BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY – Part 1
Right to Travel v. Privilege
By: Barbara Ann (Norris) Martin – De Jure Citizen
The City of Meadows v. Barbara Ann Martin, Cause # 103083
"And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32, King James Bible
This article is not about bigotry or hatred. It is about the history and the heritage of the Posterity of the founders of our Nation, beginning with the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (1776).
De Jure Citizens – Members of the Posterity
The Right to travel is one of the God given Unalienable/Inalienable Rights, secured under the "Blessings of Liberty" clause in the Preamble of the United States Constitution (1787) to "We the People" (De Jure Citizens) and their Posterity, who were the same "one People" of the Declaration of Independence (1776). De Jure Citizens travel by Right and not by privilege granted by the State through a license, and as such cannot be taxed or regulated.
Declaration of Independence (1776)
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…."
Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America (1787)
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and Establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states the "One People" dissolved the "political bands" which connected them to another (England). These "One People" did not dissolve their family (blood) bands, therefore, if their families, back in Europe, came to these united States of America, they could also become Sovereign De Jure State Citizens, upon naturalization, making them co-heirs with the "Posterity".
Letter written by Senator Wayne Stump
In a letter written by Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump, Senator Stump states "…it would appear that the emerging principles are so fundamental to our form of government, and of such magnitude as to encompass every man, woman and child in our united Republics, that one wonders how they could ever have become obscured.
The principles to which I refer are those heralded in the Preamble of the Constitution, which begins: ‘We, the People…’ and continues ‘…secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity.’ Senator Stump goes on to say "These words, without question, were used to represent the interests of the signers of the Constitutional contract. That is to say, ‘The Founding Fathers and their Posterity.’"
(Whereas, the Founding Fathers were "delegates" deriving their authority from the Sovereign People who won our freedom and Sovereignty from England, the "Posterity" had to be the Posterity of the Sovereign People)
Senator Stump goes on to say, "When one reflects on this meaning of "We the People" it would seem to mean that the Preamble People were a class of people who, with the aid of God, originally secured their Liberty with the protections they constructed in the Organic Constitution and the first ten Amendments thereto. This, being the case, tends to bring the import of the 14th Amendment into focus. The 13th and 14th Amendments, as we have been taught, were fashioned to give freedom to slaves and to secure for them privileges of citizenship.
Our Educators, however, neglected to explain that the 14th Amendment creation was that of a new ‘class’ of citizenship. It becomes clear when one studies the wording of the Organic Constitution, that the original people cited in the ‘Preamble’ could not lose the ‘Blessings’ secured thereby as long as the Constitution was intact, because our Constitution is perpetual."
The Articles of Confederation (1777) state, "…and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States…"
_____________________ * _____________________
Whereas the founding documents of the United States of America and of this State, were "ordained and established" (created), via their "delegates", by Sovereign (De Jure) Citizens, (the Sovereign body Politic) for themselves and their Posterity, and, the "Union" of the united States of America is "perpetual", the Federal Government or this State, cannot condition Unalienable/Inalienable Rights or place a fee or a tax on such Rights as long as the United States of America and the States are bound by the United States Constitution (1787), which is the "Supreme Law of the Land." Article 6 [2] (Maxim of Law) The created is never greater than the Creator. Therefore, the created (government-congress-legislature) can not pass statutes which would infringe on the Unalienable/Inalienable Rights of the Creator (Sovereign - De Jure Citizens - Posterity).
What sayeth the Courts
According to the Supreme Court of the United States, "The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by ‘the people of the United States.’ " Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 at 324 (U.S.Va. 1816)
"Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 6 S.Ct. 1064 at 1071, 118 U.S. 356 at 370 (U.S.Cal. 1886); "The judgment of the court was that the words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ meant the same thing … they are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people’." Also, "The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves … the people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests." Barron v. City of Baltimore, (Md.1833), 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet.243, 8 L.Ed.672; See: Civil Rights Cases, 3 S.Ct. 18 at 36, 109 U.S. 8 at 31 (U.S.Tenn.1883); See, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 at 167, 21 Wall. 162 at 167 (U.S.Mo.1874); Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 99 S.Ct. 2529 at 2537, 442 U.S. 653 at 667 (U.S.Iowa 1979); and U. S. v. Cooper Corporation et al., 61 S.Ct. 742 at 743, 312 U.S. 600 at 604 (U.S.N.Y.1941)
The United States Supreme Court has stated in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602 at 1636, 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (U.S.Ariz.1966) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."; "The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’…. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early at the Magna Carta. Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 … shows how deeply ingrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage… Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values… ‘Our nation,’ wrote Chafee, ‘has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases’." Kent v. Dulles, 78 S.Ct. 1113 at 1118, 357 U.S. 116 at 125 and 126 (U.S.Dist.Col.1958)
In U.S. v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 at 293 (U.S. Ariz.1920), "In all the states, from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective states, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the states to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C.C.371, 380 at 381, Fed.Cas.No. 3,230; Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall 36 at 76, 21 L.Ed. 394." This being true, then the Right to travel is one of the Rights referred to in the 9th Article of the Bill of Rights (1791) of the U.S.Constitution (1787) which the people retained.
Also, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "…the sovereignty of the State in the article of taxation is subordinate to, and may be controlled by, the Constitution of the United States ….a tax of one dollar for passing through the State…cannot…deprive a citizen of any valuable right. But if the State can tax….one dollar, it can tax him one thousand dollars. …the power to tax involves the power to destroy"… Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35,46 (U.S.Nev.1867). In other words, if the State can tax a Right (such as the use of one’s automobile for travel on the public streets) one dollar, it can tax that same Right one thousand dollars (or ten thousand dollars) and use that tax to destroy the Right.
