| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jay Scott |
Posted - 15 Dec 2005 : 17:26:39
Greets,
I was reading the topic "Full text of UCC" which evolved into a discussion about the statutory definition of MOTOR VEHICLE at some point. But rather than continue that thread off topic and since I could not find a related topic in this section, I'm starting a new topic on the subject of statutory definition of MOTOR VEHICLE to present my questions. For starters...
Definition of motor vehicle according to United States Code Title 18, Chapter 2, section 31: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/31.html
quote:
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
(Thanks to oneisraelite.)
But I looked up MOTOR VEHICLE in the STATE OF KANSAS statutes and do not find the "commercial" limitation: Chapter 8, Section 126
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=1212
quote:
(a) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, excepting electric personal assistive mobility devices or devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
(b) "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle, other than a motorized bicycle or a motorized wheelchair, which is self-propelled.
REGISTRATION:
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=1214
quote:
8-127. Registration of vehicles operated in this state; exceptions; temporary operation of certain vehicles without registration, when. (a) Every owner of a motor vehicle, motorized bicycle, trailer or semitrailer intended to be operated upon any highway in this state, whether such owner is a resident of this state or another state, or such motor vehicle, motorized bicycle, trailer or semitrailer is based in this state or another state shall, before any such vehicle is operated in this state, apply for and obtain registration in this state under the provisions of K.S.A. 8-126 to 8-149, inclusive, and acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, except as otherwise provided by law or by any interstate contract, agreement, arrangement or declaration made by the director of vehicles.
TAXATION:
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=38235
quote:
79-5101. Definitions. As used in this act the term "motor vehicle" means and includes all motor vehicles required to be registered under the provisions of article 1 of chapter 8 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated and amendments thereto, except:...
Registration and taxation apparently hinge on the definition in 8-126. Do the KANSAS statutes override the UNITED STATES statutes? I couldn't find a definition of "operate" so I assume it means the common word definition.
I intend to continue researching, but in the meantime, do you have any insight you would like to share? (Ya YOU!)
Best wishes,
Jay
|
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lewish |
Posted - 23 Dec 2005 : 12:23:25
Greetings brothers,
Please remember, that Title 26 U.S.C. has no Statute-at-Large behind it to act as enforcement, whereas almost all the other Titles are a result of a statute-at-large.
Thus, Title 26 isn't even colorable as Law. It is a METRO code for those who reside in the District of Columbia. Where do you reside? Where does your "person" i.e., the vessel you are liable to, reside?
Peace,
Lewis |
| Caleb |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 23:17:16
Look at the one place that "reward" shows up. It speaks volumes to me.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter A > PART I >
§ 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States
(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents
Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States—
(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or
(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
| Manuel |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 23:15:15
Greetings to all,
Caleb!... good to read from you!
One point is that one is either hired or fired. And we are witnessing to that on this world, as if a big-squeeze is occuring.
Jay, Kansas reminds me of that yellow-bricked "road." I remember responding a few topics before that one had to stay off the
b-road ways.
I am,
Manuel |
| Caleb |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 23:13:33
"Toto, we're not in Kansas any more."
|
| Jay Scott |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 22:27:09
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb
And to close with a comment on the tax code: Jay, try to see if the U.S. tax code has anything to say about "hire or reward", and if it does, does it make "hire or reward" taxable as income? That is the wordsmithing that has gone on down here. They tax almost everything except for "hire or reward". And the NZ employment law states categorically that an employee is one who works for "hire or reward". They cannot make us slaves, and thus the employment law is the mirror image of the tax law. The way to distinguish the two is by the words which are used.
Greets, Caleb,
I searched here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
...for the phrase "hire or reward", but did not get any hits. "Hire" got many hits, and "reward" got one.
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb
The part of the wordsmithing that is the most subtle is the use of the word "in". We are all trained to answer geographic questions such as "Where do you live?" with answers like, "in California" or "in San Diego". We think this means something like a shortened version of "with-in the borders of ..."
How symbolic! It seems if "in Kansas" one is either physically dead and buried in the ground, or one is spiritually dead and subjected to the State.
