Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Driver's Licensing vs Right to Travel
Perhaps "driving" is a privilege. Travelling by a man or woman in non commercial capacity by whatever means is a right as clearly delineatd by many Supreme decisions. And any legislation that regulates a "privilege" therefore would have to be void if properly argued if one was only exercising a 5th amendment right to travel.
As to the "police power of your State", it would be interesting to compare that idea with the concept of "Police Power" as detailed in "Are the Cops Constitutional?" by Roger Roots,. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htmThe assumption that the State has regulated constitutionally is also a naked assumption unsupported by any state traffic code that has ever been seen by, for example, James Woods of Sarasota Fl in his Travel As Of Right Workshops. How can the subject of a right be covered by a criminal code? Why in so many States does the subject of "rules of the road" or driving codes come under the administration of state dept. of motor vehicles or some such agency? Are there other state agencies for administrating the rules of other criminal conduct?
As to the registration of land, the Torrens system, while providing somewhat ready reference for property description and ownership (there are still mistakes), made it possible for land to be monetized, put into commerce. This overthrows one of the foundations of American law and the common law upon which the country was based. "The law of the land" actually means and meant something specific which the land registration system helped to compromise. Land and commerce were two distinct and separate areas. There were other, and now with GPS even more, ways of determining property ownership without aiding in the monetizing of land. There was no crisis necessitating the current registration scheme unless one considers it a crisis that heretofore land couldn't be put into commerce.
As to car the State registration schemes, they are primarily useful for taxation. But most anyone who has ever had a car stolen probably can attest to how useful the state registration was in FINDING the car (NOT). A GPS locator would be helpful, but documenting ownership with a VIN hardly needs a massive State bureaucracy. An inexpensive State run database could be used for that, or a private registry service which county law could have access to.
It may be agreed that secrecy/anonymity/non-responsibility cannot be allowed on public roadways, but that admission doesn't mean that the Fabian inspired administrative law scheme remedy is a just or constitutional by American standards. There are other distinctly American remedies which respect the rights of the American people and American law.
- --- In email@example.com, "Gerald" <glsilvera@...> wrote:
>1. The issues here actually have nothing to do with driving without a license or presenting a birth certificate in order to be issued such a license. The issue here is, "What, exactly, is it that transpires in the application and issuance of a driver license? Or, put in the context of this notice, how does a man or woman born free and sovereign over their own entity, become a "person" obligated to apply to an agency of a totally artificial entity in order to be issued a driver license? Or, is there actually any actual obligation for a living, breathing, flesh and blood man or woman born free and sovereign over their own entity, to apply to an agency of a totally artificial entity in order, to be issued a driver license? What is the true and actual purpose behind the surreptitious procedure preceding the issuance of a driver license? Is the issuance of a driver license the true and actual reason for the presentation of the "applicantâs" birth certificate? Or is there another more devious purpose for such a specious requirement?
> Can anyone direct me to where I can find any Ohio case law where the use of the legal brief cited in Driver's Licensing vs Right to Travel was successfully used? Thank you for you help.
2. The issues here are much more fundamentally important, having to do with honesty, integrity and an acknowledgment by those "persons" administering the government, that the purpose for the creation of government in the first place was not to create a monster to micro manage the lives of the common people, but, rather, to provide an orderly way for societal interactive needs to be provided for, such as water supply, sewage disposal, and the warding off of foreign tyrants, and was not for the purpose of establishing a home grown tyranny with the authority to require everyone to get permission from the government in order to use an additional square or two of toilet paper.
3. Article one section six of the California Constitution, and the thirteenth amendment of the United States Constitution clearly and unambiguously prohibits involuntary servitude.
4. If the prohibition of involuntary servitude does not include a prohibition of mandatory driver licensing then what else is there that the government of California may require the people of California to do against their will? A better question is, "What, exactly, are the limitations in regard to the governmentâs ability to micro-manage the lives of everyone in California?" And an even more relevant question is,
"Where, under the natural limitations on government examined herein above, wherein it was established that government may not reasonably or properly be imbued with any more authority than the authority imbued by Nature into any one single living, breathing, flesh and blood man or woman, where, then, does the government get the authority to require any "person" to be issued a driver license prior to operating a motor vehicle on the highways of California?" Please note that I am not stating that the government does not have such authority, I am asking the question, "Where does this authority properly and reasonably come from?" (Well, the word "reasonably" may be a stretch, but there is no doubt that such authority has been legally acquired, at least as such authority applies to "persons", as the word "person" is defined in Â§470 of the California Vehicle code.
5. I will answer that question herein below in regard to any purported requirement for every living, breathing, flesh and blood man and woman to procure a "driver license" prior to using their own privately owned self-propelled conveyance/household goods. I further contend that in my answer to the above question I will establish that the Legislature of California agrees with me on the issue of driver license requirements. Again, as I have reiterated several times herein, the issue we are examining is much more fundamental than the matter of a driver license.