"The exercise of a natural right is not taxable." Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813 at 819 (1930). As the United States Supreme Court stated in Edwards v. People of State of California, 62 S.Ct. 164 at 170, 314 U.S. 160 at 170 (U.S.Cal.1941) "If a state tax on that movement, as in the Crandall case, is invalid, a fortiori a state statute which obstructs or in substance prevents that movement must fall. That result necessarily follows unless perchance a State can curtail the right of free movement of those who are poor or destitute… It would permit those who were stigmatized by a State as indigents, paupers, or vagabonds to be relegated to an inferior class of citizenship. It would prevent a citizen because he was poor from seeking new horizons in other States. It might thus withhold from large segments of our people that mobility which is basic to any guarantee of freedom or opportunity. The result would be a substantial dilution of the rights of national citizenship."
According to the United States Supreme Court, the citizen has the unconditional right to travel, a right of liberty which is absolute and is a fundamental right…. "The court today does not ‘pick out particular human activities, characterize them as ‘fundamental’, and give them added protection *** to the contrary, the Court recognizes, as it must, an established constitutional right, and gives to that right no less protection than the Constitution itself demands." Shapiro v. Thompson, 89 S.Ct. 1322 at 1335 and 1336, 494 U.S. 618 at 643 (U.S.Conn.1969); "No right secured by the Constitution … of the United States can be impaired or destroyed by any legislative enactment, whatever may be the source from which the power to pass such enactment may have been derived. ‘The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law. " Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co, 22 S.Ct. 431 at 439, 184 U.S. 540 at 558, 46 L.Ed. 679 (U.S.Ill. 1902);
"The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the Legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts." Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 43 S.Ct. 625 at 627, 262 U.S. 390 at 399 and 400 (U.S.Neb.1923); See, Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 at 137, 14 Sup. Ct. 499, 38 L.Ed. 385.
Fourteenth Amendment
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Fourteenth Amendment citizens
The privilege of travel is granted by the United States Congress via the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (1868) and is subject to regulation by the United States Congress under the "Commerce clause" of the United States Constitution (1787) Article 1 Section 8. "The Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" and "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,.." (United States citizens – U.S. citizens – citizens of the United States) are Fourteenth Amendment citizens and therefore are citizens of the "District of Columbia". Many of these "citizens" are by blood and heritage (De Jure) Citizens, but have unknowingly contracted into the Fourteenth Amendment by "adhesion contracts".
The United States Supreme Court ruled, "…the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in Fourteenth Amendment was desire to protect Negroes." Afroyim v. Rusk, 87 C.Ct. 1660 at 1665, 387 U.S. 253 at 262 (U.S.N.Y.1967). However, these Fourteenth Amendment citizens were told by the federal government, they had "equal rights".
"Where a general power is conferred, every particular power necessary for the exercise of same is also conferred, whether expressly granted or not." First Nat.Bank v. City of Port Arthur, 35 S.W. 2d 258, 8A Tex. Gig.Pg. 18, Sec. 13, Const. Law.
According to Senator Stump
"The 14th Amendment, then had to create another ‘position’ for those persons for whom it was created. Scrutiny of the 14th Amendment reveals that persons encompassed thereby were ‘subject’ to the jurisdiction thereof and may not ‘question’ the validity of the public debt.
At this point I anticipate a lot of folks reading this article are going into shock as they grab for their Constitutions to check out the phrase and ‘question’ the validity of the public debt. Let me help you by reference to section 4 of the 14th Amendment and caution you to hold onto your chair.
It would seem then, from the foregoing, that there are two ‘classes’ of citizens in this country;
Senator Stump goes on to say "It is not my intention, in this article, to become technically involved in citations for the information introduced here, but only to outline an overview for those folks who claim ‘Constitutional Rights’ and then wonder why the legislatures, courts and police don’t respond in ‘kind’ to these claims.
When one separates the classes along their appropriate dividing lines, it appears that:
A. Have direct personal access to a God inspired original Constitution and it’s restraints on government for the protection of life, liberty and property.
B. Have direct personal access to the Article III courts known as ‘justice courts’ which deal with the law.
A. Have representative access to the first eight amendments as purviewed by the 14th Amendment.
B. Have representative access to Article I courts, provided by legislature, that are known as ‘legislative courts’ which deal with statutes and are served by bar members, or officers of the court, known as lawyers."
_____________________ * _____________________
When the U.S.Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment, they stated in Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The Thirteenth Amendment didn’t really free the slaves, (free as defined by Black’s law Dictionary) it merely "enfranchised" them, and the Fourteenth Amendment, created a citizen/subject status for them, which is just another form of slavery. And, as you will notice, the U.S.Congress didn’t pass any legislation stating "voluntary" servitude shall not exist within the United States.
These amendments were passed while the South was under Martial Law, and our Southern Ancestors were forced to sign the "Oath of Allegiance" to the de facto, corporate, federal (not National) government, under force of arms. Their "Unalienable/Inalienable Rights were thoroughly "trashed" by the federal government. This same federal government (through coercion, deceit and fraud, committed by Government Agencies via adhesion contracts, and by "redefining" certain verbiage in the English language) also coerced the Posterity to submit to "voluntary" servitude. In this way they have enslaved most of the Posterity, as well as other races. In Section 2. They stated, "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
The United States Supreme Court stated, "The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." Elk v. Wilkins, 5 S.Ct. 41 at 45, 112 U.S. 84 at 101 and 102 (U.S.Neb.1884)
Now, let’s further examine the meaning of what the United States Supreme Court is saying. "The persons declared to be citizens," via the Fourteenth Amendment. These "persons" could not possibly be the Sovereign (De Jure Citizens) because the Sovereign (De Jure Citizens) were the ones who "ordained and established" the U.S. Constitution (1787), which created the government of the United States, which created the U.S Congress, which created the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore, the phrase "their political jurisdiction" would have to mean the political power of the government power of the Sovereign (De Jure) Citizens, the Sovereign Body Politic. Since the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t exist until 1868, it stands to reason that the Fourteenth Amendment citizens created thereby, are outside of the scope of the original U.S. Constitution (1787) and it’s Bill of Rights (1791)
Remember: This was done while the South was under Martial Law.