I hope all is well with you,
Jay (on Kansas)
|
| Caleb |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 18:07:10
Dear Lewis,
Yes, upon re-reading K.S.A. 8-127, the phrase "in this State" practically jumps off the page at you by virtue of the fact that they keep repeating it so as to qualify every other phrase with it.
This points out a key part of their wordsmithing that can be quite useful in identifying who you are.
Americans are taught from childhood to think of a "State" as a geographic entity, but definition #1 from the Concise Oxford Dictionary is:
state - n. 1 the existing condition or position of a person or thing.
All other definitions, including the political/geographic one, flow from this first one.
So the question, "What state are you in?" is really a means of asking, "What is your present condition or position?"
An answer like, "California" would reveal some serious problems with your present mental condition if you were only refering to geography! I recall a bumper sticker that read, "California is a state of mind". Too true.
The part of the wordsmithing that is the most subtle is the use of the word "in". We are all trained to answer geographic questions such as "Where do you live?" with answers like, "in California" or "in San Diego". We think this means something like a shortened version of "with-in the borders of ..."
But if "California" really is a geographic area, then we are talking about of piece of land. More to the point, "California" is a collection of dirt. So when are we going to be "in" that California? Only if we are buried there. So to use the word "in" is to confess to being dead.
As soon as you say you are "on" California or "at" San Diego, you confess that you are NOT speaking of the "state" (of mind). You have taken yourself "out" of commerce.
Hello Rick,
With regards to the wordsmithing here down under, there are some key differences from what goes on in America. You will note that their "Motor Vehicle" statutes freely mention the "public highways". We have "motor vehicles" as well, but they are regulated by "Road Transport" statutes.
Public highways and byways are still within the common law, but it is a trespass to use them commercially. Thus the need for regulation once you use a "motor vehicle" upon them. To keep this distinction clear, the U.S. statutes usually include enough clues that you are engaging in commercial activity.
Down under they write no statutes governing the common law highways and byways. Instead they put us into Admiralty (or a maritime/commercial jurisdiction) by writing statutes governing TRANS-PORT - all trade/commercial activity being carried on between ports.
"Road" also has some older meanings which are no longer in common usage. See if you think they fit with the law as it is enforced. In the KJV, "road" occurs only once in 1 Samuel 27:10, where it is a variation of the word "raid" (I.e. an incursion into enemy territory). Thanks to oneisraelite for this insight.
Road also has maritime meanings, such as "a sheltered harbor" (check your dictionary). So guess what you are confessing to the moment you admit to being "on the road"? Every NZ statute governing our movements over this land contains the word "Transport" in its name. So they are honest in admitting that they only have authority to make laws governing our movements "between ports".
And to close with a comment on the tax code: Jay, try to see if the U.S. tax code has anything to say about "hire or reward", and if it does, does it make "hire or reward" taxable as income? That is the wordsmithing that has gone on down here. They tax almost everything except for "hire or reward". And the NZ employment law states categorically that an employee is one who works for "hire or reward". They cannot make us slaves, and thus the employment law is the mirror image of the tax law. The way to distinguish the two is by the words which are used.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
| Jay Scott |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 18:59:00
The section where "Federal personnel", above, is defined starts with...
quote:
Pertinent part of 5 USC 552
§ 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
Does that mean it only applies to "records maintained on individuals"?
Jay
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 18:17:27
Yes, all SS Account holders are classes as Federal Employees and therefore must file income tax returns. Just one more trap in case they didn't get you under fiduciary liability.
Ya'll be careful out there,
Lewis |
| Jay Scott |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 16:30:37
Greets, Lewis and All Interested Others,
There...I just expanded the title of this topic (Oh. The power.) to "justify" my meandering into taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by Lewis:
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
Now, my question is, do you grasp the full meaning here? Open for comments by all.
SS Card carriers = Federal personnel?
I hope all is well with you.
Jay
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 12:06:17
Hi Jay,
If someone is engaged in commerce, it is always "in this state". If I do work for you, or if I sell something to you by private agreement, we are not engaged in commerce. If I open a store, and only sell to "chosen" customers, I am not in commerce. If I sell to just anyone, I am.
