Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

'shall'

Expand Messages
  • jm367
    The defendant shall be dealt with in a stated way; it is the language of command, a test significant, though not controlling. Richbourg Motor Co. v. United
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 18, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
       

      The defendant 'shall' be dealt with in a stated way; it is the language of command, a test significant, though not controlling. Richbourg Motor Co. v. United States, 281 U.S. 528, 534 , 50 S.Ct. 385, 73 A.L.R. 1081. 

      ESCOE v. ZERBST, 295 U.S. 490 (1935)

    • Bob law
      The term Shall can also be permissive as in May within legislative construction, see Words and Phrases for verification of same. Respectfully, Bob L.
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 19, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        The term "Shall" can also be permissive as in "May"
        within legislative construction, see "Words and
        Phrases" for verification of same.

        Respectfully,
        Bob L.



        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
        http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
      • WW011@aol.com
        Thus and so, Shall is mandatory, May is permissive. VC27315 (D) (1) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all
        Message 3 of 22 , Jun 25, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Thus and so, " Shall" is mandatory, "May" is permissive.

          VC27315 (D) (1) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway
          unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are
          properly restrained by a safety belt. Operative word being May!
          Why wouldn't a code pleading of this nature fly in court (other than they
          like to steal your money)?
        • WW011@aol.com
          In the Front of the VC book it says Shall is mandatory and May is permissive
          Message 4 of 22 , Jun 25, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            In the Front of the VC book it says "Shall" is mandatory and "May" is
            permissive
          • paradoxmagnus
            PERSON - Do you qualify or are you a Man or Woman? MOTOR VEHICLE - Isn t that DEFINED as something used in COMMERCE in Title 18 of the US CODE? PASSENGER -
            Message 5 of 22 , Jun 25, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              PERSON - Do you qualify or are you a Man or Woman?

              MOTOR VEHICLE - Isn't that DEFINED as something used in COMMERCE in
              Title 18 of the US CODE?

              PASSENGER - Isn't that a COMMERCIAL TERM for people who PAY to go
              somewhere on a COMMERCIAL CARRIER?

              I think people should do a little research because it sounds like
              there are a few things being CONFUSED.

              Patrick in California

              "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
              on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus


              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, WW011@a... wrote:
              > Thus and so, " Shall" is mandatory, "May" is permissive.
              >
              > VC27315 (D) (1) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway
              > unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are
              > properly restrained by a safety belt. Operative word being May!
              > Why wouldn't a code pleading of this nature fly in court (other than
              they
              > like to steal your money)?
            • The Handyman
              Drivers and operators also gas up at an ISLAND, back up to a DOCK,and keep a LOG. Sounds like words use at sea to me. ... From: paradoxmagnus To:
              Message 6 of 22 , Jun 26, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Drivers and operators also gas up at an ISLAND, back up to a DOCK,and keep a LOG.  Sounds like words use at sea to me.
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:11 PM
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: 'shall'

                PERSON - Do you qualify or are you a Man or Woman?

                MOTOR VEHICLE - Isn't that DEFINED as something used in COMMERCE in
                Title 18 of the US CODE?

                PASSENGER - Isn't that a COMMERCIAL TERM for people who PAY to go
                somewhere on a COMMERCIAL CARRIER?

              • mel
                legalbear will be on firstamendmentradio.com at 3pm pacific time today. Be sure to listen. he will have lots of wisdom to give. Jay from Texas will also be
                Message 7 of 22 , Jun 26, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  legalbear will be on firstamendmentradio.com at 3pm
                  pacific time today. Be sure to listen. he will have
                  lots of wisdom to give. Jay from Texas will also be a
                  part of the show. -M





                  ____________________________________________________
                  Yahoo! Sports
                  Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
                  http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... A few? We could start to compile a Big List of Lies To Believe and as a second exercise, try to put them in proper order, so that first things come first,
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jun 28, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Jun 25, 2005, at 9:11 PM, paradoxmagnus wrote:

                    > PERSON - Do you qualify or are you a Man or Woman?
                    >
                    > MOTOR VEHICLE - Isn't that DEFINED as something used in COMMERCE in
                    > Title 18 of the US CODE?
                    >
                    > PASSENGER - Isn't that a COMMERCIAL TERM for people who PAY to go
                    > somewhere on a COMMERCIAL CARRIER?
                    >
                    > I think people should do a little research because it sounds like
                    > there are a few things being CONFUSED.
                    >
                    > Patrick in California

                    A few? We could start to compile a Big List of Lies To Believe and as
                    a second exercise, try to put them in proper order, so that first
                    things come first, instead of last or never, and last things only get
                    dealt with after all prerequisites are fulfilled. That would be a
                    novel approach, eh?

                    Another list could be all the things that come before anyone ever has
                    to discuss such terms as person, motor vehicle, passenger, etc. I
                    left out "commercial" because I think the people need to do a lot of
                    research on what that word means, and how they enter into private
                    commercial agreements somehow without seeming to be aware of it later
                    when it is revealed to them. They act like whatever they did to enter
                    into the agreement was a part of natural life of a human man or woman
                    and not of a person. In fact, most think that they ARE persons if you
                    point blank ask them,
                    and they probably ARE because they are deemed to either be competent or
                    incompetent. Which will it be today?!

                    Regards,

                    FF
                  • jm367
                    I have a person. I am a Person. Every Man is a Person. The question is what are your immunities and by what law are your pursuits of happiness to be governed
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jun 28, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I have a person.  I am a Person.  Every Man is a Person. 
                      The question is what are your immunities and by what law are your pursuits of happiness to be governed when a controversy arises ?  And how do you obtain from Government what is due ?



                    • Paul Lowery
                      Jm * there are two types of person Natural person and person. Former is inherent with all the political power, the latter is a fiction of the law. Paul Lowery
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jm * there are two types of person

                        Natural person and person.
                        Former is inherent with all the political power, the latter is a fiction of the law.


                        Paul Lowery
                        H------- Architects, Inc.
                        713.785.3644

                        >>> jm367@... 6/29/2005 1:13 AM >>>

                        I have a person. I am a Person. Every Man is a Person.
                        The question is what are your immunities and by what law are your pursuits of happiness to be governed when a controversy arises ? And how do you obtain from Government what is due ?




                        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                        Visit your group "tips_and_tricks" on the web.
                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • paradoxmagnus
                        Aren t the People of the several States SOVEREIGN? The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Aren't the People of the several States SOVEREIGN?

                          "The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill
                          the different departments of its government, but in the People, from
                          whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their
                          discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the
                          constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both
                          in reference to the federal and state government." Spooner v.
                          McConnell, 22 F. 939 @ 943

                          "[I]n common usage, the term `person' does not include the
                          sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily
                          construed to exclude it." United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S.
                          600, 604 (1941); accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S.
                          258, 275 (1947). Particularly is this true where the statute imposes
                          a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit
                          or advantage. United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840).
                          There is nevertheless "no hard and fast rule of exclusion," United
                          States v. Cooper Corp., supra, at 604-605; and much depends on the
                          context, the subject matter, legislative history, and executive
                          interpretation. Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979)
                          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=
                          us&vol=442&invol=653

                          It appears obvious to me that the government wants People to ASSUME
                          that ALL laws actually APPLY to them when they may not.

                          CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 12.5. The Legislature hereby declares
                          its intent that the terms "man" or "men" where appropriate shall be
                          deemed "person" or "persons" and any references to the terms "man"
                          or "men" in sections of this code be changed to "person"
                          or "persons" when such code sections are being amended for any
                          purpose. This act is declaratory and not amendatory of existing law.

                          What IMMUNITIES do the SOVEREIGN People possess?

                          "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a
                          citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own
                          way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to
                          submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since
                          he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and
                          property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land
                          [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and
                          can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance
                          with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate
                          himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or
                          seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the
                          public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
                          Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

                          What LAW governs them?