The real issues of the civil war (War for Southern Independence) were sovereignty and economics. The South didn’t want a tyrannical federal government usurping powers not granted to it in the Constitution for the United States (1787).
Before we go any further, we need to review some legal definitions.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
Acquiesce: "To give an implied consent to a transaction, to the accrual of a right, or to any act, by one’s mere silence, or without express assent or acknowledgment." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 24.
A fortiori: "With stronger reason; much more. A term used in logic to denote an argument to the effect that because one ascertained fact exists, therefore another, which is included in it, or analogous to it, and which is less improbable, unusual, or surprising, must also exist." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 61.
Ambit: "A boundary line, as going aropund a place; an exterior or inclosing line or limit. The limits or circumference of a power or jurisdiction; the circumscribing any subject-matter. Black’s Law Diction, 6th Edition, page 80.
De Jure: "Descriptive of a condition in which there has been total compliance with all requirements of law of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title. In this sense it is the contrary of de facto (q.v.). It may be contrasted with de gratia, in which case it means ‘as a matter of right,’ as de gratia means ‘by grace or favor.’ Again it may be contrasted with de aequitate; here meaning ‘by law,’ as the latter means ‘by equity." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 425.
Duress: "Includes any conduct which overpowers will and coerces or constrains performance of an act which otherwise would not have been performed … A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion is void. Also, if a party’s manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative, the contract is voidable by the victim." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 504.
Enfranchisement: "The act of making free (as from slavery; giving a franchise or freedom to; investiture with privileges or capacities of freedom, or municipal or political liberty. Conferring the privilege of voting upon classes persons who have not previously possessed such.
Free: "Not subject to legal constraint of another." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 663.
License: "The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 920.
Nation: "A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1024.
Organic Law: (Constitution) "The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten. That law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1099.
Permit: "In general, any document which grants a person the right to do something. A license or grant of authority to do a thing." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1140.
Person: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy or receivers…..Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to whome Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to "person." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1142
Posterity: "All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation." (The "person" referred to here is not the statutory "person" as defined in the Fourteenth Amendment) Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1166.
Presumption: "An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. …A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action … A presumption is a rebuttable assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1185.
Quasi contract: "An obligation which law creates in absence of agreement; it is invoked by courts where there is unjust enrichment. Andrews v. O’Grady, 44 Misc.2d 28, 252 N.Y.S.2d 814,817. Sometimes referred to as implied-in-law contracts (as a legal fiction) to distinguish them from implied-in-fact contracts (voluntary agreements inferred from the parties’ conduct). Function of "quasi contract" is to raise obligation in law where in fact the parties made no promise, and it is not based on apparent intention of the parties. Fink v. Goodson-Todman Enterprises, Limited, 9 C.A.3d 996,88 Cal.Rptr. 679,690." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1245
Rebuttable Presumption: "In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a ‘disputable’ presumption. A species of legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1267.
Secure: "To give security; to assure of payment, performance, or indemnity;"….Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1354.
Unalienable: "Inalienable; Incapable of being aliened, that is sold and transferred." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1523.
Inalienable Rights: "Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1523.
Unlawfully: "Illegally; wrongfully. This word is frequently used in indictments in the description of the offence; it was formerly necessary when the crime did not exist at common law, and when a statute, in describing an offence which it created, used the word; but was unnecessary whenever the crime existed at common law and was manifestly illegal." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1536.
Senator Stump goes on to state
"My concern here, stems from my observation that folks involved with the preservation of our beloved ‘constitution’ are unaware of the ‘limited’ citizenship created by the 14th Amendment. Additionally, these folks don’t realize that they are, or have voluntarily become, citizen subjects because of their acceptance of the ‘benefits’ of limited citizenship.
The main ‘benefit’ that I will mention here is Social Security. There are many other ‘benefits’ such as the benefit of ‘regulation by licensing’ that give control of your children to the state by making them ‘wards of the State’ and subject to the ‘regulation’ of the ‘legislative courts’ by statute, etc.
The intention of this article is to point out the apparent difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in the courts in serving these classes. I have noticed that, in many publications, and also personal conversations, people convey their feelings of alarm or despair in finding that ‘the court’ or ‘government’ is in violation of the Constitution without realizing that the court they are addressing is a legislative court and does not hear cases based on justice, but rather, cases based only on statute law.
The reality of the following example of statute law is that the statute specifies a speed limit to be held at 30 m.p.h. The only question that can be entertained by the court is that of whether the accused did in fact go faster than the limit. That is a yes or no question. The accused cannot try to tell the court that it was a six lane highway on a clear day with no traffic in sight and that his speed of 60 m.p.h. did not injure anyone. The court is not obligated to hear that argument as it is not a justice court."
_____________________ * _____________________
The United States Supreme Court has stated, "The court must have had jurisdiction not only of the cause, but of the parties." Thompson v. Whitman, 85 U.S. 457, at 463 (U.S.N.Y.1873); "A court does not have the power, by judicial fiat, to extend its jurisdiction over matters beyond the scope of the authority granted to it by its creators … there are certain strictly jurisdictional fact, the existence of which is essential to the validity of proceedings and the absence of which renders the act of the court a nullity." Stoll v. Gottlieb, 59 S.Ct. 134, at 137 and 139, 305 U.S. 165, at 171 and 176 (U.S.Ill.1938).
Whereas Municipal Courts are Article I courts and not county courts or statutory county courts, preparation for cause in both types of courts is different. In Article I Courts, the accused cannot receive a fair and unbiased trial, as both the judge’s position and that of the officer are created by statute. As such, both positions owe their allegiance to the statutes. Article III Courts, however, were established by the Constitution for the United States of America, and as such are true judicial courts, offering the Citizens Constitutional/Common Law justice as set up by our Founding Fathers. "Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior federal courts in the exercise of the power under Article III of the Constitution of the United Sates cannot be affected by legislation enacted by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution". D.C. Code Title II at ip. 13.
