Misc RM 23    Misc reference material

Reference Material - For Information Only!

Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

What About Motor Vehicle Registration?

In simple terms, which are probably not found in any law book, a motor vehicle is a machine which is used on the streets and highways as a business. Everything else on the highway is considered something else, usually it is considered an automobile, but never in legal terms is it considered a motor vehicle. That is how simple is this subject of motor vehicles and traffic laws. Motor vehicles may have to be registered, but a personal automobile is not required to be registered, and the Texas Transportation Code makes this point rather plain to see.

           
I have yet to locate a government official who can read Chapter 502 of the Texas Transportation Code well enough to understand the point about personal automobiles. Therein lies our problem, because government officials have failed to read the traffic laws and honestly attempted to understand the meaning of the words. Most all of these administrators of the laws have read the part about a motor vehicle being a vehicle that is self-propelled and just assumed that someone moving about in a self-propelled machine not involved in commerce was in a motor vehicle, therefore every machine had to be registered. According to history and the written "laws" today this is not true. History, in the form of Legislation and court rulings, has designated that government has authority to regulate commerce on the streets and highways, but somewhere along the line those working for the government lost sight of the true function of their position. It appears that they began to misinterpreted the laws for the purpose of raising money for their supervisors.

         
If you read the following excerpts from court cases from the early 1900's you will be able to see the pattern of regulation by government. You'll see that a motor vehicle was a machine involved in commerce on the highways, and lawfully could be regulated and forced to be registered, licensed and made to be involved in other inconvenient activities, all of which are constitutional and legitimate on the part of the government. You will also see the pattern that government was not given authority to interfere with the right to travel by everyone else exercising their right to move about this state and country.

Packard v. Banton, 264 US 140 [1924]

The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their [ streets] use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper. [ Can it be any more clear than this?]

Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. [Again, a right is different than privilege.]

Interstate Busses Corp. v. Blodgett, 276 US 245 [1928]

The appellant has already complied with the general statutes of Connecticut requiring the registration of motor vehicles. Part 2, 1, of the act in question, imposes a tax of one cent for each mile of highway traversed by any motor vehicle used in interstate commerce 'as an excise on the use of such highway. [This reveals to us that the motor fuels tax is also based upon an occupation being conducted on the highways.]

It is not denied that a state may impose a registration or license fee on those using [ This is a special use that does not apply to the public using the highways for personal endeavors.] motor vehicles in the state, although engaged in interstate commerce, or that the state may impose a reasonable charge for the use of [276 U.S. 245, 250] its highways by motor vehicles so employed,...

Hendrick v. Maryland , 235 U.S. 610 , 35 S. Ct. 140; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 , 37 S. Ct. 30; Clark v. Poor, supra, and there is no evidence that the tax here is in itself an unreasonable charge for the privilege. But it is said that the particular scheme of taxation adopted by Connecticut imposes this tax in addition to statutory charges already made for the use of the highways in interstate commerce, and both in purpose and in effect discriminates against appellant and in favor of those operating [One of the most important terms to understand when studying this subject of motor vehicles. The term, operate, operating, operation always refers to operating a business on the highways, usually in the early days over a fixed route and schedule. Any other inference that the term applies to moving about in a personal automobile is a lie. ] motor vehicles in intrastate commerce.

The state has adopted a system of financing its highway construction and maintenance under which about 80 per cent of the cost is collected from fees for the registration of motor vehicles and for operators' [There's that term again.] licenses, from taxes on the sale of gasoline and from fines and penalties for violations of the motor vehicle laws.

These include a personal property tax upon its motor cars used in the state, a registration or license fee for each vehicle so used, and also, it is urged, a tax of two cents a gallon on the sale of gasoline within the state which in practice is absorbed by the consumer in the purchase price.

But no mileage tax like that imposed by part 2, 1, is levied upon those using motor vehicles in intrastate commerce. Instead part 1, 2 and 3, of the act under discussion, subject all companies engaged in intrastate motor bus transportation [Also a term used to describe commerce on the highways. The term goes way back into the 1800's, but few administrators of traffic laws have ever read back that far to determine the meaning of the words they are responsible today to know. Pity. ] to an excise of 3 per cent of their gross receipts, less such taxes as they have paid locally on their 'real and tangible personal estate.'