Since you want to sneak taxes into this discussion, let me point out this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html
from paragraph 13:
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
Now, my question is, do you grasp the full meaning here? Open for comments by all.
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
| Jay Scott |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 10:56:37
Greets, Rick, Lewis, and Manual,
Sharp eye, Rick! Hopefully my failure in spotting that will make my reserve stronger and my eye sharper! Better to fail in the small stuff than be unprepared when called to the mat.
Lewis, I was attempting to bring attention to the seeming assertion in the statute that EVERYONE operating a horseless, pedaless carriage into or through the land of Kansas (geography) was required to register their vehicle. No one does that. So the question seems to follow...what's up with that?! Well, of course, as Lewis hinted and Rick pointed out, it only refers to people engaging in commerce! And I would go as far as saying...people engaging in commerce WITH THE STATE! What say ye?
In addition to that, it goes to show that people really don't understand or are familiar with the statutes and code that dictate so much of their comings and goings. A little story related to this. I gave a friend a copy of IRC code 26 USC 3401 and 26 USC 7701 among others, printed off the site below. I was showing him the legal definition of "Wages", "Employer", "Employee", "Trade or Business", and "includes and including". He showed this code to an apparently knowledgable lady friend and she said it was bogus. So then he took the code to a CPA, hired him for consulting services, and he too said it was bogus. Well, my friend then asked the CPA if he would crack a book or get online and verify that indeed it was bogus. The CPA complied and, lo and behold, discovered it was a true and correct printout, word for word. Well, says the CPA, they're taking it out of context. --!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/3401.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7701.html
And, Manual, it seems to me...the children IN THAT STATE develop their AUTOMATON RESPONSES.
I hope all is well with you.
Jay
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 00:12:13
Greetings,
And IN THAT STATE, The CHILDREN develop their MOTOR SKILLS. How's that for wordsmithing :)
I am,
Manuel |
| Lewish |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 23:54:08
Greetings all,
OK, Rick gets the prize. "in this state" is correct. That is the magic phrase. "in this state" is a commercial state of being, and is under the corporation STATE, and not the real State where the Man is standing.
During my trial, the prosecutor kept asking me if I was a citizen "in this state". In other words, would I accept being labeled as a person in commerce and under the jurisdiction of the corporation court. Every time I answered, "NO! I am a Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon."
Now, to Jay and the truckers with the little state stickers. They are very definitely operating in commerce, and thus must comply with whatever rules the individual states lay down. These are generally road tax stickers, that say the trucker has paid some state fee for the wear and tear his big truck will do to their highway.
Peace,
Lewis |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 22:50:20
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Greetings brothers,
Hmmm, Rick, I will have to ponder on your statutes, but I am sure they wordsmithed it into them as well.
No, the federal statute isn't a trump.
Another hint: What you are looking for is in 8-127. It is very subtle, and something everyone should be aware of. During my trial, they tried to "get" me with those 3 words (another hint) several times.
Peace,
Lewis
IN THIS STATE!
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Jay Scott |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 16:28:49
Greets,
Something peculiar about K.S.A. 8-127...
quote:
8-127. Registration of vehicles operated in this state; exceptions; temporary operation of certain vehicles without registration, when. (a) Every owner of a motor vehicle, motorized bicycle, trailer or semitrailer intended to be operated upon any highway in this state, whether such owner is a resident of this state or another state, or such motor vehicle, motorized bicycle, trailer or semitrailer is based in this state or another state shall, before any such vehicle is operated in this state, apply for and obtain registration in this state under the provisions of K.S.A. 8-126 to 8-149, inclusive, and acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, except as otherwise provided by law or by any interstate contract, agreement, arrangement or declaration made by the director of vehicles.
...is that it seems to say that even people "conveying" through the state, maybe coming to Kansas on vacation...(Hey! It happens!)...are required to register their vehicle. Unless there exists some sort of interstate contract. Who does that? Hmmm. I've seen a lot of truckers with dozens of various and little state sticker on their license plates. Apparently those states don't have an interstate contract with the director. Or the little stickers are indication of the interstate contract (which doesn't make sense).