As Citizens under the Constitution of 1787, the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, and precedent decisions of Article III Justice Courts of Law, De Jure Citizens are not subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article I courts, or bound by precedents of such courts, deriving their jurisdiction from said authorities.
Senator Stump
"The final question then would seem to be ‘where is the Article III ‘justice’ court and who can use it? I am very aware that many of the folks reading this article are not going to be able to use the justice courts, as they have natural or acquired deficiencies that will not allow them Preamble Citizenship, but for the people endowed with the proper qualifications, it appears that the straight line approach of barring jurisdiction of legislative courts (tribunals) through rescission of contracts and declaration of Article IV, Section 2 status is essential, as it appears that only Preamble People can exercise the offices as set forth in the Organic Constitution. Additionally, it seems that this same class (Preamble People) is the only class that may claim the protection of the first ten Amendments as written."
Statutes and Codes
When the United States Congress passed Title 49 (traffic section) of the U.S.Code and the Texas Legislature enacted the (1) TRANSPORTATION CODE Sec. 501.004, 501.022, 520.021, 502.002, 502.152, Article 6687-1 of Title116 [Title Registration & Registration Renewal] (2) TRANSPORATION CODE Sec. 548.602, Article 6701d of Title 116, TRAFFIC REGULATIONS [Inspection Certificate] (3) TRANSPORTATION CODE Sec. 601.191, Article 6701h of Title 116 TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, [Financial Responsibility] and (4) TRANSPORTATION CODE Sec. 521.001, Article 6687b of Title 16 [Driver’s, Chauffeur’s and Commercial Operator’s License], they were legislating statutes and regulations for commerce and commercial vehicles only.
However, because of the definitions and verbiage used in these commercial statutes and codes, most Citizens are led to believe these commercial statutes and codes also apply to them. Therefore, a "presumption" is perpetrated that De Jure Citizens, as well as Fourteenth Amendment citizens and aliens travel by "privilege" requiring a license or permit granted by the State.
As a result of this "presumption" there are a group of individuals who claim to represent "We the People", but in reality and by their actions and implied powers, kidnap Citizens under the supposed State Statutes, Codes and Title 49 (traffic section) of the U.S.Code, and hold those Citizens until they submit to the unlawful jurisdiction of the Municipal/Corporation courts and pay through these same courts fines, fees or penalties for the violation of those State statutes and codes or the federal commerce code (49 USC-traffic section)
In Ex parte Huddleston, 194 S.W.2d 401, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 388, No. 23378, May 1, 1946, the court said, "The judgment or ruling of a trial court is in law presumed to be correct and presumption obtains, until the contrary is made to appear".
What sayeth the Constitution?
The United States Constitution (1787) in Article 1, Sec.10 states "No State shall…pass any Bill of Attainder (citations), ex post facto law…" (legislative Statutes). That would do away with a natural Right. The Right to make use of the automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of this State is no longer an open question. The owner of an automobile has the rights in the roads and streets as do the drivers of horses, bicycles and pedestrians.
The Constitution of the State of Texas (1845) clearly states the power of the state is "subject only to the United States Constitution" (1787). The United States Constitution (1787) states "This Constitution….shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article 6 [2].
What sayeth the Courts ?
"The intention of the makers of the Constitution will be ascertained, and when that intention is so ascertained, whether expressed in plain language or not, such intent becomes as much a part of the law as if it had been expressed in plain and unequivocal terms." This was the rule announced by our Supreme Court in Mills County v. Lampasas County, 90 Tex. 606, 40 S.W. 403; and, First Nat. Bank v. City of Port Arthur, 35 S.W. 2d 258 at 263 (1931); 8A Tex Dig. Pg. 18, Sec. 13, Const. Law; "The Supreme Court cannot question the wisdom of a constitutional provision." Cramer v. Sheppard, 167 S.W. 2d 147, 140 Tex. 271, 8A Tex. Digest, Pg. 23, Sec. 17, Const. Law; "Court must avoid construction which would render any portion of constitution meaningless." Vernon’s Ann. State Constitution, Article 5, State v. Gillette’s Estate, 10 S.W. 2d 984, 8A Tex. Digest, Pg. 19, Sec. 14, Const. Law. (Tex.1943)
Police Powers are not to be Revenue Collection Agencies
The Police Powers of the State cannot be used as a revenue collection agency for the state. Mugler v. Kansas, 8 S.Ct. 273, 123 U.S. 623, 31 L.Ed. 205 (U.S.Kan. 1887) (Com.App.1928); "The police power of a state…must be exercised within a limited ambit and is subordinate to constitutional limitations…" Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Com’n, 55 S.Ct. 563 at 567, 294 U.S. 613 at 622 (U.S.Kan.1935); "Though the exercise of the police power is not to be interfered with where it is within the scope of legislative authority…such power…cannot justify the passage of a law or ordinance running contrary to the limitations of the federal Constitution." Buchanan v. Warley, 38 S.Ct. 16, 245 U.S. 60 (U.S.Ky.1917)
So, how did we get in this mess?
De Jure Citizens can "waive" their Unalienable/Inalienable Rights by signing (adhesion) Contracts, such as Application for Driver’s License, Application for Social Security Card, Voter Registration, etc… and use of Social Security number and Driver’s License number on Applications for Credit Cards, Bank Accounts, Insurance Policies, etc… If you have done this in the past, you are "presumed" to be a Fourteenth Amendment citizen/subject. Did anyone ever tell you these are all adhesion contracts and they are voluntary, and not mandatory? Did anyone ever tell you that, upon your signature, you would be "waiving" your Unalienable/Inalienable Rights, or did they tell you, you had to have a Driver’s License in order to "drive", that you had to have a Social Security Card in order to work, and that you had to fill out a Voter Registration Card to "vote"?