The two statutes are complementary in the sense that, while both levy a tax on those engaged in carrying passengers for hire over state highways in motor vehicles, to be expended for highway maintenance, one affects only interstate, and the other only intrastate, commerce.

That appellant is already contributing to highway maintenance is not in itself significant, for the state does [276 U.S. 245, 252] not exceed its constitutional power by imposing more than one form of tax as a charge for the use [ Please pay attention to this term whenever you see it in traffic laws. ] of its highways in interstate commerce. It is for appellant to show that the aggregate charge bears no reasonable relation to the privilege granted. [Operating a business on the highways is a privilege not a right, but moving about on the highways is a right which preceded the constitutions of our states and country. ]

It is further objected that the provision of the state statute, part 2, 3, authorizing the suspension of registration as a remedy...[Yes, registration is for machines/conveyances involved in commerce, not for those of us not involved in commerce. Can anything be more simple? ]

But it is said that the particular scheme of taxation adopted by Connecticut imposes this tax in addition to statutory charges already made for the use of the highways in interstate commerce, and both in purpose and in effect discriminates against appellant and in favor of those operating motor vehicles in intrastate commerce.

The state has adopted a system of financing its highway construction and maintenance under which about 80 per cent. of the cost is collected from fees for the registration of motor vehicles and for operators' licenses [ Does anyone not see this connection to privilege, commerce, operating a business on the highways, etc? How can an honest person not understand this? ], from taxes on the sale of gasoline and from fines and penalties for violations of the motor vehicle laws [Can this be more simple? The vehicle laws apply to machines on the streets and highways which are involved in conducting a business. How can this be made any more simple? ]

These include a personal property tax upon its motor cars used [There's that term again.] in the state, a registration or license fee for each vehicle [This tells us that a vehicle is NOT an automobile since one thing cannot necessarily be another thing. ] so used, and also, it is urged, a tax of two cents a gallon on the sale of gasoline within the state which in practice is absorbed by the consumer in the purchase price. [Except for the fact that if you study this "law" of the motor fuels tax from the beginning [about 1911 in Texas] you'll see that it only applies to those entities involved in commerce on the highways. The state tax is for those entities involved in intrastate commerce and the federal tax is a fraud! Yes, a fraud!!. It only applies to entities involved in interstate commerce. I wonder if the Texas Comptroller has the intelligence to understand that fact? What's her name this year?]

But no mileage tax like that imposed by part 2, 1, is levied upon those using motor vehicles in intrastate commerce. Instead part 1, 2 and 3, of the act under discussion, subject all companies engaged in intrastate motor bus transportation to an excise of 3 per cent. of their gross receipts, less such taxes as they have paid locally on their 'real and tangible personal estate.'

The two statutes are complementary in the sense that, while both levy a tax on those engaged in carrying passengers for hire over state highways in motor vehicles, to be expended for highway maintenance, one affects only interstate, and the other only intrastate, commerce.

Interstate Busses Corp. v. Holyoke RR.273 US 45

No person shall operate [ How can a public servant not read this and understand that one operating is one who is operating a business on the highways? How difficult are these word to understand?] a motor vehicle upon a public way in any city or town for the carriage of passengers [Look in your older law dictionaries and you'll find that this term only applies to paid customers, meaning commerce.] for hire so as to afford a means of transportation similar to that afforded by a railway company by indiscriminately receiving and discharging passengers along the route on which the vehicle is operated, or as a business between fixed and regular termini , without first obtaining a license.

No person shall operate a motor vehicle under such license unless he has also obtained from the department of public utilities a certificate that public convenience and necessity require such operation. Any one operating [How can someone read this and not understand that this term operating only applies to those entities conducting a business on the streets and highways?] under a license from local authority and a certificate from the department is declared to be a common carrier and subject to regulation as such

