BONMAN
Forum Replies Created
-
DRIVER= OPERATOR=PERSON= INDIVIDUAL=SOLE PROPRIETOR =BUSINESS ENTITY=
DRIVER LICENSE=BUSINESS LICENSE
MOTOR VEHICLE = USED FOR COMPENSATION
THE STATE ONLY HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUES BUSINESS LICENSES, THE INFORMATION PRESENTED BELOW IS GARNERED FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON AND THE ACTUAL LAWS, THE SESSION LAWS OF WASHINGTON, THE OFFICIAL VERSIONS ONLY AVAILABE FROM THE “OFFICE OF THE CODE REVISER”
DRIVER LICENSE IS REQUIRED ONLY IF YOU ARE DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR COMPENSATION
THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING — ONLY A PORTION IS PRESENTED HERE FOR YOU CONVENIENCE.
ALL OF THESE FACTS ARE READILY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW
THE ACTUAL SESSION LAWS ARE AT THE FOOTNOTE OF EACH RCW CITE FOR BETTER CLARIFICATION SHOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER
AS THE RCW’S ARE NOT THE LAW AS IS STATED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT IN PAROSA v. TACOMAWhen dealing with the State or “In This State” the famous quote comes to mind,
What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.
“The best way of determining disputes and of investigating truth is by ascending to elementary principles.”
Alexander Hamilton“Opinions are valueless as evidence without exploration of the underlying facts and rational showing the path from the facts to the opinion.”
U.S. v. R.J. Reynolds, 416 F. Supp. 316, 325.
________________________________________
“We start with first principles….”
U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549“But the legislature specifically disclaimed any intention to change the meaning of any statute. The compilers of the Code were not empowered by Congress to amend existing law, and doubtless had no thought of doing so …” Warner v. Goltra, 293 U.S. 155, 161, 79 L. Ed. 254, 55 S. Ct. 46. …The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington,” which is not the law. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged. En Banc.” Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.(2d) 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421 (Dec.22, 1960).
And;
“Statute law, as adopted by the legislature, prevails over a restatement thereof in the code. RCW 1.04.020-.021.” STATE EX REL. ETC. v. MERCER ISL., 58 Wn. (2d) 141, 144 (April 20,1961.).RCW 1.12.025
Construction of multiple amendments to statutes — Publication — Decodification of repealed sections.
Sections so published constitute prima facie evidence of the law but shall not be construed as changing the meaning of any such law.
If any conflict arises in the interpretation of a section published or decodified under this subsection, the session law sections shall control.
[1983 c 244 § 1; 1980 c 87 § 2; 1974 ex.s. c 87 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 240 § 1; 1955 c 162 § 1.]What is a Driver License
A “Driver License” is an Identification for a Business “ENTITY”.
Based on the Revised Code of Washington I have come to the following conclusions,
The Washington Dept. of License is only granted authority to issue Licenses, (see definition of “License” below). A license grants authority to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions.
A “License” is a “Certificate” that ; include license, certificate of registration, certificate of qualification, certificate of competency, certificate of authority, and any other instrument, by whatever name designated, authorizing the practice of a profession or calling, the carrying on of a business or occupation
Conclusion;
1. A DRIVER LICENSE IS A BUSINESS LICENSE
2. A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IS A BUSINESS LICENSE (license tabs, license plates)
3. A “CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE” IS A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE,( a “certified birth certificate” is requested or required to obtain a “Driver License”, in effect a business license requesting a business license)
4. The term TRADE OR BUSINESS, at (26 USC 7701 (a) (26), relates to, RCW 43.24.020
Powers and duties — Licensing, the director of licensing shall administer all laws with respect to the examination of applicants for, and the issuance of, licenses to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions. (does all laws refer to all State and Federal Laws ???? (26 USC 7701 (a) (26), probably so )
5. My copy of birth record given to my parents at the hospital that I was born at clearly shows my true name written in proper grammar, signed by the M.D. and head Nurse, as well as by my parents, (the form of an affidavit), the “certified birth certificate” issued by the “State dept. of Health” indicates my “Name” in ALL CAPITAL letters, that is not proper grammar for a real life man or woman. This fact seems to indicate some type of change occurred after the STATE got a hold of the birth record, hence the STATE turned it, the birth record, into a CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE, apparently a license to engage in a TRADE OR BUSINESS ???????
