To my knowledge, the fraud perpetuated against the people concerning automobiles (will have to find the exact definition) and motor vehicles (those motorized conveyances under commercial use) was based on Title 49, Interstate Transportation laws, which do not in fact apply to any sovereign citizen. People are used to thinking of themselves as "persons" when they are not.
See if you are able to read the below I have copied from an affidavit I am filing against my county. As I come across more information, I will send it to you. The fact is that state governments actually do not have any jurisdiction over the sovereign and may only make laws protecting rights secured by the Constitution. Anyway, as one comes to understand definitions of terms used in statutes, the task becomes easy to see how we have been defrauded so many years.
4. That the united States of America is composed of States which are sovereign to the United States Government, and States composed of the People who are sovereign to the many States and guaranteed a Republic Form of government as opposed to a Democratic Form of government in which the majority may NOT vote away the rights of the individual, that the unalienable, self-evident rights of the individual remain supreme, that the individual sovereign, the citizen, is NOT the same as “person” to which man-made law may be applied .
a. SOVEREIGN OR CITIZEN BUT NOT A “PERSON”
1. Bouvier’s 14th Edition Law Dictionary; “It is a maxim consecrated in Public Law as well as common sense ... there is no authority above a sovereign to which an appeal can be made.”
2. The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition: “1. Self- governing, independent ...; 2. Having supreme rank or power;’
3. Webster Dictionary (1913): “1. Supreme or highest in power; superior to all others; 2. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction;”
4. Chisolm v Georgia, 2 Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration, 3 Dall 54, McCullogh v Maryland, 4 Wheat 316: These are a few of the cases the Supreme Court recognized that “sovereignty” remains with the “people” and resides with the “people” and is best presented by the decision in the Dredd Scott Case, 60 US 393 (1856) in which the Chief Justice who delivered the opinion of the court stated:
“The words people of the United States and citizen are synonymous terms and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our Republican institutes, form the sovereignty and hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people and a constituent member of the Sovereignty.”
5. Hauenstein v Lynharm, 100 US 483 (1879): This case stated without reservation that:
“There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States; …”
6. Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins, 188 US 356 (1886): In this case, Sheriff Hopkins had deprived Yick Wo and Woo Lee of their personal liberty. Then, on the issue of “sovereignty”, the court stated in its decision:
“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.”
b. Whether or not a “sovereign” can be named and made subject to a statue or law under the term “person” is of primary consideration since under color of law (unconstitutional regardless of the target populace) statutes and laws are made to affect “persons”, not “citizen” or “sovereign” with the definition most commonly given as being construed to mean an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. This definition of “person” and all others found, including in law/statutes governing property tax in the State of Missouri, does not include “sovereign” or “private citizen” or “citizen of the United States of America”.
1. It is a well-founded principle of law that a statute must state exactly what it means and mean exactly what it states. It is also well founded that that any term used is taken as used in its ordinary sense, as it is the citizen, sovereign, who reads, interprets, and allows a law to be made. Any special, technical term must be clearly defined as to it technicality.
2. Is it permissible to use “person” when the intent is to apply a statute/law to a citizen of the United States of America, the sovereign? This has come up many times in the past:
a. United States v Cooper Corp., 318 US 600 (1941) which used as part of its the previous case of United States v. Fox, 94 USS 315, in which it was ruled: “Since in common usage, the term “person” does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”
b. Then in United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258 (1947) and in Wilson v Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 US 653 (1979) the Cooper and Fox decisions finding that the term “person” cannot and does not include the “sovereign” were upheld.
c. In Will v Michigan State Police, 105 L. Ed. 2nd 45 (1988), the issue of using the word “person” in statutes/laws again came up, this time in a deprivation of rights case based on 42 USC, Section 1983. The question was whether the word “person” in the USC section could mean the State of Michigan. The original case was dismissed by the trial court, which stated that the term “person” did not include the sovereign State of Michigan.
The Michigan Appellate Court upheld the trial court, and the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court. Will then filed a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court, and the court again made it perfectly clear both that the term “person” does not include the sovereign and that in order for the sovereign to be bound by the statute, the sovereign must be “specifically” named.
3. These are the cases that forced Congress to remove the term “sovereign” We the People from under the definition of “person”. The Supreme Court cases above have never been overturned as they rest on the constitutionality of the decisions made. It is well founded that the decisions made by the US Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts unless they are overturned. This has not happened to date and, thus, the decisions stand that “sovereign” must be specifically named for any law/statute to apply to the citizens of the United States of America, that “person” does not mean the “sovereign” citizen.
c. In US v Bishop, 412 US 346 (1973), it is defined as to what constitutes criminal element and willful intent. If one relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court, one has defense for willfulness. The decisions above made themselves quite clear, that We the People, the sovereign, is not the “person” used in state statutes or any other source for law and the Affiant relies on the Constitution and the US Supreme Court in this matter and fully expects any official of any level of government to do the same without proof the Supreme Court’s decisions were made in error, that the people are proved to not be sovereign to government.
