As with most people who "defend" themselves (myself included) there was always something missing because the court just completely ignored me.
You MUST know who you are. heyday you did a tremendous amount of research and presented very good facts. The ONLY this missing is who are you? are you a person, private citizen (citizen part of a body politic), and individual? I say none of those terms describe you. Because they are terms and not words, if ya get my drift.
Take a look at all of those laws and court cases - do you find human-being anywhere? Please let me know if you do because I have only found a "human being in one place in the US Code and that's Title 1 sec 8. Check US Code Title 1 Sec 1 definition of "Person".
"The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man. This word in law has two acceptations: In the first, it is every being considered as capable of having or owing rights, of being the active or passive subjects of rights.
"We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein. In fact, law by its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it creates things, which do not exist in nature.
"You see, the whole game is to control you by making you, the man, into a artificial entity called a "person." In ordinary street language you can use the term person. But the minute you step into ANY legal arena you CANNOT use the term "person." For to do so the other artificial person, the State, can come after another artificial character. As the court stated above "man" is not bound by other men’s laws unless he consents. You consent when you answer to any statute containing any reference to person. The clever trick is that the statute 26 USC 7701(a) of the IRC is the definition part and it says "person" means; an individual, partnership, corporation, association. Notice that all terms defining the word "person are corporate fictions. BUT, you say, individual is not a corporate fiction because am I not an individual? Yes you are in average common street terms, but in the legal arena "individual is corporate or artificial by legal definition, because "individual," in and of itself is defining an artificial thing as a "person."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (Supreme Court trumps everything else)
Murdock is basically a religious test case. A religious group wanted to go out and preach among the public as that is their right to evangelize. Pennsylvania wanted them to have a license to solicit.
The group claimed their first amendment right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to worship and exercise their religion unencumbered. The points on the case that are established are “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution; and that a flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the constitutional liberty of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress the exercise thereof.” That the ordinance is non-discriminatory, and that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the federal constitution, and exist independently of the state’s authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return is irrelevant.
When you want to talk to these people in court you want to have Black’s Law Dictionary. You would be absolutely amazed what’s in Black’s Law Dictionary. These are the exact words that you need to be able to definitively define the word game problem we are having with these people today. They keep changing the words. But guess what? The words in this book are the words that were written when we were in the constitution when it was signed. And the definitions that are in this book are enforceable in a court of law. You can bring this book into court and pull it open and say “this is the one, judge”. And the have to listen. And that’s the way it is.
Eddie Craig: Tao of law
"And as to other points of this discussion, such as when it comes to registration of your car, i.e. your private property, you must understand that registering your car is nothing more than getting a “license” for the car to be ‘used’ for commercial purposes, which is not any different than licensing yourself by obtaining a “driver’s license” for the same purpose."
"Therefore, if you are not actively engaged in ‘using’ the public roads for the purpose of “transportation,” i.e. commerce, then neither you nor your car are ‘using’ the “licenses” you applied and paid for and presumably possess. Traveling upon the roadways for private business and pleasure is an unalienable right of liberty in the form of locomotion, according to the historical case opinions on the subject. And an individual’s RIGHT to private ‘use’ of the highways for their own personal business and pleasure is not at all the same as the privilege of engaging in commerce upon the roadways by ‘using’ them as a place of business for private profit or gain as a “driver” or “operator” who is “licensed” to engage in “transportation” upon them."
So if you do deeper research into this and look at Carl Miller stuff and Eddie Craig (former Texas Sheriff) just to name a couple you will be even more enlightened!