6. So if the Driver License is a business license the name on the license is the business name ( all capitals) and not the name of the man or woman as is usually given in proper grammar at the time they came into the world.
7. RCW Chapter 46.21 Driver license compact assures all “States” and Federal Government are addressing the same subjects as related to “Driver Licenses”
8. “We have said, and we reiterate, that a license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the grantee, nor is it a property right. See syllabus by the court, No. 4, Prettyman Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442.” Mayo et al. v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc. (1949) 40 So.2d 555.
9. A BUSINESS IS AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY, A THING
10. First; a Man or Woman is not an artificial entity, not a thing.
11. Second ; a business or profession is an artificial entity, a thing.
12. These are 2 completely separate and different descriptions of 1; a thing, and 2; NOT a thing.
13. Can a Man or Woman be a “THING” or an artificial entity and also “NOT” an artificial entity, and “NOT” a thing at the same time or are these two descriptions completely different and apposing to each other.
14. Apparently by applying logic and the written record that the government calls “LAW” the licensing agency takes a “NAME” of a Man or Woman and uses that “NAME” as the Business “NAME”, of course they change the CAPITALIZATION so as to make it appear that they (the Government license agency), have “CREATED” the newly formed “ENTITY”.
15. The Government requires that one be an artificial entity, a thing, before it (the Government), is able to interface with it. That way the Government has complete control over the “ENTITY”, the “ENTITY” has no “RIGHTS”. Example; when you are stopped by a cop the first thing that they want to see is your “ DRIVER LICENSE” as soon as you give it to them you have given them proof that you are “ OPERATING” as a business “ENTITY”, a THING and not as a Man or Woman, , as such you have no “RIGHTS” as such, only statutory rights that the “STATE” allows you to have while you are an artificial “ENTITY”.
16.
17. Redfield v. Fisher,135 Ore. 180, 292 P. 813, 819 (1930) (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 the individuals’ rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed. 26 R.C.L. Taxation § 209, p. 236; Cooley, Taxation (4th Ed.) § 1676; In re Opinion of the Justices, 195 Mass. 607, 84 N.E. 499.);
DAVIS v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING
Brett DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Washington, through its agency the DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING, Respondent.
No. 65688–6.
Argued Feb. 9, 1999. — May 27, 1999We recently reviewed and summarized our principles of statutory interpretation:
In interpreting a statute, we do not construe a statute that is unambiguous. Food Servs. of Am. v. Royal Heights, Inc., 123 Wash.2d 779, 784–85, 871 P.2d 590 (1994). If the statute is ambiguous, the courts must construe the statute so as to effectuate the legislative intent. In so doing, we avoid a literal reading if it would result in unlikely, absurd or strained consequences. State v. Elgin, 118 Wash.2d 551, 555, 825 P.2d 314 (1992). The purpose of an enactment should prevail over express but inept wording. Id.; State ex rel. Royal v. Board of Yakima County Comm’rs, 123 Wash.2d 451, 462, 869 P.2d 56 (1994). The court must give effect to legislative intent determined “within the context of the entire statute.” Elgin, 118 Wash.2d at 556, 825 P.2d 314; State ex rel. Royal, 123 Wash.2d at 459, 869 P.2d 56. Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous. Stone v. Chelan County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 110 Wash.2d 806, 810, 756 P.2d 736 (1988); Tommy P. v. Board of County Comm’rs, 97 Wash.2d 385, 391, 645 P.2d 697 (1982). The meaning of a particular word in a statute “is not gleaned from that word alone, because our purpose is to ascertain legislative intent of the statute as a whole.” State v. Krall, 125 Wash.2d 146, 148, 881 P.2d 1040 (1994).
Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham, 128 Wash.2d 537, 546, 909 P.2d 1303 (1996).