1. This is most important for officials to understand. Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 1, section 1.020, deals with the definitions to be used in the construction of statutes/ordinances. These definitions apply to ALL Missouri lawmaking.
2. This section is in full compliance with the above Supreme Court rulings when it defines PERSON as:
“(11) The word “person” may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, and to partnerships and other unincorporated associations.”
3. This definition that must be used in all statutes/ordinances does NOT include, extend, or applied to ‘sovereign’ or ‘citizen’. That the exact meanings of words must be adhered to is stated clearly in many sources and rulings but was simply stated by the Supreme Court by:
a. “The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar.” United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95;
b. “Doubt relative to statute construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government.” Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2nd 863; Lexington Mill & E. Co., 232 US 399, pp. 409. (1914) (Emphasis added)
c. This fact only underscores our duty to refrain from reading a phrase into the statute when Congress has left it out. " '[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another ..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.' " Russello v United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983) (citation omitted). Keene Corp. v United States, 508 US 124 L Ed 2d 118, 113 S Ct. 1993. (emphasis added)
d. "Congress cannot by any definition (of income in this case) it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully expressed." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (Emphasis added)
e. “Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness or the desirability of symmetry in statutes.” Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143
f. "In construing federal revenue statute, Supreme Court gives no weight to Treasury regulation which attempts to add to statute something which is not there." United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351 (1957), 1 L. Ed. 2d 1394, 77 S. Ct. 1138 (1957)
g. Clearly, if the Supreme Court and Congress does not have the authority to read into statutes what is not there, nor to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness, or the desirability of symmetry in statutes, neither do any executive or judicial officials since all are equally bound by the Constitution of the United States of America. Here is some more information for you. Read it carefully as one never knows when one will run across a ruling to his benefit. ed
MORE RULINGS ON PROPERTY PRIVACY AND ALL
If all that is charged in this indictment be proved, no offense is shown to have been committed under the laws of any free people. Under the power to regulate, the state cannot deprive the citizen of the lawful use of his property, if it does not injuriously affect or endanger others. Lake View v. Cemetery Co., 70 Ill. 191. AND...
Nor can it, in the exercise of the police power, enact laws that are unnecessary, and that will be oppressive to the citizen. Railway Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Ill. 37-40; Tenement-House Cigar Cases, 98 N. Y. 98; People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377; Intoxicating Liquor Cases, 25 Kan. 765, ( opinion of Judge BREWER;) Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 135; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 146, (per Bronson, J.;) Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. 225, (per HOSMER, J.)"
..."A legislative enactment cannot make that a nuisance which is not such in fact. To make such a determination is a judicial function. Rights of property cannot be so arbitrarily destroyed or injured. Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 504, 505; Hutton v. City of Comden,, 39 N. J. Law, 122, 129, 130; Cooley, Const. Lim. (5th Ed.) 110, and notes, 446; Lowry v. Rainwater, 70 Mo. 152; Jeck v. Anderson, 57 Cal. 251. AND...
Such a legislative determination would also be void, because, where the fact of injury to public health or morals did not exist, as here, it would be a violation of the absolute right of the citizen to follow such pursuit as he sees fit, provided it be not in fact 'injurious to the community.' People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 386, 2 N. E. Rep. 29, and cases cited. Such legislation is unconstitutional. Quintini v. City of Bar St. Louis, 1 South. Rep. 625, 628."
"The police power cannot go beyond the limit of what is necessary and reasonable for guarding against the evil which injures or threatens the public welfare in the given case, and the legislature, under the guise of that power, cannot strike down innocent occupations and destroy private property, the destruction of which is not reasonably necessary to accomplish the needed reform; and this, too, although the legislature is the judge in each case of the extent to which the evil is to be regulated or prohibited. Where the occupation is in itself immoral, there can be no question as to the right of the legislature. 2 Kent, Comm. 340. Nor is it denied that every one holds his property subject to the proper exercise of the police power. Dill. Mun. Corp. 136; Tied. Lim. Police Power, 122, 122a; Com. v. Tewksbury, 11 Metc. 55. AND...
Nor that the legislature can destroy vested rights in the proper exercise of this power. Coates v. Mayor of New York, 7 Cow. 585.
But the unqualified statement that when the legislature has exercised its right of judging, by the enactment of a prohibition, all other departments of the government are bound by the decision, which no court has a right to review, (Bish. St. Cr. 995,) cannot be true. The legislative power cannot authorize manifest injustice by positive enactment, or take away security for personal liberty or private property, for the protection whereof government was established. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386.