Appellant maintains an office and garage at Springfield and advertises its route and rates. The busses are operated between fixed [Remember me saying that the original use of the term operated refers to fixed routes? This is simple, huh?] termini in Massachusetts. They operate [If you're not in commerce like a delivery service, then you're not operating.] regularly on public ways parallel to and alongside the tracks of the street railway company and afford means of transportation [ Does this not prove the fact that the term transportation specifically differentiates between commerce which is a privilege, and a right which is– undeniable, unalienable, and other barriers against government intrusion? Or, am I a nut, and someone who never learned how to read the English language? ] similar to those furnished by that company. They stop regularly and also on signal to receive and discharge passengers. The operation [There's that word again.] of the busses in competition with the street railway has resulted in substantial loss to the latter. Appellant has not obtained a license from any of the cities or towns served by the street railway company. And that company, its president and counsel, have caused plaintiff's employees to be arrested and prosecuted, and intend to continue to prosecute them, for operating without obtaining the licenses and certificate required by the statute. [Can this strategy be used on government officials who violate your right to travel? Of course it can !]

Undoubtedly the state has power in the public interest reasonably to control and regulate the use [If you don't understand this term by now, then you may want to go have your head examined, or go back to grammar school to learn how to read the English language.] of its highways, so long as it does not directly burden or interfere with interstate commerce.

Kane v. New Jersey, 242 US 160, (1916)

3. In Hendrick v. Maryland, it appeared only that the nonresident drove [You have to define this term drive, drove, driving, driver within its time period since the word has lost its meaning within the past 40-50 years. They–dishonest people–have attempted to change the meaning to refer to anything to which they want it to refer. How dishonest is that? ] his automobile into the state. In this case it is admitted that he was driving [A driver is one who is paid–check out the definition in Black's Law Dictionary 4 ^th Edition.] through the state. The distinction is of no significance. As we there said (622): 'In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles-those moving in interstate c ommerce as well as others.' [ One aside here is the possible claim by state government officials that their authority to regulate personal automobiles comes from the police power mentioned above. However, this argument is bogus because they've never enacted a "law" which does that. Some states have implemented a "dangerous implement" law, but Texas has not done so. But, even that law would be bogus in my opinion, and the enacting of such a law would force them to admit they had fraudulently been administering the motor vehicle laws up to this point. Bet they won't do that. ]

16. (1) Every resident of this state and every nonresident, whose automobile [ Whoa, it almost seems as if I've made a mistake here, huh? Nah! Keep reading, and keep everything in perspective. ] shall be driven [ This term puts it into perspective. This term means commerce, not traveling, because a driver is one who is employed in his/her position!] in this state, shall, before using such vehicle on the public highways, register the same [ If it that machine is in commerce then registration is allowable since conducting a business on the streets and highways is a privilege, not a right. ], and no motor vehicle shall be driven [Employment is involved here according to the original meaning of this term.] unless so registered. Every registration shall expire and the certificate thereof become void on the 31st of December of each year; provided, it may be lawful for any automobile duly registered , to operate [Fixed route and regulated.] under said registration certificate for a period not exceeding thirty-one days after the expiration of said registration certificate.

17. No person shall hereafter drive [ Business/salaried/hourly without a doubt.] an automobile [ In Texas this term was changed in 1917 or so, in that an automobile was the general term, but it was changed to include just motor vehicles as those conveyances/machines used in commerce on the streets and highways .] upon any public highway in this state, unless licensed [Again,, licensing only has to do with motor vehicles or commercial vehicles .] to do so in accordance with the provisions of this act. No person under the age of sixteen years shall be licensed to drive [ A paid position.] automobiles, nor shall any person be licensed to drive [A paid position.] automobiles until said person shall have passed a satisfactory examination as to his ability as an operator [Operating a business on the highways or streets.]. . . . There shall be two classes of drivers' licenses. Those authorizing the licensee to drive cars of less than thirty horse power shall be of the first class, and those authorizing the licensee to drive cars of thirty and greater horse power shall be of the second class. The annual license fee to be charged shall be $2 for drivers of the first class, and $4 for drivers of the second class. . . . [ This is our first inference of the difference between a commercial motor vehicle and a motor vehicle, only now it depends upon the weight of the vehicle and not the horsepower. ]

Kendrick v. Maryland., 235 US 610, (1915)