The initial principle of statutory interpretation is we do not construe unambiguous statutes: “In judicial interpretation of statutes, the first rule is ‘the court should assume that the legislature means exactly what it says. Plain words do not require construction’.” State v. McCraw, 127 Wash.2d 281, 288, 898 P.2d 838 (1995) (quoting City of Snohomish v. Joslin, 9 Wash.App. 495, 498, 513 P.2d 293 (1973)), superseded by statute as cited in State v. Bolar, 129 Wash.2d 361, 917 P.2d 125 (1996).1
A fundamental canon of construction holds a statute should not be interpreted so as to render one part inoperative. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, 99 S.Ct. 675, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979); City of Seattle v. Department of Labor & Indus., 136 Wash.2d 693, 701, 965 P.2d 619 (1998) ( “[s]tatutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous.” (quoting Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham, 128 Wash.2d 537, 546, 909 P.2d 1303 (1996) (citations omitted))).Also, the rule of statutory construction that trumps every other rule—“the court should not construe statutory language so as to result in absurd or strained consequences,” In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 8, 969 P.2d 21 (1998) (quoting Duke v. Boyd, 133 Wash.2d 80, 87, 942 P.2d 351 (1999))—
FOOTNOTES
1. “We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statute means.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 harv. L. RevV. 417, 419 (1899). “[I]t seems axiomatic that the words of a statute – and not the legislators’ intent as such –must be the crucial elements both in the statute’s legal force and in its proper interpretation.” laurence H. Tribe, Constitutional Choices 30 (1985).
12. It is not the province of this Court to second guess the wisdom of the Legislature’s policy judgment so long as the Legislature does not offend constitutional precepts. “If the regulation tends to promote public safety, health, morals or welfare, then its wisdom or necessity is a matter left exclusively to the legislative body.” City of Seattle v. Montana, 129 Wash.2d 583, 592, 919 P.2d 1218 (1996).RCW 19.02.020
Definitions.(7) “Person” means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, nonprofit organization, state or local government agency, and any other organization required to register with the state to do business in the state and to obtain one or more licenses from the state or any of its agencies;
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSE
43.24.020
Powers and duties — Licensing.
In addition to other powers and duties granted to the department, the director of licensing shall administer all laws with respect to the examination of applicants for, and the issuance of, licenses to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions.
[1999 c 240 § 1; 1994 c 92 § 496; 1989 1st ex.s. c 9 § 314; 1979 c 158 § 95; 1965 c 100 § 2; 1965 c 8 § 43.24.020. Prior: (i) 1921 c 7 § 96; RRS § 10854. (ii) 1921 c 7 § 104; RRS § 10862. (iii) 1929 c 133 § 1; RRS § 5852-24.]
Notes:
Effective date — Severability — 1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.
Powers, duties and functions of director and department of licensing: Chapter 46.01 RCW.43.24.030
“License” defined.
The word “license” shall be construed to mean and include license, certificate of registration, certificate of qualification, certificate of competency, certificate of authority, and any other instrument, by whatever name designated, authorizing the practice of a profession or calling, the carrying on of a business or occupation, or the doing of any act required by law to be authorized by the state.
[1965 c 8 § 43.24.030. Prior: 1921 c 7 § 98; RRS § 10856.]43.24.086
Fee policy for professions, occupations, and businesses — Determination by rule.
It shall be the policy of the state of Washington that the cost of each professional, occupational[,] or business licensing program be fully borne by the members of that profession, occupation[,] or business. The director of licensing shall from time to time establish the amount of all application fees, license fees, registration fees, examination fees, permit fees, renewal fees, and any other fee associated with licensing or regulation of professions, occupations[,] or businesses, except for health professions, administered by the department of licensing. In fixing said fees, the director shall set the fees for each such program at a sufficient level to defray the costs of administering that program. All such fees shall be fixed by rule adopted by the director in accordance with the provisions of the administrative procedure act, chapter 34.05 RCW.
[1999 c 240 § 2; 1989 1st ex.s. c 9 § 315; 1987 c 467 § 7; 1983 c 168 § 12.]
Notes:
Effective date — Severability — 1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.
Severability — 1983 c 168: See RCW 18.120.910.
Regulation of health professions: Chapters 18.120 and 18.122 RCWThe use of the word “shall” in a statute generally imposes a mandatory duty. Spokane Cy. ex rel. Sullivan v. Glover, 2 Wn.2d at 162, 169, 97 P.2d 628 (1940).