                          "The 'liberty' guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in
                          the light of the common law, the principles and history of which
                          were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This
                          liberty denotes the 'right of the individual to engage in any of the
                          common occupations of life, to locomote, and generally enjoy those
                          rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly
                          pursuit of happiness by free men." Meyerv. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390,
                          399; U.S. v. Wong Kirn Ark 169 U.S. 649, 654

                          Patrick in California

                          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect
                          liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to
                          freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by
                          evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in
                          insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without
                          understanding." -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead
                          v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)


                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, jm367 <jm367@b...> wrote:
                          > I have a person. I am a Person. Every Man is a Person.
                          > The question is what are your immunities and by what law are your
                          > pursuits of happiness to be governed when a controversy arises ?
                          And
                          > how do you obtain from Government what is due ?
                        • paradoxmagnus
                          Maybe that s what should be expected in a nation where most believe that Man equals PERSON; being one of the People of the several states equals US CITIZEN;
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Maybe that's what should be expected in a nation where most believe
                            that Man equals PERSON; being one of the People of the several
                            states equals US CITIZEN; being a SOVEREIGN equals being a SUBJECT;
                            FEDERAL equals NATIONAL; COURT vested with the JUDICIAL POWER of
                            the STATE equals an legislatively created ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL;
                            common English equals LEGALESE; Common Law equals STARE DECISIS;
                            STATESMEN equals POLITICIAN; CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC equals
                            LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY; PEACE OFFICER equals POLICE OFFICER;
                            JUDICAL OFFICER equals JUDGE; ELECTOR equals VOTER; United States of
                            America equals UNITED STATES; and FREEDOM & LIBERTY means EQUAL
                            PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

                            Patrick in California

                            "If you want your life to be more rewarding, you have to change
                            the way you think."- Oprah Winfrey

                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@f...>
                            wrote:
                            > A few? We could start to compile a Big List of Lies To Believe
                            and as
                            > a second exercise, try to put them in proper order, so that first
                            > things come first, instead of last or never, and last things only
                            get
                            > dealt with after all prerequisites are fulfilled. That would be a
                            > novel approach, eh?
                            >
                            > Another list could be all the things that come before anyone ever
                            has
                            > to discuss such terms as person, motor vehicle, passenger, etc.
                            I
                            > left out "commercial" because I think the people need to do a lot
                            of
                            > research on what that word means, and how they enter into private
                            > commercial agreements somehow without seeming to be aware of it
                            later
                            > when it is revealed to them. They act like whatever they did to
                            enter
                            > into the agreement was a part of natural life of a human man or
                            woman
                            > and not of a person. In fact, most think that they ARE persons if
                            you
                            > point blank ask them,
                            > and they probably ARE because they are deemed to either be
                            competent or
                            > incompetent. Which will it be today?!
                            >
                            > Regards,
                            >
                            > FF
                          • hobot
                            I m still a bit confused on the statue named/defined natural person vs any other kind of artifical person. In Arkansas it states planly in DMV code that even a
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I'm still a bit confused on the statue named/defined
                              natural person vs any other kind of artifical person.
                              In Arkansas it states planly in DMV code that even
                              a natural person need be liscened on state roads.
                              Look up orgins of Persona, ala greek masks and
                              natural people to see what confuses me yet.

                              hobot

                              Paul Lowery wrote:
                              >
                              > Jm * there are two types of person
                              >
                              > Natural person and person.
                              > Former is inherent with all the political power, the latter is a
                              >
                            • Frog Farmer
                              ... You HAVE or YOU ARE? ... Person means mask and implies dishonesty. The Bible says all men are liars. But it also says we have free will, and the
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Jun 28, 2005, at 11:13 PM, jm367 wrote:

                                > I have a person.  I am a Person.

                                You HAVE or YOU ARE?

                                >   Every Man is a Person.

                                Person means "mask" and implies dishonesty. The Bible says all men are
                                liars. But it also says we have free will, and the ability to be
                                honest by choice.
                                 