How do I arrive at my comprehension of the intention of the Legislature? By actually reading the words they used and adhering to them, paying attention to the grammatical manner in which the statutes are written; giving the Legislature full credit for creating the definitions to be grammatically correct as they are set forth in the California Vehicle Code, so that the Codes of California, written as they are, may be readily decoded by the astute reader, and, so that the definitions included therein are in full compliance with Article one section six of the California Constitutionâs prohibition of Involuntary Servitude.
6. The issue as to who is required to conform under the California Codes is based on whether the living, breathing, flesh and blood man or woman is a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Â§470 of the California Vehicle Code; and whether or not the living, breathing flesh and blood man or woman has been successfully and legally induced or "seduced", to "volunteer" to claim to be such "person", a status to which I have not agreed! (As a side comment, every living, breathing, breathing flesh and blood man or woman present in California does, of course, have a political relationship with California; mine being that I have not volunteered myself to submit to the dominion of California by becoming a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Â§470 Of the California Vehicle Code. Therefore, I am an alien to California.)
7. As afore stated, the issue of this is limited to examining and determining whether or not I am a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Â§470 Of the California Vehicle Code. I would then be required to apply for a driver license under the codes of California prior to operating a motor vehicle on the highways of California. This takes more than a cursory examination because there is more to it than may be found in just one subsection of the California Vehicle Code. It is like playing the computer card game, Freecell, where you often must move single cards in the wrong way in order to be able to later move them in the right way.
8. What I will demonstrate is that all living, breathing flesh and blood men and women born on the land area claimed by California to be under its dominion, are, at the time they were born, born free and politically independent; that when born every human baby is devoid of even the most minuscule amount of ability to evaluate whether the information presented to it is good for it or good for "someone else", the "someone else" being an indoctrination officer whose intention (knowingly or unknowingly) is to program the child to accept a condition of virtually total servitude, without the child ever being informed of the existence of any optional independent political status, or being prompted to question the validity of the freedom negating information the "someone else" is indoctrinating the child with.
9. I will demonstrate a sequence of events starting with (1) the creation and recording of an event, the birth of a person(a)'s birth on a birth certificate; (2) programming instilled in the child during (3) mandatory attendance in government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools"; then, (4) how the teenager or adult, having been appropriately subjected to mind controlling indoctrination, (5) "voluntarily" presents him or herself to a local Department of Revenue Office, where (6) the child now a teenager or adult "voluntarily" and eagerly, and proudly, (7) presents "his or her" birth certificate in order to (8) be issued the much coveted California driver license. (The birth certificate the teenager or adult presents to the Revenue Office is as much "his or hers" as is "your" bus or "your" taxicab, or "your" airplane, "yours"!).
10. The relevant California Vehicle Code provides: (a)" Â§305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.
(b)" An "owner" is a person having all the incidents of ownership, including the legal title of a vehicle whether or not such person lends, rents, or creates a security interest in the vehicle; the person entitled to the possession of a vehicle as the purchaser under a security agreement; or the State, or any county, city, district, or political subdivision of the State, or the United States, when entitled to the possession and use of a vehicle under a lease, lease-sale, or rental-purchase agreement for a period of 30 consecutive days or more.
(c) "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. Be that as it may, the term âPersonâ includes six items in the definition of the word person: 1) natural person, 2) firm, 3)copartnership, 4)association, 5)limited liability company, 6)corporation.
11. To the casual reader it will seem clear that items (2) through (6) are artificial entities and it is will likewise seem clear to the casual reader, that number (1) is intended to refer to real live flesh and blood men and women, but number (1) does not clearly indicate such to be the case. To the casual reader it would seem the intention of the statutory definition of "person" is to legally establish that real live flesh and blood men and women are not any different from corporations like Walmart. However, the more astute reader will recall that we were all taught in grammar school that the definition of a word will never ever include the word being defined in its own definition. That is, a word cannot be used to define itself, so, when the word "person" is included in the definition of the word "person" such inclusion is either an unacceptable grammatical error or, more likely, the word "natural", coupled with the word "person", somehow modifies the word "person" so that the inclusion of the word "person" in the definition of itself does not constitute a grammatical error.
12. There can be no doubt that the legislators who created this statute were well aware of the words "men" and "women" which might seem to have been more appropriately used in the definition of "person", that is, if it was the actual intent of the Legislature to legally equate real live flesh and blood men and women with Walmart., So, Reason will indicate that the legislatureâs use instead, of the term "natural person", was clearly intentional; that is, the legislators intentionally avoided the use of the words "men" and "women" because to use those words would have actually created a grammatical error, and would have been otherwise undesirable because the term "natural person" is also a reference to an artificial entity, as I shall explain as I go along. I contend that everything ever written by any legislature is, if nothing else, always grammatically correct. So then, how does the word "natural" modify the word "person" in order to avoid a grammatical error?
13. Another question here is "What could have been the reason for the Legislatureâs inclusion of five clearly artificial entities in the definition of the word "person" if the purpose of the definition of the word "person" was to indicate that such word was intended to refer to or include real live flesh and blood men and women? Clearly such was not the purpose! So, in order to discern the purpose we must examine the similarities of these five artificial items as they relate to each other and then examine and determine how these similarities apply or relate to the term "natural person", the first item in the definition of "person", in order to avoid grammatical incorrectness?