Chapter 19.02 RCW
Business license center act
19.02.020
Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words shall have the following meanings:(1) “System” means the mechanism by which master licenses are issued and renewed, license and regulatory information is disseminated, and account data is exchanged by the agencies;
(2) “Business license center” means the business registration and licensing center established by this chapter and located in and under the administrative control of the department of licensing;
(3) “Master application” means a document incorporating pertinent data from existing applications for licenses covered under this chapter;
(4) “Master license” means the single document designed for public display issued by the business license center which certifies state agency license approval and which incorporates the endorsements for individual licenses included in the master license system, which the state requires for any person subject to this chapter;
(5) “License” means the whole or part of any agency permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, charter, or any form or permission required by law, including agency rule, to engage in any activity;
(6) “Regulatory” means all licensing and other governmental or statutory requirements pertaining to business or professional activities;
(7) “Person” means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, nonprofit organization, state or local government agency, and any other organization required to register with the state to do business in the state and to obtain one or more licenses from the state or any of its agencies;
(8) “Director” means the director of licensing;
(9) “Department” means the department of licensing;
(10) “Regulatory agency” means any state agency, board, commission, or division which regulates one or more professions, occupations, industries, businesses, or activities;
(11) “Renewal application” means a document used to collect pertinent data for renewal of licenses covered under this chapter; and
(12) “License information packet” means a collection of information about licensing requirements and application procedures custom-assembled for each request.
[1993 c 142 § 3; 1992 c 107 § 1; 1982 c 182 § 2; 1979 c 158 § 75; 1977 ex.s. c 319 § 2.]
Notes:
Effective dates — 1992 c 107: “(1) Sections 1 through 4, 6, and 8 of this act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect June 1, 1992.(2) Sections 5 and 7 of this act shall take effect July 1, 1992.” [1992 c 107 § 9.]
46.01.011
Purpose.*** CHANGE IN 2010 *** (SEE 6379.SL) ***{ this is the actual Washington Session Law}
The legislature finds that the department of licensing administers laws relating to the licensing and regulation of professions, businesses, gambling, and other activities in addition to administering laws relating to the licensing and regulation of vehicles and vehicle operators, dealers, and manufacturers. The laws administered by the department have the common denominator of licensing and regulation and are directed toward protecting and enhancing the well-being of the residents of the state.
[1994 c 92 § 500; 1979 c 158 § 113; 1977 ex.s. c 334 § 1.]
Notes:
Effective date — 1977 ex.s. c 334: “This 1977 amendatory act shall take effect on July 1, 1977.” [1977 ex.s. c 334 § 8.]82.04.140
“Business.”
“Business” includes all activities engaged in with the object of gain, benefit, or advantage to the taxpayer or to another person or class, directly or indirectly.
[1961 c 15 § 82.04.140. Prior: 1955 c 389 § 15; prior: 1949 c 228 § 2, part; 1945 c 249 § 1, part; 1943 c 156 § 2, part; 1941 c 178 § 2, part; 1939 c 225 § 2, part; 1937 c 227 § 2, part; 1935 c 180 § 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 8370-5, part.]82.04.150
“Engaging in business.”
“Engaging in business” means commencing, conducting, or continuing in business and also the exercise of corporate or franchise powers as well as liquidating a business when the liquidators thereof hold themselves out to the public as conducting such business.
[1961 c 15 § 82.04.150. Prior: 1955 c 389 § 16; prior: 1949 c 228 § 2, part; 1945 c 249 § 1, part; 1943 c 156 § 2, part; 1941 c 178 § 2, part; 1939 c 225 § 2, part; 1937 c 227 § 2, part; 1935 c 180 § 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 8370-5, part.]WAC 480-30-010 Definitions.:
(6) The term “motor vehicle” shall include all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular, used upon the public highways for the transportation of persons for compensation.WAC 480-14-050 Reference to other chapters.
(21) “Motor vehicle” means any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer, propelled or drawn by mechanical power, or any combination of such vehicles, used upon the highways in the transportation of property, including household goods.46.01.030
Administration and improvement of certain motor vehicle laws.*** CHANGE IN 2010 *** (SEE 6379.SL) ***
The department shall be responsible for administering and recommending the improvement of the motor vehicle laws of this state relating to:
(1) driver examining and licensing;
(2) driver improvement;
(3) driver records;
(4) financial responsibility;
(5) certificates of ownership;
(6) certificates of license registration and license plates;
(7) proration and reciprocity;
(8) liquid fuel tax collections;
(9) licensing of dealers, motor vehicle transporters, motor vehicle wreckers, for hire vehicles, and drivers’ schools;
(10) general highway safety promotion in cooperation with the Washington state patrol and traffic safety commission;
(11) such other activities as the legislature may provide.