                                > The question is what are your immunities

                                I have all the immunities of an African Tribal Potentate at the U.N.!!
                                And MORE!

                                > and by what law are your pursuits of happiness to be governed when a
                                > controversy arises ? 

                                That depends on the mob today, doesn't it? I have several laws on my
                                shelf, one or another appropriate for almost any possible visiting
                                neighbor. I even have a copy of the Koran somewhere around here. Most
                                of my visitors claim to be governed and empowered by the state
                                constitution, so I offer them both versions and ask them to choose
                                which one they want me to hold them to. So far all have chosen the most
                                recent publication put out by the state they say they represent.
                                Unfortunately for them, according to its terms, they fail to qualify to
                                speak past that point. Anything they say could be used against them in
                                a prosecution for impersonation of an officer.

                                > And how do you obtain from Government what is due ?

                                I look around and see anarchy, and I don't expect anything from it but
                                trouble.
                              • Don Schwarz
                                Registered maybe, but a license can only apply to a privilege and not the right of travel and the fact, that if you have paid the use tax on a thing, you
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Registered maybe, but a license can only apply
                                  to a privilege and not the right of travel and the fact,
                                  that if you have paid the "use tax" on a thing, you can't be denied
                                  the use of that thing you paid the tax on.








                                  At 01:48 PM 6/29/05 -0500, you wrote:
                                  >I'm still a bit confused on the statue named/defined
                                  >natural person vs any other kind of artifical person.
                                  >In Arkansas it states planly in DMV code that even
                                  >a natural person need be liscened on state roads.
                                  >Look up orgins of Persona, ala greek masks and
                                  >natural people to see what confuses me yet.
                                  >
                                  >hobot
                                  >
                                  >Paul Lowery wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Jm * there are two types of person
                                  > >
                                  > > Natural person and person.
                                  > > Former is inherent with all the political power, the latter is a
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • jm367
                                  I think there are more than two sorts of persons. There is a different person for every legal relation according to the maxims of law and this was conceded by
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I think there are more than two sorts of persons.  There is a different person for every legal relation according to the maxims of law and this was conceded by the supreme Court early on.

                                    But, a question I have, on reflection, arises from the fact that many statutes say "any person" and thereby presume a legal relation between a violator and the power for whom the lawgiver speaks.  I think examination would show that what is alleged is a tort without a person who has been injured.  This is why the question "Is there any evidence of a complaining party" gives them fits.  In the common law of England, the majesty of the person of the king was offended, but here the person of the king is absent from the realm, hopefully permanently.

                                    By the way, you are also misusing the phrase fiction of the law.  The person of a corporation has always been as real as the person of an indentured person or the person of a father.



                                  • paradoxmagnus
                                    m367, Aren t they enforcing PRIVATE law to TAX & REGULATE you through the use of ASSUMPTIONS & PRESUMPTIONS you are a JURISTIC PERSON and/or involved in some
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      m367,

                                      Aren't they enforcing PRIVATE law to TAX & REGULATE you through the
                                      use of ASSUMPTIONS & PRESUMPTIONS you are a JURISTIC PERSON and/or
                                      involved in some COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY/PRIVILEGE?

                                      "The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two
                                      are often used interchangeably."American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d
                                      877, 880

                                      "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the
                                      mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity
                                      which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but
                                      theindividuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights
                                      for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v.
                                      Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)

                                      If someone files a SIGNED 1040 Form under PENALTIES OF PERJURY, you
                                      could safely PRESUME that they were an OFFICER of the GOVERNMENT or
                                      another CORPORATION or the FIDUCIARY of a JURISTIC ENTITY/PERSON
                                      under a LEGAL DUTY or OBLIGATION to do so AND that the information
                                      contained on it was TRUE & CORRECT, couldn't youi?

                                      Wouldn't that be a FICTION of LAW?