The governor shall appoint a commissioner of motor vehicles , with power to designate assistants, who shall secure enforcement of the statute. Before any motor vehicle is operated [ Does this say, "Automobile? No, only motor vehicle being operated as a business on the highway.] upon the highways the owner shall make a statement to the commissioner and procure a certificate of registration; thereafter it shall bear a numbered plate. This certificate and plate shall be evidence of authority for operating the machine during the current year (133). Registration fees are fixed according to horsepower - $6 when 20 or less; $12 when from 20 to 40; and $18 when in excess of 40 (136). No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway until he has obtained at a cost of $2 an operator's license, subject to revocation for cause [235 U.S. 610, 620] (137). Any owner or operator of an automobile, nonresident of Maryland, who has complied with the laws of the state in which he resides requiring the registration of motor vehicles, or licensing of operators thereof, etc ., may, under specified conditions, obtain a distinguishing tag and permission to operate such machine over the highways for not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in a calendar year without paying the ordinary fees for registration and operator's license (140a); but residents of the District of Columbia are not included amongst those to whom this privilege is granted (132).

In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles, -those moving in interstate commerce [ By the use of the hyphen, doesn't this tell us that a motor vehicle is one moving in interstate commerce? ] as well as others.

Any owner or operator not a resident of this state, who shall have complied with the laws of the state in which he resides, requiring the registration of motor vehicles or licensing of operators thereof and the display of identification or registration numbers on such vehicles, and who shall cause the identification numbers of such state, in accordance with the laws thereof, and none other, together with the initial letter of said state, to be displayed on his motor vehicle, as in this subtitle provided, while used [See the connection between the term used and the term operated? The two terms can usually be interchanged so everyone researching traffic laws needs to pay attention for the term use, used, using and the terms operated, operating and operated.] or operated upon the public highways of this state, may use such highways not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in each calendar year, without complying with the provisions of 133 and 137 of this subtitle, if he obtains from the commissioner of motor vehicles and displays on the rear of such vehicle a tag or marker which the said commissioner of motor vehicles shall issue in such form and contain such distinguishing marks as he may deem best; provided that if any nonresident be convicted of violating any provisions of 140b, 140c, 140d, 140e, and 1401 of this subtitle, he shall thereafter be subject to and required to comply with all the provisions of said 133 and 137 relating to the registration of motor vehicles and the licensing of operators [Any questions as to whom the laws about licensing of operators applies?] thereof; and the governor of this state is hereby authorized and empowered to confer and advise with proper officers and legislative bodies of other states of the Union, and enter into reciprocal agreements under which the registration of motor vehicles owned by residents of this state will be recognized by such other states, and he is further authorized and empowered, from time to time, to grant to residents of other states the privilege [Do we have a right or privilege to travel? This subject is quite simple, huh?] of using the roads of this state as in this section provided in return for similar privileges granted residents of this state by such other states.'

Now, let me get back to the present and what the Texas Transportation Code says about registration of a motor vehicle. For those of you from other states reading this I'm sure you'll locate similar legislation in the statues or motor vehicle code of your state.

CHAPTER 502. REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES

§ 502.002. REGISTRATION REQUIRED; GENERAL RULE. (a) The owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for: (1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway; and (2) if the vehicle is unregistered for a registration year that has begun and that applies to the vehicle and if the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway, the remaining portion of that registration year. (b) The application must be made to the department through the county assessor-collector of the county in which the owner resides. ©) A provision of this chapter that conflicts with this section prevails over this section to the extent of the conflict. (d) A county assessor-collector, a deputy county assessor-collector, or a person acting on behalf of a county assessor-collector is not liable to any person for: (1) refusing to register a motor vehicle because of the person's failure to submit evidence of residency that complies with the department's rules; or (2) registering a motor vehicle under this section. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.44(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

           In all honesty, did you see anything in that section which REQUIRED registration? No, we didn't, because the term "shall" is directional in most law books and seldom mandatory. The term is "directing" owners of motor vehicles on how to register their vehicles.

           Now if you read down two more sub-sections you'll see a more honest telling of the story about registration of motor vehicles.