[1990 c 250 § 14; 1965 c 156 § 3.]
Notes:
Severability — 1990 c 250: See note following RCW 46.16.301.46.01.040
Powers, duties, and functions relating to motor vehicle laws vested in department.*** CHANGE IN 2010 *** (SEE 6379.SL) ***
The department of licensing is vested with all powers, functions, and duties with respect to and including the following:
(1) The motor vehicle fuel excise tax as provided in chapter 82.36 RCW;
(2) The special fuel tax as provided in chapter 82.38 RCW;
(3) The motor vehicle excise tax as provided in chapter 82.44 RCW;
(4) The *house trailer excise tax as provided in chapter 82.50 RCW;
(5) All general powers and duties relating to motor vehicles as provided in chapter 46.08 RCW;
(6) Certificates of ownership and registration as provided in chapters 46.12 and 46.16 RCW;
(7) The registration and licensing of motor vehicles as provided in chapters 46.12 and 46.16 RCW;
(8) Dealers’ licenses as provided in chapter 46.70 RCW;
(9) The licensing of motor vehicle transporters as provided in chapter 46.76 RCW;
(10) The licensing of **motor vehicle wreckers as provided in chapter 46.80 RCW;
(11) The administration of the laws relating to reciprocal or proportional registration of motor vehicles as provided in chapter 46.85 RCW;
(12) The licensing of passenger vehicles for hire as provided in chapter 46.72 RCW;
(13) Operators’ licenses as provided in chapter 46.20 RCW;
(14) Commercial driver training schools as provided in chapter 46.82 RCW;
(15) Financial responsibility as provided in chapter 46.29 RCW;
(16) Accident reporting as provided in chapter 46.52 RCW;
(17) Disposition of revenues as provided in chapter 46.68 RCW; and
(18) The administration of all other laws relating to motor vehicles vested in the director of licenses on June 30, 1965.
[1983 c 3 § 117; 1979 c 158 § 115; 1965 c 156 § 4.]
Notes:
Reviser’s note: *(1) Redesignated the “travel trailers and campers excise tax” by 1967 ex.s. c 149 § 59.**(2) “Motor vehicle wrecker” redesignated “vehicle wrecker” by 1995 c 256.
[ my note; Commercial Driver License is not Listed above in Powers and Duties only Driver License, i.e. Operator License , —– Driver License = Commercial Driver License= Operator License—-]
Public highways of Washington state are open as a matter of
right, not privilege, to public vehicular travel.
2.15 In response to inquires concerning this statutory claim, the WA Statute Law Committee has directed that very particular Sessions Laws constitute those upon which the RCW 46.04.320 definition of the term “motor vehicle” rests or under which it is governed, and all are identical in their language regarding the scope of said term. (See Washington Sessions Laws of 1915, Chapter 142 §§ 2(1) “Motor vehicle” and 2(6) “Public highway” or public highways”; Sessions Laws of 1917, Chapter 155 §§ 1(1) “Motor vehicle” and 1(6) “Public highway” or public highways”; Sessions Laws of 1919, Chapter 59 §§ 1(1) “Motor vehicle” and 2(6) “Public highway” or public highways”; Sessions Laws of 1921, Chapter 96 §§ 2(1) “Motor vehicle” and 2(7) “Public highway” or public highways”). That language is as follows: 34
“Motor vehicle” shall include all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular, used upon the public highways for the transportation of freight, produce or any commodity, except traction engines temporarily upon the highway, road rollers or road making machines, and motor vehicles that run upon rails or tracks.
“Public highway” or “public highways” shall include any highway, state road, county road, public street, avenue, alley, driveway, boulevard or other place built, supported, maintained, controlled or used by the public or by the state, county, district or municipal officers for the use of the public as a highway, or for the transportation of persons or freight, or as a place of travel or communication between different localities or communities;
That was:
(1) “place built, supported, maintained, controlled or used by the public or by the
state, county,” or
(2) “for the transportation of persons or freight,” or
(3) “as a place of travel or communication between different localities or
communities.”