15. The first discernment will be to conclude, in order for the definition to be grammatically correct, that the term (1)"natural person", as included in the definition of the word "person" in Â§470 of the California Vehicle Code is intended to be and is also an artificial entity, similar in every significant aspect to its definition mates, such mates being; (2)"firms", (3)"copartnerships", (4)"associations," (5)" limited liability company " and (6)âcorporationsâ. That is, all six of these artificial entities numbered herein are (a) created by voluntary human intellectual activity; (b) all six have official government approved creating documents; (c) all six are registered with the government; (d) all six have, through their human creating agents, voluntarily obligated themselves to obey and conform to the commands of the California Legislature; (e) all six have a name conjured up by their private sector creators and, last but not least, (f) all six are required by the government to have a government issued license.
16. The foregoing explains how the six items in Â§470 of the California Vehicle Code are all six, artificial entities, so there is no grammatical error in the inclusion of "natural person" therein, but the means by which real live flesh and blood men and women are enticed, induced or seduced into "volunteering" Themselves into servitude, as statutorily defined "persons" equal to Walmart, takes more examination and analysis, as I shall explain:
17. As no single man or woman has natural authority to command non-volunteers to obey, the human creators of California cannot possibly imbue California with authority to do so either, therefore, in order for California to be able to command subservience of real live flesh and blood men and women California must, somehow, entice, induce or seduce real live flesh and blood men and women to voluntarily submit themselves to the political authority of the artificial entity, California. So how does California do that?
18. Engaging in subterfuge and deceit, how else do politicians "get things done"? This was not done overnight, many generations have passed thereby enabling the ploy to be gradually implanted in succeeding generations without hardly anyone ever questioning how it all came about.
19. There is a combination here of (1) the birth certificate and its registration with and abandonment to the government; (2) the indoctrination of the populace through public education when they are children; (3) the Legislature enacting enabling legislation; and (4) the young adultâs burning desire to be issued their peer driven status symbol, a driver license.
20. It is important to understand that when born we humans have no knowledge of any kind. It is important to be cognitively aware that everything that we learned and absorbed as children we learned from someone else or from our innocent observations. Our first teachers were, most likely, our own parents, then, at about age five, it was the public school governmental indoctrination system and this is the beginning of our intentional downhill slide into being a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Â§470 of the California Vehicle Code. Â§470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. And also in all other California codes that I can find.
11405.70. "Person" includes an individual, partnership, corporation, governmental subdivision or unit of a governmental subdivision, or public or private organization or entity of any character.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
3482.1. (a) As used in this section: (1) "Person" means an individual, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, club, or other legal entity.
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1235.160. "Person" includes any public entity, individual, association, organization, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or corporation.
CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE
175. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, limited liability company, or public entity.
CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE
56. "Person" means an individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity.
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
(30) "Person" includes an individual or an organization. (See Section 1102.)
TITLE 26 U.S.C., SECTION 7343
Part O: Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7343.
Part P: United States Code Congressional and Administrative News
Part Q: Sections derived from other sections.
Part Q(17): Section 7343 is derived from:
Part O:Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7343.
TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 75, Subchapter D, Sec. 7343: Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person âThe term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation,or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
United States Code Congressional and Administrative News
~1: 83 rd Congress Second Session 1954 -Vol. 3 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE -1954
SUBTITLE F PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 61BINFORMATION AND RETURNS
~13: Â§ 7343. Definition of term "person"
This section continues in one place the provision now found in the various criminal provisions of the existing Internal Revenue Code.
Part Q: Sections derived from other sections. ~1: Title 26 U.S.C. (1986) Sections ~2: Derived from
Sections the 1939as follows below: Code as follow below: (Derived from) ~1(s): 7343: ~2(s): 145(d),
894(b)(2)(D), 1718(d), 1821(a)(4), 2557(b)( , 2707(d), 3228, 3710(c), 3793(b)(2). Part Q(17):.Section 7343 is derived from: ~1: Â§7343 is derived from the 1939 Code sections as follows: ~2: 145(d): (d) CROSS REFERENCE .-For penalties for failure to file information returns with respect to foreign personal holding companies and foreign corporation, see section 340. ~3: 894(b)(2)(D): (D) The term "person" as used in this paragraphs (B) and (C) includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. ~3(a): Â§ 894(b)(2)(D) are under ESTATES TAX. ~4: 1718(d): (d) The term "person" as used in this subsection includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. ~4(a): Â§ 1718(d) are under ADMISSIONS AND DUES.