You can also "waive" your Unalienable/Inalienable Rights by acquiescence when those Rights are infringed upon, such as signing a Traffic Citation, without printing "SIGNED UNDER DURESS" above your signature. Also, by making a plea at arraignment. You must deny jurisdiction of the court over you, and you MUST know how to do this in order to not acquiesce to the court’s jurisdiction.
Good News for De Jure Citizens
The good news for the De Jure Citizen is, this is a rebuttable presumption because, the United States Supreme Court has ruled, "Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Brady v. U.S., (U.S.N.M.1970), 90 S.Ct. 1463 at 1469, 397 U.S. 742 at 748, 25 L.Ed.2d 747. I would never knowingly sign any contract that would trade my God given, Unalienable/Inalienable Rights (secured by the United States Constitution (1787), for civil rights granted by Congress.
Senator Stump
"As the truth of our personal status, and the responsibilities connected therewith unfolds, it becomes clear that the Article III ‘justice’ court must be accessed individually by the person (not 14th Amendment "person") claiming that right. At present it is being done by common law filing of actions ‘in law’ with the County Recorders who have been found to be ‘ex officio’ clerks of the County courts. The authority for the exercise of the ‘justice’ office is found in the 9th Article of Amendment and I believe all State Constitutions have similar provisions for their Preamble Citizens (also known as de jure Citizens).
I will not go further with an attempt toward instruction but will leave this in the hands of the many patriots engaged in the research of these developments. My mission in presenting this information in a general sense is to help the unfortunate individuals who repeatedly bash themselves against the rocks of misinformation or ignorance in a vain, though laudable, effort to protect our beloved Constitution. I hope I have achieved this end."
_____________________ * _____________________
If you "waived" your "Unalienable/Inalienable Rights" ignorantly (under coercion and/or without full disclosure) you can "rebut" the "presumption", because the government is guilty of fraud, and there is no Statute of Limitation on fraud. You must trace your genealogy, get certified copies to prove it, type it in legal description and file your Positive I.D., along with your rescission documents rescinding all of those adhesion contracts with the County Clerk’s Office. You must also send a copy of the Rescission Documents (via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested) to all Government Agencies involved. However, be forewarned, if you are going to exercise you Unalienable/Inalienable Rights you are going to have to learn how to defend them in court (Study, Study, Study)
Did you know ?
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486 at 489 (C.A.5 (Fla.)1956) Utilizing the same Title 49 USC (traffic section), the California Supreme Court declared that traffic infractions are not arresting offenses, and are civil in nature. This being true, such offenses are stopless offenses in the State of Texas, (Article IV, United States Constitution) as Texas must fulfill the "Full Faith and Credit granted from state to state as to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other state"
PRESUMPTION and TRAFFIC CITATIONS
On the 22nd day of October, 1997, while exercising my Unalienable/Inalienable Right to travel in my automobile, I was stopped by a Police Officer. Although I was traveling in a safe manner, on personal errands and not in any way engaging in commerce or in any way posing a threat to anyone, the Police Officer issued me a citation for (1) "unlawfully operating and driving a motor vehicle upon a public street" with an expired Inspection Sticker, (Transportation Code Section 548.602), (2) "unlawfully failing to maintain a policy of automobile liability insurance…. as ‘required’ by the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law", (Transportation Code Section 601.192) and (3) "unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public street, and failing to display on demand to the on duty peace officer a valid Texas Operator’s License, issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety", (Texas Traffic Laws, 6687b, Sec. 13).
Remember, "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486 at 489 (C.A.5 (Fla.)1956); "No right secured by the Constitution … of the United States can be impaired or destroyed by any legislative enactment, whatever may be the source from which the power to pass such enactment may have been derived. ‘The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law. " Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co, 22 S.Ct. 431 at 439, 184 U.S. 540 at 558, 46 L.Ed. 679 (U.S.Ill. 1902); and the Police Powers of the State cannot be used as a revenue collection agency for the state. Mugler v. Kansas, 8 S.Ct. 273, 123 U.S. 623, 31 L.Ed. 205 (U.S.Kan. 1887) (Com.App.1928)
Now, I have no problem with insurance, even though I have been traveling in an automobile for 45 years, and have never had a wreck. In fact, until the above incident, I have only been issued a grand total of 2 tickets, both over 20 years ago. Therefore, as you can see, I am not a danger to the public. However, since the verbiage in Insurance Policy Contracts is such that (upon my signature) would cause me to "waive" my Unalienable/Inalienable Rights, this I have a BIG problem with. Besides, the above Statutes all pertain to "commerce". I am not commerce, and neither is my automobile.
The statutes I was accused of violating are all "commercial statutes", for commercial vehicles only, and therefore automobiles are not included. The OPERATOR TYPE-C, COMMERCIAL TYPE-B, and CHAUFFEUR TYPE-A licenses are all for a "vehicle" with or without a "motor" and does not include AUTOMOBILES. In McIntyre v. Orver, the court stated, "The automobile is a lawful means of travel," and not intended to be licensed. McIntyre v. Orver, 76 NE 750. The Officer clearly indicated on the citation that my automobile is not a commercial vehicle.
My Right to travel freely on the public streets while pursuing my own private business and pleasure is a common Right of national Citizenship, and is not dependent upon the whims of the State, as we see in Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (U.S.Nev.1867). Therefore, neither the State, County or City/Municipality has any constitutional authority to demand I have a "license" (tax), or a "valid inspection sticker" (tax), or "proof of financial responsibility", etc….(tax and control). All of the cases that this De Jure Citizen has cited are trial court rulings that uphold my contentions, that I am not a "person" mentioned in 6687b or Title 49 USC, of the commerce code. I am a De Jure Citizen with Public Constitutional conveyance of the time, and that is my automobile.