2.16 The term “motor vehicle” is said to embrace only those contrivances using the highways under purpose #2 above, and it is not said to embrace those using the highways for purpose #3, for “travel and communication,” as was the conduct of the Defendant now complained of.
“Transportation. The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047.” 35
2.17 In the 1961 major rewrite of RCW 46 the focus in defining its scope was shifted from the definition of motor vehicle and transportation, to a distinction between privilege and common right, that right of public vehicular travel being repeatedly deemed a “matter of right.” In this 1961 definition of “motor vehicle” we find no mention of “transportation.”
RCW 46.04.320 Motor vehicle. “Motor vehicle” shall mean every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. An electric personal assistive mobility device is not considered a motor vehicle. [2002 c 247 § 2; 1961 c 12 § 46.04.320. Prior: 1959 c 49 § 33; 1955 c 384 § 10; prior: (i) 1943 c 153 § 1, part; 1937 c 188 § 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6312-1, part; 1923 c 181 § 1, part; 1921 c 96 § 2, part; 1919 c 59 § 1, part; 1917 c 155 § 1, part; 1915 c 142 § 2, part; RRS § 6313, part. (ii) 1937 c 189 § 1, part; RRS § 6360-1, part; 1929 c 180 § 1, part; 1927 c 309 § 2, part; RRS § 6362-2, part.]
RCW 9A.56.075 Taking motor vehicle without permission in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to
35 See Black’s, 6th Edition.possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.
(2) Taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree is a class C felony. [2003 c 53 § 73.]
2.18 The removal of the term “transportation” from the language of the RCW clearly is the cause of this controversy. Support of this claim, that private travel is not and has never been placed within the scope of the term “motor vehicle,” is found in other provisions as well. Washington (Sessions) Laws of 1961, Chapter 1 § 1(x) of the Highway License act defines a “Public highway” as:
“Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the State of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns.”
2.19 The proof that Defendant’s activity of public vehicular travel is, by law, a common right and not at all a privilege, is overwhelming in the eyes of all but the morally bankrupt, criminally insane and irretrievably corrupt. The law, state and municipal, foreign and domestic, is virtually replete with this framework which recognizes outright, and therefore duly protects, the Defendant’s right to engage in public vehicular travel and to not be subjected to any privilege code as Washington has in its RCW 46. One needn’t trek into distant enactments of 1961 to find this expression in WA Sessions Laws.
“AN ACT Relating to the definition of “county engineer”; and amending RCW 36.75.010. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 36.75.010 and 1984 c 7 s 26 are each amended to read as follows:
(4) “City street,” every highway or part thereof, located within the limits of incorporated cities and towns, except alleys;
(6) “County road,” every highway or part thereof, outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns and which has not been designated as a state highway;
(11) “Highway,” every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;”
See Chapter 161, Laws of Washington state 2005, House Bill 1599, passed by the House March 11, 2005, Yeas 93 and Nays 0, passed by the Senate April 12, 2005, Yeas 44 and Nays 0. Approved April 22, 2005, C. Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington; FILED April 22, 2005 – 4:12 p.m., Secretary of State, State of Washington. Effective date July 24, 2005.
WA Laws of 2003, Chapter 244 (S.Bill 5977):
Sec. 2. RCW 47.04.010 and 1975 c 62 s 50 are each amended to read as follows:
The following words and phrases, wherever used in this title, shall have the meaning as in this section ascribed to them, unless where used the context thereof shall clearly indicate to the contrary or unless otherwise defined in the chapter of which they are a part:
(11) {+ “Highway.” Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;”
2.20 As late as July of 2005 the collective mind of the WA Legislature unanimously viewed and deemed Defendant’s conduct of public vehicular travel to be a right and not a privilege, and WA’s former AG now Governor approved of it; it’s the law, still.Memorandum; Driver, Driver License
Statement of Fact;1. Definition of Driver; means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.
2. The State of Washington or for that matter no State or the District of Columbia issues a License to Drive, only a Driver License is issued in all jurisdictions.