~5: 1821(a)(4): (4) The term "person" as used in this subsection includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. ~5(a): Â§ 1821(a)(4) are under CHAPTER 11BDOCUMENTS, OTHERINSTRUMENTS, AND PLAYING CARDS. ~6: 2557(b)( : ( The term "person" as used in paragraphs (2) (3) and (4) includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. ~6(a): Â§ 2557(b)( are under CHAPTER 23B NARCOTICS. ~7: 2707(d): (d) The term "person" as used in this section includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. ~7(a): Â§ 2707(d) are under
CHAPTER 25B FIREARMS. ~8: 3228: SEC. 3228. DEFINITIONS..(a) PERSON . The word "person" as used in this part and subchapter A or chapter 23 shall be construed to mean and include a partnership, association, company, or corporation, as well as a natural person. ~8(a): Â§ 3228 are under Part V Narcotics. ~9: 3710(c):(c) PERSON DEFINED . The term "person" as used in this section includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
21. Although not realized by parents, the initial setup for "personhood" is when a newborn babyâs parents conjure up a name for their child and then enter that name on a birth certificate and the county recorder records the name and the other information entered on the birth certificate with the appropriate government recording office. When informing the county recorder with the information filled out on the birth certificate document the parents do not reserve any ownership rights to the name they conjured up for their child. By failing to reserve any ownership rights to the name the parents effectively inform the county recorder the name and then, abandon it, so the "owner" of the name, by default, becomes the state of California. It is important here to understand that it is the "name" that the state becomes the owner of, not the child.
22. At the age of five or six years the child is enrolled in government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools" where the child is indoctrinated for the next thirteen years to believe he or she was born into United States citizenship and is likewise indoctrinated to believe that through such "birth" he or she was automatically, by such "birth", also born into being a citizen of
California. Please take Mandatory Judicial Notice that it is physically impossible for a real live flesh and blood human baby to be born in an artificial entity or to be born automatically into citizenship of such an artificial entity.
23. At the age of sixteen years the child, at that time having attained the age where he or she is recognized to be a somewhat responsible adult, is old enough to volunteer him or her self into a condition of servitude known as "citizenship", for which the child has been indoctrinated to believe and accept without question that he or she was automatically born into. Among honest people, this is known as "fraudulent inducement".
24. During the first sixteen years of his or her life, and especially after entering "High School", these young adults have been programmed to believe that he or she must present "his" or "her" birth certificate to the local Department of Revenue Office in order to be issued a California driver license.
25. Thereupon, the young adult presents his or her self to the said Revenue Office where the young adult proudly presents "his" or "her" birth certificate, whereupon, after some testing and skill examination, the young adult is issued an California driver license, thereupon the young adult has unknowingly and unwittingly relinquished the individual political sovereignty and independence he or she was born with and volunteered his or her self into a condition of voluntary servitude with the political status of a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Â§470 of the California Vehicle Code.
26. That is, the birth certificate created by the childâs parents upon the "birthâ of the child constituted the creation of an artificial persona, such persona being the "name" entered on the birth certificate.
27. When the childâs parents inform the county recorder, and then the county recorder records that document with the government recording office the parents failed to reserve any ownership rights or interest in the said persona created and recorded therein. Such failure on the part of the parents constitutes the abandonment of any ownership interest the parents may have had in the persona they created and such abandonment causes the ownership interest to devolve upon the State of California.
28. When the child was born, an event was recorded on the birth certificate the child then presented the birth certificate as a driver license applicant, the actual transaction had very little to do with the licensing of the applicants operation of a self-propelled conveyance on the public way of California, the presentation of the birth certificate had considerable to do with establishing that the applicant was thereupon and thereafter, a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Â§470 of the California Vehicle Code.
29. The application for the driver license would be more properly described as an application for a license to enable the applicant to legally use government owned property, such property being the "name" entered on the "applicantâs" birth certificate. Through the application for and issuance of the driver license, the applicant unknowingly and unwittingly agreed to function as a "person" under the persona, under the artificial guise of an artificial entity, designated as a "natural person", as the term "natural person" is included among five other artificial persons in the definition of the word "person" in Â§470 of the California Vehicle Code.
30. How can a "person" be construed to be an artificial entity? Only by a skillfully contrived statutory enactment:
31. As involuntary servitude is prohibited by both the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal
Constitution and Article one section six of the California Constitution, the Legislators had to devise a clever scheme whereby it could be legally claimed that all real live flesh and blood men and women were subject to the statutes of California, without the scheme devised being an overt violation of the Constitutional prohibitions of involuntary servitude. Additionally, the scheme they devised would need to make it possible for it to be legally claimed that real live flesh and blood men and women were subject to the jurisdiction of California, an artificial entity. By cleverly defining the common word "person" to include several artificial entities and include among them the term "natural person" the legislators would be able to befuddle all but the most astute linguists.
32. At the time the definition of the word "person" was "discovered" the attention was cunningly focused on the Legislatures defining of firms, copartnerships, associations, limited liability companies and corporations, all to be persons with many of the Constitutionally protected rights of "natural persons", which protections are in many ways very reasonable as corporate owners of property had legal interests to protect and legal obligation to be met. The fact that the term "natural person" included in the definition of "person" would be surreptitiously used to cause real live flesh and blood men and women to "voluntarily" submit themselves to the political authority of an artificial entity through their "voluntary" application to use the artificial persona "name" created by the filing of "their" birth certificate at the time of "their" birth, during their application for a driver license, was totally missed by everyone, except those who intentionally implemented the scheme.