Wake up America, study the Constitutions (both State and National), and stand up for your Unalienable/Inalienable Rights: As John Adams stated: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." And Thomas Jefferson said: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects something that cannot be." As a Supreme Court justice stated, "He who sleeps on his Rights, has none."
"Seeking out what exists already is not defining." Redlands Foothill Groves et al. v. Jacobs et al.,30 F.Supp.995, page 1004, District Court, S.D.California (1940)
Since a license is permission to do something normally illegal, it could not apply to driving, even though congress has redefined the term (driving) to mean "commerce", it has always been an Unalienable/Inalienable Right and not a privilege under law. The attempt to make a Driver’s License an agreement lacks such sufficient parts as to estoppel the process. All dialogue (written or otherwise) must be in the agreement, not in the "Act". The definitions alone are proof in court, for "Who is a ‘person’ to be regulated?" Without sufficient assent to all conditions, there can be no contract. There is no benefit received that is greater or equal to, the Unalienable/Inalienable Rights of a State Citizen under statutory law. A License is a mere means of regulation.
In Hassell v. The State of Texas, 149 C.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400, the State Supreme Court said "information alleging that defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public highway without a "DRIVER’S LICENSE" charged no offense under Driver’s License Act, since a driver’s license is not known to the law - because the Act only authorizes issuance of operators, commercial operator’s and chauffeur’s license, and use of term "driver" interchangeably with term "operator" would not be authorized in view of definition in the act, of term "driver" as meaning every person who drives or is in actual physical possession of a vehicle. Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.art.6687b, 2,3,4." See, Barber v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 18, 191 S.W.2d 879; Holloway v. State, 237 S.W.2d 303, 155 Tex.Crim. 484 (1951); Brooks v. State, 258 S.W.2d 317, 158 Tex.Cr.App.(1953); Campbell v. State, 274 S.W.2d 401, 160 Tex.Crim. 627(Tex.Cr.App.1955)
The Act only authorizes issuance of licenses for commerce code vehicles only. The "Act" does not authorize the issuance of a Driver’s License for the Public Conveyance of the automobile. The Driver’s License is neither recognized nor authorized to be issued under the "ACT" for automobiles and by reason thereof, it constitutes no offense to drive an automobile without a Drivers License.
All this points to the fact at law that if the Driver’s License is not recognized by law, then any offense in which a Driver’s License was used to record the offense is not accepted as an offense. If the Citizen had Right of Passage through the State before the licensing was established, then the Right of Passage cannot be revoked.
Article 1, Section 8 [3], the U.S.Constitution (1787), authorizes Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." However, I am not commerce, and neither is my automobile. The U.S.Congress, the Texas Legislature or any other government agency has no Constitutional authority to regulate Sovereign (De Jure) Citizens (Posterity).
As a member of the "Posterity", my Citizenship is my birthright and does not emanate from, by, through or under the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), nor by the Immigration Naturalization Act of the United States, and thus, cannot be regulated or taxed for the "privilege" of existing. My Citizenship is De Jure, and as such, is by Right, and not a de facto citizenship "privilege" granted by congress.
Apparently, the Police Officer must have "presumed" I was a Fourteenth Amendment "person", to be regulated and taxed under the Motor Carrier Act, the Texas Traffic Laws, the Transportation Code, the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law, etc,… The truth is, all Statutes or Laws passed by the State Legislature or the United States Congress that infringe on the Unalienable/Inalienable Rights of De Jure Citizens, are repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore are null and void as concerning De Jure Citizens.
I was detained by the Police Officer for approximately 15 or 20 minutes, and over his protest, stating he could not accept a citation "SIGNED UNDER DURESS", and after he informed me he was being nice, and he could take me to jail, I finally signed the citation "SIGNED UNDER DURESS". This is very important, because it established that I did not give acquiescence to the infringement of my Unalienable/Inalienable Right to Travel, and a ticket "SIGNED UNDER DURESS" cannot be used as evidence in court. Article V of the Bill of Rights (1791) of the United States Constitution (1787) states, "No person (not Fourteenth Amendment) … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,…"
I was certainly "UNDER DURESS" because the Officer stopped me with his patrol car lights flashing, approached my automobile wearing a badge and gun, embarrassing me as if I were a common criminal, while I was only exercising my Unalienable/Inalienable Right to Travel. And then I was told I could be taken to jail.
Again, according to the United States Supreme Court "The citizen has the unconditional right to travel, … a right of liberty which is absolute and is a fundamental right." Shapiro v. Thompson, 89 S.Ct. 1322 at 1335 and 1336; also, "No right secured by the Constitution … of the United States can be impaired or destroyed by any legislative enactment, whatever may be the source from which the power to pass such enactment may have been derived." Especially for the Citizens of the several states (De Jure Citizens). Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co, 22 S.Ct. 431, 184 U.S. 540; and "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486 at 489 (C.A.5 (Fla.)1956
THE ISSUE
I was charged with violation of the Motor Carrier Act, but according to the "Act’s" own definition, the "Act" applies to commerce. Although the term "individual" is used, the "Act" doesn’t state, individual what. Therefore, since I am a De Jure Citizen and not a citizen/subject "person" via the Fourteenth Amendment, whereas I was not engaging in commerce when I was stopped by the Police Officer and there was no tort (supported by sworn affidavit of injured party), the municipal/ corporation court had no jurisdiction, unless there was a breach of contract evidenced by the original contract. If there is a contract, I demand to see the evidence of the contract that obligates me to perform.
If the contract is to be an adhesion agreement, the state must notify the Citizen of such conditions, as per Texas business and penal laws as well as United States law affecting the agreement, and any undisclosed definitions affecting whether or not a Citizen would have signed such an agreement. Anything else is fraud. The contract cannot be executed when the operator’s license is obtained because the Driver’s License is nothing more than a quasi contract with the State’s signature being a copy invalidating any attempt at contracting. This license is also not an implied contract as it meets no requirement of a contract.