§ 502.0022. CONSOLIDATED REGISTRATION OF FLEET VEHICLES. (a) The department shall develop and implement a system of registration so that an owner of a fleet of motor vehicles may consolidate the registration of the motor vehicles in the fleet as an alternative to the separate registration of each motor vehicle in the fleet. (b) A system of consolidated registration under this section must allow the owner of a fleet of motor vehicles to register: (1) an entire fleet of motor vehicles in the county of the owner's residence or principal place of business; or (2) those vehicles in a fleet of vehicles that are operated most regularly in the same county by registering the vehicles in that county. ©) The department by rule shall define "fleet" for purposes of this section. (d) The department may adopt rules to administer this section. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 638, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 645, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

This sub-section correlates with Chapter 643 titled MOTOR CARRIER REGISTRATION. If you spend some time in that chapter within a page or two you'll see that they finally get around to requiring registration.

SUBCHAPTER B. REGISTRATION

§ 643.051. REGISTRATION REQUIRED. A motor carrier may not operate a commercial motor vehicle, as defined by Section 548.001, or a tow truck on a road or highway of this state unless the carrier registers with the department under this subchapter. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.150(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

           In my mind that pretty well settles it for which entities are required to be registered, but we better check out all of Chapter 502 to make sure. One thing we'll find is that they "tipped their hand" as to the fact that automobiles are not required to be registered. They did that when they differentiated an "automobile, pickup, or recreational vehicle that is offered for rent, as a business, to any part of the public." When they used these terms they tipped their hand that an automobile, pickup or recreational vehicle does NOT have to be registered unless "offered for rent." They use the term "automobile," but never in conjunction with registering as in this specific situation. That settles it for me.

§ 502.180. ISSUANCE OF LICENSE PLATE OR REGISTRATION INSIGNIA.

(g) The department shall provide a separate and distinctive tab to be affixed to the license plate of an automobile, pickup, or recreational vehicle that is offered for rent, as a business, to any part of the public.

             This means they know what an automobile is, and they obviously know what a pickup is, as these are machines in which most of us normally exercise our right to travel. So, how can they not read these words and know that a motor vehicle does not include a personal automobile, personal pickup, personal SUV, or a personal recreational conveyance. It doesn't take a genius. All we have to do is assume that what Hertz, Avis, National, Budget, and all the rest of the rental car companies are renting out are called automobiles, and what we're traveling in looks just like those "rent cars," then it would follow that ours are automobiles also. Simple logic.

Though this study is not exhaustive I wanted to put out something on this subject that might give readers different, if not more, information possibly not readily available in the past. But, how do we put this information into action? I'm not sure about that other than lawsuits and criminal charges against the ones who are misapplying the laws. Attempting to educate these one may work, if copies of this paper and other writings are sent to these people. But, even then, we don't know if they will read it. Please feel free to send this out where ever you think it may do some good, and feel free to make changes, additions and corrections. Also, feel free to put your name on it for legal purposes.

Daniel Lee Schinzing

Cleburne, Texas [76033-4626]

817992-3095

Added Note not by Author!

For those who do not recognize the author let it be known the had a book for sale called

"THE STATE OF TEXAS is a LIAR!"

I just saw a used book it on e-bay for $35

Passenger cars

If you ever come across an honest cop you might want to run the following quote by him/her and note their answer to the question this quote so obviously raises.
 
Payne v. Massey, 196 SW2d 493, "A taxicab is classified as a "passenger car" and the annual license fee for its registration by the state is based solely upon the weight of the vehicle. The use made of the taxicab has nothing to do with the fee exacted or the privileges accompanying the license. When a taxicab is licensed by the state certain rights and privileges vest in the owner which may be abridged by the municipality only in the manner authorized by law."
 
So, if a Taxi is a "passenger car," then why would my automobile/pickup/recreational conveyance by classified as a "passenger car" when I'm not carrying any passengers?
 
If any of you get an honest answer to that one I would love to see it.

Requirements if you own a Motor Vehicle

For those of you who have been told that you own and drive a motor vehicle, I've found a "law" that you have probably been violating. After you've read this I expect you to go down to the local cop shop and turn yourself in for having broken this law. Now don't try to lie your way out of it! You've violated this law and you need to admit it! Or, maybe you want to go down to the local cop shop and tell those guys and gals down there that they have not been administering this "law" correctly and they should start immediately. Please convince them to rush out to the local Wal-Mart parking lot and ticket everyone who enters the building without checking their tires first. It is unconscionable for our law enforcement people to neglect to administer this law! Quo Warranto each for not doing their job!