33. In examining the California Vehicle code.
An act to repeal and re-enact the Vehicle code.
[Chapter 3, Statutes of 1959, as amended to the close of the Legislative Session of 2005] The people of the State of California do enact as follows: DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED Â§305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.
34. In examining The California Vehicle Code we find additional definitions of terms having to do with drivers:
California Vehicle Code
100. Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these definitions shall govern the construction of this code.
Â§435. "Nonresident" is a person who is not a resident of this State.
Â§516. "Resident" means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.
The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:
(a) Address where registered to vote.
(b) Location of employment or place of business.
(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.
(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.
(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.
(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.
(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended
to a nonresident.
(h) Possession of a California driver's license.
(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.
Â§305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.
Â§460. An "owner" is a person having all the incidents of ownership, including the legal title of a vehicle whether or not such person lends, rents, or creates a security interest in the vehicle; the person entitled to the possession of a vehicle as the purchaser under a security agreement; or the State, or any county, city, district, or political subdivision of the State, or the United States, when entitled to the possession and use of a vehicle under a lease, lease-sale, or rental-purchase agreement for a period of 30 consecutive days or more.
Â§470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.
California Vehicle Code, Division 6. DRIVERSâ LICENSES.
Chapter 1, Article 1. Persons required to be licensed, Exemptions, and age limits. Unlawful to drive unless licensed
Â§12500. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.
(b) A person may not drive a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license or endorsement issued under this code for that class, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code, or those persons specifically authorized to operate motorized bicycles or motorized scooters with a valid driver's license of any class, as specified in subdivision (h) of Section 12804.9.
(c) A person may not drive a motor vehicle in or upon any off street parking facility, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license of the appropriate class or certification to operate the vehicle. As used in this subdivision, "off street parking facility" means any off street facility held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and includes any publicly owned facilities for off street parking, and privately owned facilities for off street parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park and which are held open for the common public use of retail customers. (d) A person may not drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which the person is licensed. (e) A motorized scooter operated on public streets shall at all times be equipped with an engine that complies with the applicable State Air Resources Board emission requirements. Personâs exempt
Â§12501. The following persons are not required to obtain a driver's license: (a) An officer or employee of the United States, while operating a motor vehicle owned or controlled by the United States on the business of the United States, except when the motor vehicle being operated is a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210. (b) Any person while driving or operating implements of husbandry incidentally operated or moved over a highway, except as provided in Section 36300 or 36305. (c) Any person driving or operating an off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification, as defined in Section
38012, while driving or operating such motor vehicle as provided in Section 38025. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes operation of a motor vehicle by a person without a valid driver's license upon any off street parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500.
Â§12502. (a) The following persons may operate a motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a driver's license under this code: (1) A nonresident over the age of 18 years having in his or her immediate possession a valid driver's license issued by a foreign jurisdiction of which he or she is a resident, except as provided in Section
(2) A nonresident, 21 years of age or older, if transporting hazardous material, as defined in Section 353, in a commercial vehicle, having in his or her immediate possession, a valid license with the appropriate endorsement issued by another state or other jurisdiction that is recognized by the department, or a Canadian driver's license and a copy of his or her current training certificate to transport hazardous material that complies with all federal laws and regulations with respect to hazardous materials, both of which shall be in his or her immediate possession.
(3) A nonresident having in his or her immediate possession a valid driver's license, issued by the
Diplomatic Motor Vehicle Office of the Office of Foreign Missions of the United States Department of State, for the type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that the person is operating. (b) Any person entitled to the exemption contained in subdivision (a), while operating, within this state, a commercial vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210, shall have in his or her possession a current medical certificate of a type described in subdivision (c) of Section 12804.9, which has been issued within two years of the date of operation of that vehicle. (c) A nonresident possessing a medical certificate in accordance with subdivision (b) shall comply with any restriction of the medical certificate issued to that nonresident. Â§12503. A nonresident over the age of 18 years whose home state or country does not require the licensing of drivers may operate a foreign vehicle owned by him for not to exceed 30 days without obtaining a license under this code.
Â§12504. (a) Sections 12502 and 12503 apply to any nonresident over the age of 16 years but under the age of 18 years. The maximum period during which that nonresident may operate a motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a driver's license is limited to a period of 10 days immediately following the entry of the nonresident into this state except as provided in subdivision (b) of this section.
(b) Any nonresident over the age of 16 years but under the age of 18 years who is a resident of a foreign jurisdiction which requires the licensing of drivers may continue to operate a motor vehicle in this state after 10 days from his or her date of entry into this state if he or she meets both the following: (1) He or she has a valid driver's license, issued by the foreign jurisdiction, in his or her immediate possession. (2) He or she has been issued and has in his or her immediate possession a nonresident minor's certificate, which the department issues to a nonresident minor who holds a valid driver's license issued to him or her by his or her home state or country, and who files proof of financial responsibility. (c) Whenever any of the conditions for the issuance of a nonresident minor's certificate cease to exist, the department shall cancel the certificate and require the minor to surrender it to the department.