Something fishy's going on.
I hope all is well with you.
Jay
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 13:05:23
Greetings brothers,
Hmmm, Rick, I will have to ponder on your statutes, but I am sure they wordsmithed it into them as well.
No, the federal statute isn't a trump.
Another hint: What you are looking for is in 8-127. It is very subtle, and something everyone should be aware of. During my trial, they tried to "get" me with those 3 words (another hint) several times.
Peace,
Lewis |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 05:05:29
Greetings Jay,
Peace unto the humble house folks!
My guess from the info you posted Jay is in the phrase from the Federal Statute: "...and used for commercial purposes ..."
Not sure how the USA Federal STATE statute over-rides the Kansas State Statute?
Kansas:
8-127. Registration of vehicles operated in this state; exceptions; temporary operation of certain vehicles without registration, when. (a)
"....whether such owner is a resident of this state or another state"
combines owner (equity) and Resident and jurisdiction linked to a State as opposed to domiciled on the land in law.
regards
Rick
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Jay Scott |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 02:37:08
Greets, Lewis,
Is it as simple as..."by which any person or property is or may be transported"...meaning ficticious legal COMMERCIAL entity: person, vessel, AKA strawman?
Your challenge is appreciated. The more brain cells I burn up, the deeper it settles in my mind.
Greets, Rick, thanks for bearing your insight on this slippery topic. I gather you're saying 'statutory law applies to statutory citizens'. Eh? I say, yea!
I hope all is well with you.
Jay
|
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 01:08:30
Dear Lewis,
Are you implying that STATUTES act as a form of public contract for commercial purposes within (intra) the State?
I checked out the New South Wales State ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) ACT 2005 - SECT 3
3 Definitions
"jurisdiction" means the Commonwealth or a State or Territory. (Doesn't say anything about a man on the land there?)
"corresponding applicable road law" means a law of another jurisdiction corresponding, or substantially corresponding, to an applicable road law or a law of another jurisdiction that is declared under the regulations to be a corresponding applicable road law.
"corresponding Authority" means:
(a) the Authority as defined in a corresponding applicable road law (except in the case of a jurisdiction for which a person is prescribed under paragraph (b)), or
(b) a person prescribed by the regulations as the corresponding Authority for another jurisdiction for the purposes of this Act.
"corresponding law" means:
(a) a law of another jurisdiction corresponding, or substantially corresponding, to this Act or a specified provision or provisions of this Act, or
(b) a law of another jurisdiction that is declared under the regulations to be a corresponding law, whether or not the law corresponds, or substantially corresponds, to this Act or a specified provision or provisions of this Act.
Then I checked out the definitions in the ROAD TRANSPORT (VEHICLE REGISTRATION) ACT 1997 - SECT 4
Definitions:
"registered", in relation to a registrable vehicle, means registered under this Act.
"residential address", in relation to a company or other body corporate, means its registered office or any place recorded in the Register as its residential address or business address. (No mention of the man on the land here either!) Am I getting warm Lewis???
MY BEST GUESS at this stage Lewis is - RESIDENTIAL / RESIDENCE ie: thing identified with the State? Why you ask!? In the Defence section to offences I quote as follows:
ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) ACT 2005 - SECT 85
Lawful authority
85 Lawful authority
(cf model provisions, s 155)
It is a defence to a prosecution for an applicable road law offence if the defendant establishes that the conduct constituting the offence is authorised or excused by or under a law.
That would be the common law or divine Law or whatever.
Now spank me again Lewis! lol
Rick
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Lewish |
Posted - 16 Dec 2005 : 20:04:52
Hello Jay,
Ah, another victim of wordsmithing. The limitation of commercial use is in your message in the statutes you quoted.
I think I will have fun, and see if you or anyone else can find the phrase that limits the application of these statutes to commercial use only.
Post your best guesses folks!
Regards,
Lewis-Vincent |
|
|