3. A license is merely a privilege to do business.Definitions provided here for convenience;
1a. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals. ;Blacks 1st Ed. Pg. 3951b. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. ;Blacks 2nd Ed.pg. 398
1c. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. ;Blacks 3rd Ed. Pg.622
1d. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle. ;Blacks 4th Ed. Pg.585
1e. DRIVER – One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle …”
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed.. Pg. 9401f. DRIVER; One who or that which drives; esp. one who drives an animal or animals, a vehicle, etc., as a coachman, a drover, a chauffeur, or a locomotive-engineer; … ; The New Century Dictionary, pg.460 copyright 1952 (Please Note; all of the above , coachman, drover, chauffeur, or a locomotive-engineer are defined as “for hire”.)
1g. DRIVER- noun, coachman, whip, charioteer, teamster, chauffeur, director, manager, master, taskmaster. Webster’s dictionary and Roget’s thesaurus 2005 ed., pg. 55 (Please Note; all of the above , coachman, whip, charioteer, teamster, chauffeur, director, manager, master, taskmaster are defined as “for hire”.)
1h. DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals. 2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible. 3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; ……1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; …..Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition pg.112
The above definitions are consistent with the following court case as decided by the State Court, which appears to have set the definition of the certain words in question as are defined above and below;
“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ …”Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle. “Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. …It is intended to apply to “for hire” vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)Also Driver is defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Part 390: General §390.5 Definitions.Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.
A “DRIVER” is defined in the National Safety Code – the Federal regulations governing commercial operations on Canada’s highways – as: “A DRIVER is a person who drives a commercial vehicle”.
As can easily be seen all definitions refer to “for hire” or “employed” obviously this is a Commercial License (Business License ) to “Operate” upon the public roads and highways, and not a right to travel
MY FAMILY CAR IS A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AS DEFINED
AT RCW 46.25.050 (1)(c) & WAC 308-100-210
and is NOT a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE
which would require a RCW 46.25.080
COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSERCW 46.25.050 (1) Drivers of Commercial motor vehicles shall obtain a “commercial driver’s license” . . . HOWEVER, this requirement does not apply to any person: (c) Who is operating a recreational vehicle for non commercial purposes.
RCW 46.25.050 (1)(c) makes it clear that the alleged requirement for a “drivers license” does NOT apply to any person: (c) WHO IS OPERATING A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE FOR NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES! (Emphasis added.) For clarification, the Washington Administrative Code at WAC 308-100-210 which reads:
(WAC) 308-100-210 Recreational vehicle–Definition. For the purposes of RCW 46.25.050(1)(c), the term “recreational vehicle” shall include vehicles used exclusively for NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are: (1) Primarily designed for recreational, camping, OR TRAVEL USE. And;
WAC 308-100-210 specifically defines the term “RECREATIONAL VEHICLE” shall include vehicles used exclusively for NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are: (1) PRIMARILY DESIGNED FOR RECREATIONAL, CAMPING, OR TRAVEL USE.
Oregon law at ORS 801.208 is consistent with both RCW 46.25.050(1)(c) & WAC 308-100-210 and provides:801.208 “Commercial motor vehicle.”
. . . (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the term “commercial motor vehicle” does not include the following:
. . . (c) A motor home used to transport or house, for nonbusiness purposes, the operator or the operator’s family members or personal possessions;
. . . (e) A recreational vehicle that is operated solely for personal use. [1989 c.636 §2; 1991 c.185 §1; 1991 c.676 §1; 1999 c.359 §1]Similarly, Idaho law at subsection (4) of Title 49-302 is consistent with both RCW 46.25.050(1)(c) & WAC 308-100-210 and provides:
49-302. What persons are exempt from License. – The following persons are exempt from licensing … (c) Not used in the operations of a common or contract motor carrier; and
…(4) Any person is exempt from obtaining a class A, B, or C license to operate a commercial vehicle which is exclusively used to transport personal possessions or family members for nonbusiness or recreational purposes.
“Privately owned Buses not engaged in for hire Transportation are outside the jurisdiction of Division of Motor Vehicles enforcement of N.C. G.S. Article 17, Chapter 20***” 58 N.C.A.G. 1 (It follows that those Citizens not engaged in extraordinary use of the highway for profit or gain are likewise outside the jurisdiction of the Division of Motor Vehicles.)