Â§12505. (a) (1) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person's state of domicile. "State of domicile" means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent. Prima facie evidence of residency for driver's licensing purposes includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(A) Address where registered to vote.
(B) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.
(C) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.
(D) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient. (2) California residency is required of a person in order to be issued a commercial driver's license under this code. (b) The presumption of residency in this state may be rebutted by satisfactory evidence that the licensee's primary residence is in another state. (c) Any person entitled to an exemption under Section 12502, 12503, or 12504 may operate a motor vehicle in this state for not to exceed 10 days from the date he or she establishes residence in this state, except that he or she shall obtain a license from the department upon becoming a resident before being employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways. (d) If the State of California is decertified by the federal government and prohibited from issuing an initial, renewal, or upgraded commercial driver's license pursuant to Section 384.405 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, the following applies:
(1) An existing commercial driver's license issued pursuant to this code prior to the date that the state is notified of its decertification shall remain valid until its expiration date.
(2) A person who is a resident of this state may obtain a nonresident commercial driver's license from any state that elects to issue a nonresident commercial driver's license and that complies with the testing and licensing standards contained in subparts F, G, and H of Part 383 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) For the purposes of this subdivision, a nonresident commercial driver's license is a commercial driver's license issued by a state to an individual domiciled in a foreign country or in another state. (e)
Subject to Section 12504, a person over the age of 16 years who is a resident of a foreign jurisdiction other than a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Canada, having a valid driver's license issued to him or her by any other foreign jurisdiction having licensing standards deemed by the Department of Motor Vehicles equivalent to those of this state, may operate a motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a license from the department, except that he or she shall obtain a license before being employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways. (f) Any person from a foreign country, except a territory or possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Canada, shall obtain a class A or a class B license from the department before operating on the highways a motor vehicle for which a class A or class B license is required, as described in Section 12804.9. The medical examination form required for issuance of a class A or class B driver's license shall be completed by a health care professional, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 12804.9, who is licensed, certified, or registered to perform physical examinations in the United States of America. This subdivision does not apply to (1) drivers of school buses operated in California on a trip for educational purposes or (2) drivers of vehicles used to provide the services of a local public agency.
(g) This section does not authorize the employment of a person in violation of Section 12515.
(h) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.
Â§12506. The department may issue a temporary driver's license to any person applying for a driver's license, to any person applying for renewal of a driver's license, or to any licensee whose license is required to be changed, added to, or modified. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 12805, the department may issue a temporary driver's license to an applicant who has previously been licensed in this state or in any other state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Dominion of Canada, notwithstanding that the applicant has failed the written examination on the person's first attempt. A temporary license permits the operation of a motor vehicle upon the highways for a period of 60 days, if the licensee has the temporary license in his or her immediate possession, and while the department is completing its investigation and determination of all facts relative to the applicant's right to receive a license. The temporary license is invalid when the applicant's license has been issued or refused. Â§12508. When in the opinion of the department it would be in the interest of safety, the department may issue, in individual cases, to any applicant for a driver's license, a license limited in duration to less than the regular term. Upon the expiration of a limited term license the department may extend its duration for an additional period without fee but the duration of the license and extensions shall not exceed the term of a regular license.
35. Throughout the Codes of California we find a universal use of the word "person", even in the subsections setting forth who shall be exempted from driver licensing there is no mention of any driver who would not be a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Â§470 of the California Vehicle Code. This repetitious emphatic use of the word "person" is clearly intended to be interpreted by the casual reader as a reference to real live flesh and blood men and women without overtly including the words "men" and "women" in any way that would cause a grammatical error to exist in the definition of the word "person", and there are innumerable definitions of the word "person" throughout the Codes of California. None of these many definitions include the words "men" or "women". In every instance every definition of the word "person" includes several categories of various artificial entities. In every one of these many definitions the very first item included in every definition of the word "person" is the term "natural person". In every instance the additional items included in such definitions are, without exception, several items all clearly being some manner of artificial entity, such as "firm", "copartnership", "association",â limited liability companyâ"corporation", etc. In not one single instance could I find a definition of the word "person" in the Codes of California which included the words "men" or "women".
36. In the definition of "driver" in The California Vehicle Code we find: âÂ§305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.â
37. It is clear that this sectionâs intention is to convey, by implication, that the "driver" mentioned therein, is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus, to be a real live flesh and blood man or woman. It is additionally quite clear that this definition of "driver" is intended to very clearly exclude "firm", "copartnership", "association", âlimited liability companyâ and "corporation" from the definition of "driver", even though Â§305âs primary candidate to be designated as A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle yes, "a personâ except in this instance, the term "a person" is not intended to include every artificial person included in the definition of the word "person", because "firms", "copartnerships", "associations", and "corporations" have no ability to climb behind the steering wheel and be "in actual physical control of a vehicle upon a highway or ... exercise... control over or steer... a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle."! How duplicitous can a legislature get in its endeavors to avoid revealing its true intent?