TITLE 49 CFR--TRANSPORTATION
        CHAPTER III--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,
                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 397--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; DRIVING AND PARKING RULES--Table of Contents
                           Subpart A--General
Sec. 397.17  Tires.
    (a) A driver must examine each tire on a motor vehicle at the beginning of each trip and each time the vehicle is parked

Jack Cole Company v. MacFarland, 337 SW2d 453, Tenn. 1960

P. 454 Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but the legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.

Right to receive income or earnings is right belonging to every person, and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a "privilege" that can be taxed.

P 455...If the income tax is a privilege tax, the authority to tax incomes upon prescribed conditions makes of the clause an exception to the unconditional and unlimited authority to tax privileges generally.

[1] It cannot be denied that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it my means other than an income tax, but the Legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.

[3] Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed. "A privilege is whatever business, pursuit, occupation, or vocation, affecting the public, the Legislature chooses to declare and tax as such." Corn et al. v. Fort, 179 Tenn. 377, 95 SW2d 620, 623, 106 A.L.R. 647. "Privileges are special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or body." Lonas v. State, 50 Tenn. 287, 307.

Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege.

Right to have your day in Court.

If you were ever looking for "case law" stating that you had a right to have your case heard, you might attempt to use the quotes from the following case, the opinion of which was written by the so-called Chief Justice himself, Warren Burger. If that carries any weight with your or your legal opponent, or the court in which you have to appear or file suit, this case may help when they attempt to kick it out for make believe reasons.
 
Also, this is a good case if a lying judge says you can't use a case from another state--oh, they'll do that often. If quoting a state court is good enough for a Chief Justice it is good enough for you and me.
 
 U.S. Supreme Court
 
UNITED STATES v. WILL, 449 U.S. 200 (1980)
failure to apply the Rule of Necessity in these cases would have a contrary effect by denying some litigants their right to a forum.
 
The Rule of Necessity has been consistently applied in this country in both state and federal courts. In State ex rel. Mitchell v. Sage Stores Co., 157 Kan. 622, 143 P.2d 652 (1943), the Supreme Court of Kansas observed:
 
 "[I]t is well established that actual disqualification of a member of a court of last resort will not excuse such member from performing his official duty if failure to do so would result in a denial of a litigant's constitutional right to have a question, properly presented to such court, adjudicated." Id., at 629, 143 P.2d, at 656.
 
 Far from promoting this purpose, failure to apply the Rule of Necessity would have a contrary effect, for without the Rule, some litigants would be denied their right to a forum.
 

Right to Travel
Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576 85 S.E . 781, L.R.A. 1915F, 840, we find this apt expression of the court:

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader, the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities. 'A distinction must be made between the general use, which all of the public are permitted to make of the street for ordinary purposes, and the special and peculiar use, which is made by classes of persons in the pursuit of their occupation or business, such as hackmen, drivers of express wagons, omnibuses,' etc., Tiedeman on Municipal Corporations, sec. 229. 'The rule must be considered settled that no person can acquire the right to make a special or exceptional use of a public highway, not common to all citizens of the state, except by grant from the sovereign power.' Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N.J. Eq. 242; McQuillen, Municipal Corporations, 1620."

Affidavit of Inability to Pay Taxes, Generic

DECLARATION IN THE NATURE OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY TAXES, COSTS OR REMUNERANCES

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I, ____________________________, hereinafter also known as "I", "Me", "My", "Declarant", and "Sovereign" hereby create this "DECLARATION IN THE NATURE OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY TAXES, COSTS OR REMUNERANCES" to notify business owners and sales personnel of the superior laws governing the illegality of the State of Texas Limited Sales, Excise, and Use Tax charged to Me, and in this public record declare the following:

1.  I, the Sovereign per above, declare that, I am exempt from levy and that I have personal first hand knowledge of the matters stated herein. I am over the age of 21 and I have no legal disability. I declare these below facts under the penalty of perjury, to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to the absolute best of my knowledge, understanding and belief of the law, and of the facts in relation to " Public Policy HJR 192", said Public Policy remaining UNREPEALED to date.

2.  I declare that, due to the document untitled but commonly referred to as Constitution of the United States of America as ratified in 1789 AD, and amended in 1791 AD. (hereinafter USA Constitution), at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1; which mandates that " No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", said Clause remaining UN-REPEALED to date.