                                      Patrick in California

                                      "Those who are SLAVES to DEFINITIONS, are SUBJECT to REGULATION." -
                                      PKM

                                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, jm367 <jm367@b...> wrote:
                                      > I think there are more than two sorts of persons. There is a
                                      different
                                      > person for every legal relation according to the maxims of law and
                                      this
                                      > was conceded by the supreme Court early on.
                                      >
                                      > But, a question I have, on reflection, arises from the fact that
                                      many
                                      > statutes say "any person" and thereby presume a legal relation
                                      between a
                                      > violator and the power for whom the lawgiver speaks. I think
                                      > examination would show that what is alleged is a tort without a
                                      person
                                      > who has been injured. This is why the question "Is there any
                                      evidence
                                      > of a complaining party" gives them fits. In the common law of
                                      England,
                                      > the majesty of the person of the king was offended, but here the
                                      person
                                      > of the king is absent from the realm, hopefully permanently.
                                      >
                                      > By the way, you are also misusing the phrase fiction of the law.
                                      The
                                      > person of a corporation has always been as real as the person of
                                      an
                                      > indentured person or the person of a father.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                    • mel
                                      Its means the person naturalized, after all, persons (corporations)cannot be born(issue) into the United States (municipal corporation). It took me a while to
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jun 29, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Its means the person naturalized, after all, persons (corporations)cannot be
                                        born(issue) into the United States (municipal corporation). It took me a while to figure
                                        this out, but after doing an indepth study into Title 26, and status, it became apparent
                                        it had nothing to do with human beings(a monster, who may or may not be deformed,
                                        but is unable to inherit)or a man. -M



                                        > --- hobot <hobot@m...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > I'm still a bit confused on the statue
                                        named/defined
                                        > > natural person vs any other kind of artifical
                                        > > person.


                                        --- hobot <hobot@...> wrote:

                                        > I'm still a bit confused on the statue named/defined
                                        > natural person vs any other kind of artifical
                                        > person.
                                      • jm367
                                        I can t make out how this is private law when all the cases speak about adjudicating public rights created by Congress. All administrative process concerns
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jun 30, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I can't make out how this is private law when all the cases speak about
                                          adjudicating public rights created by Congress. All administrative
                                          process concerns publi rights. Nor is there any precedent that I know
                                          of for private law with criminal penalties.
                                          Most people step right up and use the identity provided for them by
                                          Congress. That identity is the CHILD registered in the Department of
                                          Commerce.
                                          It's very simple to distinguish yourself from that identity unless you
                                          are trying to deny what is on paper before the court or before an agency.

                                          It's not a fiction of law for someone to sign and file a 1040 as you
                                          say. It is testimonial evidence of the facts stated. It's true if for
                                          no other reason than the testimony to it. Where's the fiction ? There
                                          is such a thing as a corporation de facto. .



                                          paradoxmagnus wrote:

                                          > m367,
                                          >
                                          > Aren't they enforcing PRIVATE law to TAX & REGULATE you through the
                                          > use of ASSUMPTIONS & PRESUMPTIONS you are a JURISTIC PERSON and/or
                                          > involved in some COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY/PRIVILEGE?
                                        • paradoxmagnus
                                          Jim said all the cases speak about adjudicating public rights created by Congress. All administrative process concerns public rights. Don t Men & Women have
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jul 2, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Jim said "all the cases speak about adjudicating public rights
                                            created by Congress. All administrative process concerns public
                                            rights."

                                            Don't Men & Women have UNALIENABLE RIGHTS granted by their CREATOR
                                            as evidenced by the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDEACE?

                                            "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."

                                            Don't ONLY JURISTIC PERSONS have PUBLIC RIGHTS (AKA PRIVILEGES or
                                            CIVIL RIGHTS) created by CONGRESS?

                                            "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the
                                            mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an
                                            artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the
                                            state; but theindividuals' Right to live and own property are
                                            natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be
                                            imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)

                                            Couldn't those JURISTIC PERSONS be TAXED & REUULATED for those
                                            PRIVILEGES?

                                            "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an
                                            excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which
                                            is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The
                                            income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for
                                            determining the amount of the tax. "Congressional Record from March
                                            27, 1943 (page 2580). Mr. F. Morse Hubbard, formerly of the
                                            legislative drafting research fund of Columbia University, and a
                                            former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department.

                                            Wouldn't any law that TAXES ir REGULATES those JURISTIC PERSONS have
                                            to be PRIVATE LAW?

                                            PUBLIC LAW - "A law or statute that applies to the PEOPLE generally
                                            of the nation or state adopting or enacting it, is denominated a
                                            public law, as contra distinguished from PRIVATE law, affecting only
                                            an INDIVIDUAL or small number of PERSONS." Black's Law Dictionary,
                                            6th edition

                                            PRIVATE LAW - was that portion of the law which defines regulates,
                                            enforces, and administers relationships among INDIVIDUALS,
                                            associations, and corporations. As used in contradistinction to
                                            public law,...." Black's

                                            Isn't the FICTION OF LAW that you are "CHILD registered in the
                                            Department of Commerce" and thus a CREATION of the STATE?

                                            Patrick in California

                                            "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a
                                            hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." --
                                            Uncle Remus



                                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, jm367 <jm367@b...> wrote:
                                            > I can't make out how this is private law when all the cases speak
                                            about
                                            > adjudicating public rights created by Congress. All
                                            administrative
                                            > process concerns publi rights. Nor is there any precedent that I
                                            know
                                          • jm367
                                            Excises have been imposed on the exercise of natural rights. see footnotes to Davis v. Steward Machinery case. On occupation taxation. I don t agree with
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Jul 2, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Excises have been imposed on the exercise of natural rights.  see footnotes to Davis v. Steward Machinery case.   On occupation taxation.
                                              I don't agree with it.  But the supreme court in dicta stated natural rights could be taxed like any other.

                                              What does unalienable mean ?  Does it mean immune from regulation by commercial regulation ?


                                            • Bob law
                                              Ok Jim, but there is another question which arises as a matter of legislative construction. I will reply ... [This is true enough wherein there has been an act
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Jul 3, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Ok Jim, but there is another question which arises as
                                                a matter of legislative construction. I will reply
                                                within your text:

                                                --- jm367 <jm367@...> wrote:

                                                > Excises have been imposed on the exercise of natural
                                                > rights. see
                                                > footnotes to Davis v. Steward Machinery case.
                                                [This is true enough wherein there has been an act of
                                                Congress limiting it's authority within the "district"
                                                certain activities.(i.e. the placing of a license to
                                                operate a particluar profession.) Remember that the
                                                federal Congress has a limited jurisdictional
                                                authority so do not place it's authority outside of
                                                it's expressed limitations.]

                                                On
                                                > occupation taxation.
                                                But the supreme court in
                                                > dicta stated natural
                                                > rights could be taxed like any other.
                                                [This is why the issues of the 16th Amendment is a
                                                moot point, and now for the benefit of new people to
                                                the forum, considered as frivilous as it doesn't
                                                matter. First off, the Amendment didn't change or
                                                alter the Constitution in anyway, which is why the
                                                Supreme's stated that it offered "no new taxing
                                                authority other than what Congress already had".
                                                Second. in my estimation is the largest question which
                                                I haven't seen vocalized. That is: have they?
                                                According to the 16th, Congress has a "right" to tax
                                                income from whatever source derived....right, but the
                                                question is have they taxed income from whatever
                                                source derived? The absolute answer is no they
                                                haven't. Where taxing authority is concerned we know
                                                as a matter of prior court rulings, it must be done
                                                with clear and unequivocal language, and to date
                                                it(the taxing authority which reaches to most
                                                American's in their private capacity) is mysteriously
                                                missing from the public record. Except for those
                                                activities, for which a tax has been placed, and they
                                                appear in clear language within Title 26 U.S.C.A.and
                                                supported (enforced) within the regulations which
                                                accompny it. Most of the tim eit is the
                                                mis-application of law which gets us all into
                                                trouble.]
                                                Respectfully,
                                                Bob L.


                                                __________________________________________________
                                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                http://mail.yahoo.com
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.