38. The clear intention here, in the definition of the word "driver", is to include only one specific "person" among the five artificial persons included in the definition of the word "person" in Â§305 and that "artificial person" is the "person" who presented a birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license and thereby "volunteer" to be included in the class designated as a "natural person" in Â§305. The reason the Legislature could not and did not use the words "man" or "woman" in any of its many definitions of the word "person" in the Codes of California is because "man" and "woman" are not words that in any way lend themselves well in references to such artificial persons as "firms", "copartnerships", "associations", or "corporations" âlimited liability companyâ OR "NATURAL PERSONS", when the term "natural person" is intended by the Legislature to designate an artificial persona!
39. The previous careful analysis of the definitions of "person" and "driver" as such are incorporated in the California Code enables us to construct the intent of the legislature by use of reasonable interpretation and thereby avoid totally absurd applications of such statutes, as was ruled by the U.S.
Supreme Court in excerpts from rulings thereof as set forth herein below in the following cases, all of which were referenced by SCOTUS in HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed.
226, Feb. 29, 1892 "In Pier Co. v. Hannam, 3 Barn. & Ald. 266, ABBOTT, C. J., quotes from Lord Coke as follows: 'Acts of parliament are to be so construed as no man that is innocent or free from [causing] injury or wrong [doing] be, by a literal construction [of the statute], punished or endangered. "
"In the case of State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 96, 99, [I]n what sense is the term 'willful' used? In common parlance, 'willful' is used in the sense of 'intentional,' as distinguished from 'accidental' or 'involuntary.'
Whatever one does intentionally, he does willfully. Is it used in that sense in this act? Did the legislature intend to make the intentional opening of a fence for the purpose of going upon the land of another indictable, if done by permission or for a lawful purpose? * * * We cannot suppose such to have been the actual intent. To adopt such a construction would put a stop to the ordinary business of life. The language of the act, if construed literally, evidently leads to an absurd result. If a literal construction of the words of a statute be absurd, the act must be so construed as to avoid the absurdity. The court must restrain the words. The object designed to be reached by the act must limit and control the literal import of the terms and phrases employed."
40. In the above opinion there can be no reasonable doubt that SCOTUS intended its explanation of the common meaning of "willful" to only apply where the intentionally done act was done by an living, breathing man or woman who was fully and properly informed of all of the ramifications of his or her "willful" act prior thereto; that an act done as a result of intentionally misleading indoctrination of the living, breathing man or woman as a child, by the entity that was thereafter purporting to hold the living, breathing man or woman to acts done as a result of the intentional misleading indoctrination, would be prohibited on the basis of the principle of Estoppel. As SCOTUS stated, "To adopt such a construction would put a stop to the ordinary business of life."
41. However, there is another consideration as to what may or may not be "willful" that the Supreme Court did not mention in the foregoing: Bouvierâs Law Encyclopedia 3rd Rev. 8th Edition, 1914 provides the meaning of "Involuntary" is as follows: "Involuntary, An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An act is involuntary when it is done under duress."
42. It is clear that Bouvierâs meaning conveys that an act, even though intentionally done, is not "willfully" done when done under duress.
43. Additionally, in the foregoing SCOTUS opined that where a literal application of the wording of a statute would result in an absurd result, the wording must "restrain the words". Back to SCOTUS in Holy Trinity: " In U. S. v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486 "The question as to the sufficiency of this plea was certified to this court, and it not an obstruction of the mail, or the retarding of the passage of a carrier of the mail, within the meaning of the act. In its opinion the court says: 'All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter. "
" The following cases may also be cited: Henry v. Tilson, 17 Vt. 479; Ryegate v. Wardsboro, 30 Vt. 743; Ex parte Ellis, 11 Cal. 220; Ingraham v. Speed, 30 Miss. 410; Jackson v. Collins, 3 Cow. 89; People v. Insurance Co.,15 Johns. 358; Burch v. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374; People v. [143 U.S. 457, 462]Commissioners, 95 N. Y.554, 558; People v. Lacombe, 99 N. Y. 43, 49, 1 N. E. Rep. 599; Chesapeake& Ohio Canal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 152; Osgood v. Breed, 12 Mass. 525, 530; Wilbur v. Crane, 13 Pick.284; Oates v. Bank, 100 U. S. 239. " "Among other things which may be considered in determining the intent of the legislature is the title of the act. We do not mean that it may be used to add to or take from the body of the statute, (Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. 107,) but it may help to interpret its meaning. In the case of U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 386, Chief Justice MARSHALL said: 'On the influence which the title ought to have in construing the enacting clauses, much has been said, and yet it is not easy to discern the point of difference between the opposing counsel in this respect. Neither party contends that the title of an act can control plain words in the body of the statute; and neither denies that, taken with other parts, it may assist in removing ambiguities. Where the intent is plain, nothing is left to construction. Where the mind labors to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes everything from which aid can be derived; and in such case the title claims a degree of notice, and will have its due share of consideration.' And in the case of U. S. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 631, the same judge applied the doctrine in this way: 'The words of the section are in terms of unlimited extent. The words 'any person or persons' are broad enough to comprehend every human being. But general words must not only be limited to cases within the jurisdiction of the state, but also to those objects to which the legislature intended to apply them. Did the legislature intend to apply these words to the subjects of a foreign power, who in a foreign ship may commit murder or robbery on the high seas? The title of an act cannot control its words, but may furnish some aid in showing what was in the mind of the legislature. The title of this act is, 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.' It would seem that offenses against the United States, not offenses against the human race, were the crimes which the legislature intended by this law to punish. "
44. In this instant case, the general application of the common word "person" has been supplanted by the mere fact that the Legislature of California has created a statutory definition of this word and the statutory meaning contrived by the Legislature must be applied in accordance with the clear intent of such Legislature. However true that may be, there are still limitations as to the application thereof. As stated in the above HOLY TRINITY excerpt, SCOTUS therein opined that a state may not, through the general application of common words or phraseology, expand the Stateâs authority beyond its reasonable boundaries.