The state cannot deprive the citizen of the lawful use of his property if it does not injuriously effect others. Lake View v. Cemetery Co., 70 Ill. 191.
The state cannot enact laws, not necessary to the preservation of the health and safety of the community, that will be oppressive and burdensome to the citizen. Railway Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Ill. 37.
The constitutional guaranty of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is not limited by the temporary caprice of a present majority, and can be limited only by the absolute necessities of the public. Intoxicating Liquor Cases, (BREWER, J.,) 25 Kan. 765; Tenement-House Cigar Case, 98 N. Y. 98; Cooley, Const. Lim. (5th Ed.) 110, 445, 446.
No proposition is more firmly established than that the citizen has the right to adopt and follow such lawful and industrial pursuit, not injurious to the community, as he may see fit. People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377, 386, 2 N. E. Rep. 29.
"It has been well said that the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." Surpeme Court Justice Fieds, Butcher’s Union company v. Crescent Coty Company, 1883
"Doubt relative to statutory construciton should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government." Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2c, 863
"The Legal right of an individual to decrease or altogether avoid his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted." Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465
To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke v. Henderson, 15, N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec 677
The privileges and imunities of citizens of the United States, protected by the IV Amendment, are those arising out of the nature and essential character of the federal government, and granted or secured by the Constitution; and due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. Duncan v. Missouri, 152, U.S. 382, 14 Sup. Ct. 570, 38 L. Ed. 485.
It implies conformity with the natural inherent principles of justice and forbids the taking of one’s property without compensation, and requirees that no one shall be condemned in person or property without opportunity to be heard. Holden v Hard, 169, U.S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L Ed. 780.
If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with immunity." Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama.
Title 5, Section 556(d) When jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is on the government. Only Article III Justice Courts of Law apply to declared Sovereign Citizens of the 50 States (properly known as Republics)
"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abroggate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., 436 at 491
"People can clerarly see that taking money from a person by force is a crime when done by individuals, but they may fail to recognize the criminality of the same act when done by government."
"One trades one’s property, his own labor, for property - tangible or intangible - that property is an extention of one’s right to trade property equally for property and is immune to taking of the property by another. Maxims in Law, Chapter 2
"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180
"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635
"Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness or the desirability of symmetry in statutes." Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue., 479 F2d 1143
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of Grammar.
Doubt relative to statutory construction are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Maybe Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863
"Property does not have rights. People have rights ... In fact, a fundamental interdependence ixists between the personal right to liberty, and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized." 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972)
"Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886)", (referring to a decision by the English jurist, Lord Camden): "The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach further than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctityu of a man’s home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, where that right has never been fordeited by his conviction of some public offense..."
"...that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole." Armstrong v. United States, 346 U.S. 40, 49 (1060)
DUE PROCESS It is said that these constitutional provisions do not mean the general body of the law as it was at the time the Constitution took effect; but they refer to ceratin fundamental rights which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which a person is condemned to the loss of property, etc., then the deprivation has not been by due process of law, and it has been held that the state cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law through a constitutional convention anymore than it can through an act of legislature. Brown v. Levese Com’rs, 50 MIS 479
STATES MUST OBEY CONSTITUTION The United States Supreme court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable in every State criminal action, "...Because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." William Malloy v. Patrick J. Jogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, argued Mar 5, 1964, decided June 15, 1964.
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasure; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes." Helvering v. Gregory, Federal Reporter, 2nd sseries, Vol. 69, Page 810 (1934)
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The Corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual’s rights to live and own property are natrual rights for the enjoyment of which an EXCISE cannot be imposed. Redford v. Fisher, U.S. 292, Page 813
The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the furits of his own industry." 48 Am Jur 2d, section 2, page 80.
Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surdace, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance." U.S. Supreme court, US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187
Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 Us.S. 746 (1884).
"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document [the Constitution of the United States of America], is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any mannger not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment."
AND
"And, it has been well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable."
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489
U.S. Supreme Court HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)201 U.S. 43
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
In Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co. , 30 S. L. ed. 118, 6 Sup.Ct.Rep. 1132, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said:
'The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.'
See also Pembina Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsylvania, , 31 L. ed. 650, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 24, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 737; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Mackey, , 32 L. ed. 107, 8 Sup.Ct.Rep. 1161; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith, , 32 L. ed. 585, 9 Sup.Ct.Rep. 207; Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. Gibbes, , 35 L. ed. 1051, 12 Sup.Ct.Rep. 255; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, , 37 L. ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, , 41 S. L. ed. 666, 667, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255, [201 U.S. 43, 85] and cases cited; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, , 41 L. ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581.
Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. -- Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]