As stated by the United States Supreme Court, "Statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect … In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." U.S. v. Mine Workers of America, 67 S.Ct. 677, 330 U.S. 258 (U.S. Dist.Col.1947);
REASONING
I’m sure you would agree at this point; it would be foolish for a De jure Citizen to exchange a God given Unalienable/ Inalienable Right for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in exchange for something of less value and may even be damaging financially. "There is no such thing in this country as taking one man’s property without his consent and giving it to another by legislative edit. That is nothing less than confiscation by legislative decree." Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., (No. 2744) Supreme Court of Texas; "The Police power rests upon necessity and the right of self-protection, but private property cannot be arbitrarily invaded under the mere guise of police regulation, nor forfeited for the alleged violation of law by its owner, nor destroyed by way of penalty inflicted upon him, without opportunity to be heard." Lawton v. Steele, 14 S.Ct. 499 at 503,504, 152 U.S. 133 at 143.
Control is still a key element of the system. Actually, the Driver’s License amounts to nothing more than mere identification. Most of us would swear to be loyal Citizens without the intent to harm our way of life. However, subjugating De Jure Citizens to a controlling Anti-Christ socialistic system designed to further destroy the financial integrity of the Citizen with high fines and fees is only part of the problem of stealing Rights and replacing them with privileges. It was never my intention to give up any Rights by consent. In Criminal law, no act shall be deemed a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive the consenter of any Unalienable Rights. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.
"The will of the people as recorded in their Constitution must remain inflexible until changed by them, so that the courts should never so yield to public sentiment as to construe a constitutional provision contrary to the will of the founders." (Civ.App.1939) Grover v. Cobb, 123 S.W.2d 794, error refused, 8A Tex.Dig.pg.18, Sec. 13, Const.Law. Only the "Posterity" has the lawful, constitutional standing to change the Organic Constitution (1787), via a Constitutional Convention of the "Posterity".
It is the contention of this De Jure Citizen that the only obligation which this Citizen incurs when operating an automobile upon the streets or highways of Texas is the Common Law obligation to refrain from any act which causes another to lose life, liberty or property. However, the acquiescence to some of the statutes of Title 49 U.S.C. should not be construed as evidence of a contractual obligation on the part of this De Jure Citizen. Instead it is merely a desire to travel safely and to do no harm to anyone else. Actually, according to the index of the U.S.Code, no appendix to Title 49 U.S.C. has been ratified.
CASE WAS DISMISSED, FOR NO EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION
Dr. Cliff William represented me in court as my Common Law Co-Counsel. Since the Municipal/Corporation court is not a court of record, you can’t file anything with it, so Dr. William sent the judge and prosecutor a Motion for Choice of Counsel, citing cases all the way back to the Magna Carta, proving the difference between Common Law Counsel and a Bar Attorney, asserting my Unalienable/Inalienable Right to counsel of my choice, and his Unalienable/Inalienable Right to represent me.
At the Arraignment, Dr. William informed the judge and prosecutor that the Municipal/Corporation court had no jurisdiction over me, as I am a De Jure Citizen. I demanded a jury trial with a jury of my peers. Before the trial, we sent a Brief to the judge and prosecutor, citing many cases proving the Municipal/Corporation court had no jurisdiction over me due to my status of Citizenship. We also showed the Prosecutor a Petition for a Trial De Novo we had already prepared to file if the jury should rule against me.
Just after we had sat down in court, the judge announced to the jury, "these cases don’t last over an hour". Right after she made that statement, the prosecutor came in, with the Brief he had just read, and told the judge he had no evidence he could present against me, due to lack of jurisdiction. The case was dismissed. In fact, every traffic case brought against members of our association has been dismissed.
It is absolutely necessary to conduct a Careful examination of the definition of the
words used in all Legislative Acts to determine to whom the Act applies.
"Where Act uses word in a special sense which it defines, definition by average man or by ordinary dictionary is not a substitute for the definition contained in the act." National Homeopathic Hospital Ass’n of D.C. v. Britton, 147 F.3d 551 (1945) U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, Statute 179; "Plain, ordinary meaning" rule for statutory construction does not apply when legislature specifically defines a term."; In re Hosek, 136 B.R. 672, Bkrtcy. W.D.Tex. 1991; And, "Court must apply terms as expressly defined in a statute." Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of U.S. v. Reynolds, 863 F.Supp. 529, Bkrtcy, W.D.Mich. 1994
STATUTE DEFINITIONS: V.T.C.A. Sec. 311.011 Common and Technical Usage of Words
(a) Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.
(b) Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.
Review of some pertinent definitions used in the statutes and
codes enacted by the Texas Legislature
(1) TRANSPORTATION CODE Sec. 501.004, 501.022, 520.021, 502.002, 502.152, Article 6687-1 of Title 116 [Title Registration & Renewal] (2) TRANSPORATION CODE Sec. 548.602, Article 6701d of Title 116, TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, [Inspection Certificate] (3) TRANSPORTATION CODE Sec. 601.191, Article 6701h of Title 116 TRAFFIC REGULATIONS [Financial Responsibility] and (3) TRANSPORTATION CODE Sec. 521.001, Article 6687b of Title 16 Driver’, Chauffeur’s, and Commercial Operator’s License.
These State regulations are for commerce and commercial vehicles only.
TRANSPORTATION CODE
1. Sec. 502.002 Registration Required; General Rule [Title Registration and Registration Renewal]
(a) The owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for:
(1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway;
2. Sec. 501.004 Applicability.
(a) This chapter applies to a motor vehicle owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state
STATUTE
Article 6687-1 Certificate of Title Act
"Owner" Defined Sec.4. The term "Owner" includes any person, firm, association, or corporation other than a manufacturer, importer, distributor, or dealer claiming title to, or having a right to operate pursuant to a lien on a motor vehicle after the first sale as herein defined, except the Federal Government and any of its agencies, and the State of Texas and any governmental subdivision or agency thereof not required by law to register or license motor vehicles owned or used thereby in this State
"Person" Defined Sec.11. The term "Person" includes individuals, firms, associations, and corporations required by law to register motor vehicles owned or used thereby, including officers, employees, or agents acting for the State of Texas or any Government subdivision or agency thereof, but shall not include the Federal Government or any of its agencies not required by law to register motor vehicles owned or used thereby.
(Do you see a conflict here?) The Transportation Code states the vehicle registration requirement applies to motor vehicles owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and the statute states the definitions in the statute shall not include the Federal Government or any of its agencies not required by law to register motor vehicles owned or used thereby.
REMEMBER: "No right secured by the Constitution…of the United States can be impaired or destroyed by any legislative enactment" Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.; "In all the states, from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective states, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the states to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right." Corfield v. Coryell; and "The exercise of a natural right is not taxable." Redfield v. Fisher.
TRANSPORTATION CODE
1. Sec. 548.602 Failure to Display Inspection Certificate.
(a) After the fifth day after the date of expiration of the period designated for inspection, a person may not operate:
(1) a motor vehicle registered in this state unless an inspection certificate is displayed on the vehicle;
STATUTE
Article 6701d. UNIFORM ACT REGULATING TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAYS.
Definition of Words and Phrases, Sec. 1. "The following words and phrases when used in this Act shall, for the purpose of this Act, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Article.
Vehicles. Sec. 2. (a) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highways, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
(b) "Motor Vehicle" means every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails.
Person, Pedestrian, Driver, Etc. Sec. 10.
(a) Person. Every natural person, firm, co-partnership, association, or corporation.
(b) Pedestrian. Any person afoot.
(c) Driver. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
(d) Owner. A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a vehicle. The term includes a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle subject to a security interest in another person, but excludes a lessee under a lease not intended as security.
TRANSPORTATION CODE
Sec. 601.191. Operation of Motor Vehicle in Violation of Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Requirement; Offense.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person operates a motor vehicle in violation of Section 601.051.
Sec. 601.051. Requirement of Financial Responsibility.
A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle through:
Sec. 601.002. Definitions.
In this chapter:
(2) "Driver’s license" has the meaning assigned by Section 521.001 (See Definition below)
(10) "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.
STATUTE
Article 6701h, SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY LAW - Words and Phrases Defined
Definitions, Sec. 1. "The following words and phrases, when used in this Act, shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section, except in those instances where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
3. "Motor Vehicle" – Every self-propelled vehicle which is designed for use upon a highway, including trailers and semitrailers designed for use with such vehicles (except traction engines, road rollers and graders, tractor cranes,….
4. "License" – Any driver’s, operator’s, commercial operator’s or chauffeur’s license, temporary instruction permit or temporary license, or restricted license, issued under Article 6687b, Texas Revised Civil Statutes, pertain to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles.
7. "Operator" – Every person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.
9. "Person" – Every natural person, firm, co-partnership, association or corporation.
TRANSPORTATION CODE
Sec. 521.001. Definitions. [Driver’s, Chauffeur’s and Commercial Operator’s License]
(a) In this chapter:
(3) "Driver’s license" means an authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle. …
STATUTE
Article 6687b of Title 116: Driver’s, chauffeur’s, and commercial operator’s licenses; Article I – Words and Phrases Defined:
Sec. 1. "The following words and phrases when used in this Act shall, for the purpose of this Act, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this title. Words and phrases not defined in this Act but which are defined in the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways (Article 6701d, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes) shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in the Act. Words and phrases which are defined neither in this Act nor in the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly."
(1) ‘Department’ means the Department of Public Safety.
(2) ‘Driver’s license’ means a license or permit issued by the Department that authorizes the operation of a motor vehicle.
(3) ‘License or license to operate a motor vehicle’ means a driver’s license or other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under, or granted by, the laws of this State including:
(A) a temporary license or instruction permit;
(B) the privilege of a person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not the holds a valid license;
(C) a nonresident’s operating privilege; and
(D) an occupational license.’
Please note, the term automobile is not defined by either state statute 6687b or Title 49 USC, and was not intended for automobiles which is, by the Supreme Court definition a public conveyance, and has equal right on Public Roads. Hennessey v. Taylor, 76 NE 224 (Mass.)
STATUTE DEFINITIONS:
Person: as defined in Statute 6701d, Sec.10. (a) Person. "Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation."
By the other words used in the statute definition, it is clear this "natural person" is Fourteenth Amendment citizen/subject (commerce). Remember, the definitions in this Act, as well as VTCA Sec. 311.011 (b) "Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly."
Person: As defined by the Texas Law Relating to the Motor Carrier Act, Sec.1, "When used in this Act unless expressly stated otherwise: (a) The term person’ means and includes an individual, a firm, co-partnership, corporation, company, an association or a joint stock association." (but individual what?)
DEFINITIONS: Black’s Law Dictionary
Person: as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1142, "In general usage, a human being (ie. Natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers … Scope and delineation of term is necessary to determine those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to ‘person’."
Person: Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 1299 and 1300, "A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. People v. R. Co., 134 N.Y. 506, 31 N.E. 873. The word in its natural and usual signification includes women as well as men … corporations are ‘persons’ as that word is used in the first clause of the XIV th Amendment; … It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, Blair v. Worley, 1 Scam., Ill. 178; Appeal of Fox, 112 Pa. 337; 4 A 149; but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them. Stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand., Va., 132; …"
DEFINITONS: Webster’s Dictionary (1828)
Person: "1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only; possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child. A person is a thinking intelligent being.
(Top)