45. By the Legislatureâs failure to include the words "men" and "women" in the statutory definition of the word "person", the Legislatureâs clearly demonstrated that their intent to supplant the commonly understood meaning of the word "person" to specifically exclude real live flesh and blood men and women, if this were not true the Legislators would have included the words "men" and "women" in its definition of the word "person"; and would have included the words "men" and "women" in its statutory definition of the common word "driver".
46. When taken together the definitions of the words "person" and the word "driver" are complementary, the statutory definition of each supports the statutory definition of the other. It is clearly the intention of the Legislature to exclude real live flesh and blood men and women from both!
47. As the Constitution of both the United States and California prohibit involuntary servitude the Legislature cannot and did not use phraseology such as (or similar to) "all persons", in order to extend the authority of California beyond its constitutionally established boundaries. The inclusion of such phraseology in the statutes of California may not be construed to in any way unconstitutionally expand such limited authority in order to unconstitutionally extend such authority over living, breathing men and woman who have not willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit them self to the authority of the government of the artificial entity, California.
48. The issue here is not whether or not I could use some birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license, that issue is of no immediate significance! However, on that issue, why should I? Can it be reasonably denied that I have the natural born and naturally acquired right to determine for myself whether or not I will "volunteer"? Until I willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agree to submit myself to the authority of the government of the artificial entity, California, the issue of whether there might be or is a birth certificate I could use in order for me to be issued an California driver license is a totally moot issue! Bouvierâs Law Encyclopedia 3rd Rev. 8th Edition, 1914 provides the meaning of "Involuntary" as follows: "Involuntary, An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An act is involuntary when it is done under duress."
49. Bouvierâs meaning of "wilful" applies equally to an individual who was intentionally indoctrinated with lies in order to seduce him into "voluntarily" complying with California codes, "An act is involuntary when it is done as a result of having been intentionally and wrongfully indoctrinated by the lying government of California."
50. And when California was not the actual perpetrator of the criminal indoctrination of the living, breathing men and woman when the living, breathing man or woman was a child, but then, later, California intentionally attempts to reap benefits from the wrongful indoctrination of its criminal contemporaries, the governments or the other Forty-nine states of the Federation known as the United States, in this particular instance such criminal contemporary being the government of the artificial entity, California, California thereby compounds its unforgivable insidious criminal activities! A key word and principle here, is ESTOPPEL!
51. The issue here, as I wrote herein above, is honesty and integrity of government in its relations with the general populace.
Law Dictionary 4th Ed, "fiduciary"; A person having a legal duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for the benefit of another in matters connected with his undertaking; in the nature of a position of trust or holding confidence. For example, a trustee has a fiduciary obligation to the beneficiary of a trust and acts as a fiduciary in his management of the trust property. An attorney has a fiduciary relationship with his client, etc.
The name associated with the debt is, in absence of evidence to the contrary, derived of the original of the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth attached.
I am not and did not consent to be a party to the undertaking, nor do I have actual or constructive possession of the original Certificate of Live Birth, nor am I the fiduciary. I am the living man, and I own nothing.
I wave the right to,,,and do not consent to be recognized as a person, whoever, individual, you, sir or any other artificial label/entity!
I am simply a Living, breathing, flesh, bone and blood sentient man created in the image of my creators.
Included with this notice is a photocopy of a certified copy of a certificate of live birth acknowledging Californiaâs indemnity certificate of usufruct to the living spoliated owner.
The inclusion of this photocopy is not to be construed as an act or claim to the "name" upon that certificate, but only notice of use.
Use cannot be construed as a claim of ownership.
As OBLIGEE/GRANTOR and DONOR for all credit to the UNITED STATES, by and through its Registered Name, JOHN HENRY SMITH,
I forgive and Absolve all the debt for JOHN HENRY SMITH registered by the STATE OF California, as my GIFT to the UNITED STATES on the condition all debt be canceled and retired and never reissued.
"U.S.C. 3113 . Accepting gifts
(a) To provide the people of the United States with an opportunity to make gifts to the United States Government to be used to reduce the public debt-
(1) the Secretary of the Treasury may accept for the Government a gift of-
(B) an obligation of the Government included in the public debt made only on the condition that the obligation be canceled and retired and not reissued; "
As codified in #38 of the 1868 Lieber code
"38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity,
for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts
to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity."