp

    ▪ Ohio (8th District Court of Appeals) - from Cleveland.com

    ▪ St. Louis, MO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFZ5KdNoGt4

Constitutional Violations

    ▪ 4th Amendment - 4th Amendment violation occurs when every single license plate of the registered vehicle owner of every single vehicle passing by the cameras is scanned by ALPR technology and kept in a database that is owned by Redflex Traffic Systems. This is an illegal search of extremely sensitive information, which includes the registered owner’s physical address and Social Security Number. Information about their payment history on anything ranging from vehicle insurance to court fines and child support is also data-mined by the cameras. That data is then run through a law enforcement database called NLETS, to look for matches to their “Person of Interest” program. This info is then also shared with the municipality in which it was obtained. A police officer would have to prove “probable cause” to conduct this kind of search, yet every single vehicle owner, regardless of the speed or position of their car in an intersection during the green, yellow or red phase has this illegal search conducted by the cameras.

    ▪ 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments - Violations of these 3 amendments occur every time a photo ticket is issued. When the contracts between the camera vendor and the cities/towns are signed, the vendor is given authority to ask the registered owners of vehicles cited for violations to forfeit their Constitutional rights. Then, if a vehicle owner chooses to argue the matter before a judge, the only person available for them to cross examine is an employee of that private company (camera vendor). Arguments about the accuracy of the equipment used to detect the violation are not admissible. It’s actually been made impossible to argue photo tickets on Constitutional grounds in Arizona because the courts have been allowed to lower the burden of proof required to convict down to a “preponderance of the evidence.” This, in layman’s terms, amounts to a “hunch” that the vehicle owner may be guilty. Photo ticketing apologists hope that an innocent vehicle owner doesn’t put up a stink when someone else was driving a vehicle registered to them and just pays the fine. The owner often feels compelled by the language of the citation to simply pay up to avoid having their license suspended or ultimately getting their vehicle seized, based on an alleged violation that did not involve them at all. How does the way these citations are issued and handled by the courts constitute any sort of due process or right to a trial and right to face one’s accuser? Frankly, it doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination.

    ▪ 14th Amendment - How can laws, yes even civil and criminal traffic codes, be equally enforced when photo tickets have an immediately higher fine amount than police officer-issued tickets? How is equal protection present when politicians, judges, commercially registered vehicle owners, married people, and those who register their car to a private mailbox are all exempted from photo tickets? Tonner Vs. Paradise Valley (1994), which is currently the highest a photo ticket case has ever gone in Arizona courts, upheld that personal service is required for traffic tickets to be valid. Photo tickets are always sent by regular mail and can later be served in person, but not if the name on the vehicle registration doesn’t match the driver's assumed gender. That determination is made by examining a still frame image captured from the streaming video recorded by the cameras. If the registered vehicle owner’s spouse is driving, the ticket is invalid. Rule 4i in Arizona Civil Procedure allows any ticket to be dismissed by the municipality, whether it’s because of registered owner’s status as a politician, judge or employee of the camera company. Yes, it’s also applied to those who ignore their tickets for 120 days after a complaint is filed with the court for non-responsiveness to the mailed citation. Those who choose to fight their tickets also face higher fines imposed by some courts under the guise of “administrative fees.”

Tenth Amendment Center: Prelude to Independence

 

PRELUDE TO INDEPENDENCE Thomas Jefferson Declares British Acts Null and Void  (article | podcast)