3.  I declare that, due to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure at Article 43.02, which explains that all taxes, fines, costs, penalties, and remunerances paid to the State of Texas " Shall be collected in the lawful money of the united States only", said Article remaining UNREPEALED to date.

4.  I declare that, due to the Federal Law, Title 12 USC, Section 152, which defines " Lawful Money of the United States " to be Gold and Silver Coin "ONLY", said Section remaining UN-REPEALED to date.

5.  I declare that, due to 48 Stat. 2, (March 09, 1933) and 48 Stat. 113 (June 05, 1933) all gold coin was removed from common circulation AT PAR, from all banks in America, said Statutes remaining UN-REPEALED to date.

6.  I declare that, due to Public Law 8931 (July 23, 1965) Senate #2080 and Public Law 9029 (June 24, 1967) Title 50, Section 9898H and 60 Stat. 596 all silver coin was removed from common circulation AT PAR, from all banks in America, said Public Laws, Sections and Statutes remaining UN-REPEALED to date.

7.  I declare that since I cannot be made to perform the impossible, I am therefore CONSTRAINED BY THESE LAWS from paying this tax, cost, or remunerance to the State of Texas.   Said sales tax cannot therefore be lawfully forced from my hands, by any other individual or entity, without violating these laws and My right to contract within Texas.

8.  I declare that I have no State of Texas Tax Exempt number since they do not exist, as this is not a privileged tax exempt status created by application. This tax immunity is based solely upon un-repealed law.

9.  I declare that since Federal Reserve Notes or checks or money orders payable only in Federal Reserve Notes, are NOT within the definition of those things allowed by law to be received by the State of Texas, any threat by any public servant; to civilly prosecute me for "failure to pay" those items, will be deemed by me to be an attempt to "Solicit an Honorarium" in violation of Texas Penal Code, Title 8, Section 36.07 or 36.08.

10.  I declare that any initiation of criminal prosecution for "failure to pay State Tax" will be a clear violation of the superior law found in the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 18; which clearly states, "No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt."

11.   I declare in this declaration that, until Congress returns America to a Constitutional monetary system, or until all of these aforementioned laws get fully repealed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to lawfully pay sales taxes, costs or remunerances to the State of Texas, and therefore the ancient Maxim of Law, "IMPOSSIBILIUM NULLA OBLIGATIO EST" (that is: There is no obligation to do impossible things) is the overriding maxim of law in this case.

12.  I declare that, the Federal Law, Codified at 31 USC 3124 a, states, " obligations of the U.S. government are exempt from taxation by a State " and, "The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation... to be considered in computing the tax ."

13.  I declare that Federal Law, Codified at Title 18 USC 8, "Obligation of the United States Defined ", the term "obligation", includes "Federal Reserve Notes."    Therefore, 31 USC 3124a and 18 USC 8 together, forbid the collection of tax in the State of Texas when "Federal Reserve Notes" are tendered as the medium of exchange.

14.  I declare that as per the un-overturned, Shepardized Texas Court of Civil Appeals case of MORRIS v NATIONAL   CASH REGISTER, 44 S. W. 2d 433, No.10898, which states at point #4, "Affidavits. Uncontested allegations of fact in affidavit must be accepted as true."   Anyone able to contest this affidavit must do so, now.

15.  I declare that I reserve my rights to amend this document, if at any time, any party properly serves me with true and exact copies of the repealing acts to all of the above stated laws, and with evidence that the court rulings cited, as per above, have been overturned, in a sworn affidavit, signed under the penalties of perjury.   Failure to do so is tacit admission that my position in law is correct.  Any funds that are therefore forced from my hands and paid over to the State of Texas, will be done so under the conditions of theft by agent, duress, under coercion, under the threat of loss of life, liberty and property.

Further, I, the declarant, sayeth naught.

Dated this           day of                           in the year                   .

By:                                                              , Title Holder

Temporary Mailing Location Exact

Non-Domestic

C/o ________________________________________

______________________________, Texas Republic

Zip Code Exempt DMM122.32

   ________________________________________
                    (First-Middle:Last)

Witness, By: _________________________________

Witness, By: _________________________________

Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".