“A nullity” and “we declare these acts void“ This was the bold conclusion about British Acts that Thomas Jefferson came to in his powerful pamphlet A Summary View of the Rights of British America.  Written nearly two years before the Declaration of Independence, the pamphlet foreshadowed ideas Jefferson would later develop further. He asserted several fundamental principles that underpin the American constitutional system, including the sovereignty of states within a broader union, and the view that usurpations of power are null and void.  Taxation and interference with the colonial economies were significant factors in the American Revolution, but it was fundamentally a constitutional crisis. The American colonists believed the British king and Parliament were violating their rights as Englishmen and the limits of power under the unwritten British constitution.  Jefferson wrote the pamphlet hoping to influence the Virginia delegation to the First Continental Congress, which met from September 5 to October 26, 1774, to take an aggressive stand against British actions. In it, he outlined colonial grievances, naming specific acts and actions taken by the British government, ultimately declaring them a “nullity” and “void.” In many ways, A Summary View was a precursor to the Declaration of Independence. Many of the “unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations” Jefferson outlined reappear in the Declaration. Jefferson laid out his argument in a very logical fashion, starting with the fact that the American colonists were “free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men.” He pointed out that the original settlers of North America set up societies “under such laws and regulations as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happiness.” Jefferson was arguing that under the British Constitution, the colonists effectively had the right to local, self-government. He went on to concede that “Parliament was pleased to lend them assistance against an enemy (France)” because the colonies had “become valuable to Great Britain for her commercial purposes,” but Jefferson insisted that “these states never supposed, that by calling in her aid, they thereby submitted themselves to her sovereignty.” Jefferson then laid out the colonial understanding of their relationship with the mother country. “That settlements having been thus effected in the wilds of America, the emigrants thought proper to adopt that system of laws under which they had hitherto lived in the mother country, and to continue their union with her by submitting themselves to the same common sovereign, who was thereby made the central link connecting the several parts of the empire.” [Emphasis added.] He went on to insist that the colonies were “erected into distinct and independent governments.” As such, they retained most powers, while the mother country was limited to exercising only a few specific functions. This idea was carried over to the U.S. constitutional system with the states maintaining sovereignty with a general government delegated a few specific powers. Having established the foundational principle that the colonies were essentially sovereign states attached to the British Empire only through the crown, Jefferson outlined some of the most prominent encroachments and usurpations that Parliament and the Crown had committed. Many of the colonial grievances were economic. This stemmed from the fundamental economic system embraced by the British Empire – mercantilism, a system that used state power in an attempt to accumulate wealth for the nation and its favored businesses. Because of its mercantilist policies, the British government began to view its colonies as little more than a source of natural resources and tax revenue. NULLIFY THEM: Jefferson’s Rightful Remedy from the American Revolution Article Here: 👉  https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2024/09/06/prelude-to-independence-thomas-jefferson-declares-british-acts-null-and-void/ Podcast Here: 👉  https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2024/09/nullify-them-jeffersons-rightful-remedy-from-the-american-revolution/ Jefferson immediately attacked this notion, insisting “the exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right” was “the object of unjust encroachment. [Emphasis added] He also pointed out “no law of their own” abridged or took away that right. He referenced a treaty between the Commonwealth government of England under the authority of the English Parliament and Virginia stipulating that the colony would enjoy “free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all places and with all nations, according to the laws of that commonwealth.”  But “upon the restoration of his majesty King Charles the Second, their rights of free commerce fell once more a victim to arbitrary power.” Jefferson referenced several acts, including the Destruction of Trees Act of 1663 that regulated the cutting down of trees. The act was intended to protect British shipbuilding resources. He also implicated the Trade Act of 1672 and the Navigation Act of 1673, part of a broader bundle of laws generally referred to as the Navigation Acts. Imposed between 1651 and 1696, these laws restricted colonial trade by generally requiring that goods imported to or exported from the colonies must be transported on British ships. Jefferson said that under these acts, “the trade of the colonies was laid under such restrictions, as shew what hopes they might form from the justice of a British parliament, were its uncontrolled power admitted over these states.” In other words, the actions of the Parliament were not only encroachments, but they were also prophetic. They were just a taste of how the British government would treat the colonies if they were ever allowed to build on the precedents of internal and local lawmaking. “History has informed us that bodies of men, as well as individuals, are susceptible of the spirit of tyranny. A view of these acts of parliament for regulation, as it has been affectedly called, of the American trade, if all other evidence were removed out of the case, would undeniably evince the truth of this observation.” Jefferson summarized the impact of these mercantilist regulations, noting that Parliament had indulged itself “in every exorbitance which their avarice could dictate, or our necessities extort.”  As a result, it “raised their commodities, called for in America, to the double and treble of what they sold for before such exclusive privileges were given them, and of what better commodities of the same kind would cost us elsewhere, and at the same time give us much less for what we carry thither than might be had at more convenient ports.” Jefferson highlighted several other acts, including the Hat Act of 1732, under which “an American subject is forbidden to make a hat for himself of the fur which he has taken perhaps on his own soil.” He called this “an instance of despotism to which no parallel can be produced in the most arbitrary ages of British history.” He also included the Iron Act of 1750, prohibiting the production of iron in the colonies. Under this law, Jefferson lamented the fact that “besides commission and insurance, we are to pay freight for it to Great Britain, and freight for it back again, for the purpose of supporting not men, but machines, in the island of Great Britain.”  Jefferson then boldly pronounced all of these acts to be a “nullity” and “void.” “We do not point out to his majesty the injustice of these acts, with intent to rest on that principle the cause of their nullity; but to shew that experience confirms the propriety of those political principles which exempt us from the jurisdiction of the British parliament. The true ground on which we declare these acts void is, that the British parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.” [Emphasis added] Jefferson was pointing out that it wasn’t so much the negative impact of these acts that made them problematic. He was asserting a more fundamental principle. Whether “good” or “bad,” these acts were null and void simply because they crossed a line in the sand and usurped power that rightly belonged to the people of the colonies. Jefferson went on to point out that “these exercises of usurped power” were not confined to the economic acts already listed but, “they have also intermeddled with the regulation of the internal affairs of the colonies.” He also pointed out some of the better-known acts of Parliament, including the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, and the Declaratory Act, under which Parliament asserted the right to legislate for the colonies in “all cases whatsoever.” Jefferson took particular umbrage to the New York Restraining Act, which dissolved the New York assembly, noting that “One free and independent legislature hereby takes upon itself to suspend the powers of another, free and independent as itself; thus exhibiting a phoenomenon unknown in nature, the creator and creature of its own power.” He went on to highlight the Coercive Acts and what was functionally a military occupation of Boston.  Having provided a detailed list of grievances, Jefferson made a demand. “That these are the acts of power, assumed by a body of men, foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws, against which we do, on behalf of the inhabitants of British America, enter this our solemn and determined protest; and we do earnestly entreat his majesty, as yet the only mediatory power between the several states of the British empire, to recommend to his parliament of Great Britain the total revocation of these acts, which, however nugatory they be, may yet prove the cause of further discontents and jealousies among us.” While parliament’s unconstitutional – null and void – acts drew the lion’s share of Jefferson’s ire, he also took on the king’s “deviations from the line of duty.” Jefferson saw the king going outside long-standing tradition and custom in his “wanton” exercise of power. Even where the king legitimately had authority to act under the system, Jefferson argued that he was applying it to the colonies in ways that people were never accustomed to.  “Your majesty, or your governors, have carried this power beyond every limit known, or provided for, by the laws.” Jefferson asserted that “this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions.” Jefferson enumerated several actions by the Crown: Dissolving colonial legislatures and refusing to call them into session. Making civil government subject to the military Sending “large bodies of armed forces” to the colonies Asserting the “fictitious principle” that “all lands belong originally to the king.” Refusing to allow counties in Virginia to split without meeting certain requirements Jefferson also pointed to the King rejecting “laws of the most salutary tendency.” He pointed out that “the abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies.”  The colonies had attempted to “exclude all further importations from Africa,” but the King effectively vetoed those policies, “Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice.” JOIN TAC, SUPPORT LIBERTY! Let’s keep building the foundation! For as little as $2/month, help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government likes it, or not. (they don’t!) details and join here Jefferson concluded his list of grievances against the Crown with an emphatic smackdown of royal authority, boldly asserting that the colonists were laying their grievances before his majesty “with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” Jefferson also foreshadowed the American belief that government was the agent of the people – not its servant, writing, “Kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people.” Jefferson concluded A Summary View by asserting that it wasn’t the colonies’ desire to separate from the mother country, but he insisted, “We are willing, on our part, to sacrifice every thing which reason can ask to the restoration of that tranquillity for which all must wish.” A Summary View was a powerful condemnation of Britain’s usurpation of power and its violation of the colonists’ rights. It was also an early articulation of the foundational principles that would come to undergird the American constitutional system with the people of the several states sovereign over government. 📖 Read it in your browser → HERE 🎙️ Watch or listen to the podcast → HERE As we commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we’re ramping up our efforts to teach more and more people what the goverrnment-run “education” system never teaches. We’ll be commemorating our own anniversary next month as well: 20 years of teaching people the true principles behind the American Revolution and the Constitution. And we’re gearing up for much more. But we can’t do it alone. Your membership support is crucial to keep these timeless lessons alive. JOIN US TODAY! Prefer to make a one-time donation? Pitch in here: https://donate.stripe.com/fZecNzggUaDG3LydR0 You can also mail a check to: Tenth Amendment Center 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250 PMB 705 Irvine, CA 92604 Brick-by-brick. Person-by-person. Building a strong foundation for liberty – whether the government happens to like it, or not. (they definitely do not) Thank you so much for reading - and your support! Concordia res parvae crescunt (small things grow great by concord) Michael Boldin, TAC