“Since a sale of personal property is not required to be evidenced by any written instrument in order to be valid, it has been held in North Carolina that there may be a transfer of title to an automobile without complying with the registration statute which requires a transfer and delivery of a certificate of title.” N.C. Law Review Vol. 32 page 545, Carolina Discount Corp. v. Landis Motor Co., 190 N.C. 157; 129 S.E. 414 (Sept. 30, 1925) “The following shall be exempt from the requirements of registration and the certificate of title: 1.) Any such vehicle driven or moved upon the highway in conformance with the provisions of this Article relating to manufacturers, dealers, or nonresidents.” 2.) Any such vehicle which is driven or moved upon a highway only for the purpose of crossing such highway from one property to another. ****20-51(1)(2)(comment: not driven or moved upon the highway for transporting persons or property for profit.) (Case note to North Carolina G.S. 12-3 “Statutory Construction”) “A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, …it is NOT a type of vehicle required to be registered and “use tax” paid of which the tab is evidence of receipt of the tax.” Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14. “It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used by the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22. “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled.” Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20. “In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may” exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they “must” exempt them.” State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 60 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.See California Motor Vehicle Code, section 260: Private cars/vans etc. not in commerce / for profit, are immune to registration fees: a) A “commercial vehicle” is a vehicle of a type REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code”. (b) “Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation or profit, and housecars, are not commercial vehicles”. (c) “a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.”
See New Jersey Motor Vehicle Code Chapter 3, Section 39:3-1. Certain vehicles excepted from chapter which reads: “Automobile fire engines and such self propelling vehicles as are used neither for the conveyance of persons for hire, pleasure or business, nor for the transportation of freights, such as steam road rollers and traction engines are excepted from the provisions of this chapter.”
See Annual Report of the Attorney General of the State of New York issued on July 21, 1909, ALBANY NEW YORK, pages 322-323 which reads: “There is NO requirement that the owner of a motor vehicle shall procure a license to run the same, nor is there any requirement that any other person shall do so, unless he proposes to become a chauffeur or a person conducting an automobile as an employee for hire or wages. Yours very truly, EDWARD R. O’MALLEY Attorney General. See Laws of New York 1901, Chapter 531, page 1316, Section 169a. See also Laws of Wyoming 2002, Motor Vehicle Code, page 142, Section 31-5-110. See RCW 5.24.010!
“A sovereign (the lawgiver) is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” “A suit presupposes that the defendants are subject to the law invoked. Of course it cannot be maintained unless they are so.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907) 205 U.S. 349.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431. Calamaro, supra, at 358-9
See also, Water Quality Ass’n v. United States, 795 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1986), where, citing and quoting Calamaro, the court added at p. 1309:
“It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute’s language. DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984). Similarly, the Secretary has no power to change the language of the revenue statutes because he thinks Congress may have overlooked something.”“When Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded.” Arizona Elec. Power Co-op. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987); see also West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Community Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988).
“In construing a statute, it is safer always not to add to, or subtract from, the language of the statute unless imperatively required to make it . . .rationale . . .” State v. Taylor, 97 Wn.2d 724, 728, 649 P.2d 633 (1982); McKay v. Department of Labor & Indus., 180 Wash. 191, 194, 39 P.2d 997, 98 A.L.R. 990 (1934).”
“. . . It is the rule that in construing statutes the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing under the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. State ex rel. Port of Seattle v. Dept. P.S., 1 Wn.2d 102, 95 P.2d 1007 (1939); State v. Thompson, 38 Wn.2d 774, 232 P.2d 87 (1951); Bradley v. Dept. Labor & Ind., 52 Wn.2d 780, 329 P.2d 196 (1958).” (Wash.) AGO 65-66 No. 69. . . .This conclusion is further supported by the well established rule of constitutional construction, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other. State ex rel. Banker v. Clausen, 142 Wash. 450, 253 Pac. 805 (1927).” See Yelle v. Bishop, 55 Wn.2d 286, 295, 306 (1959). See also Cook v. State, 83 Wash.2d 725, 735, 521 P.2d 725 (1974)(“Whether the legislature acted wisely by creating the challenged restriction is not a proper subject for judicial determination. (cite omitted) The fact that the legislature made no exception for minors does not give rise to some latent judicial power to do so by means of a volunteered additional proviso. This is true even if it could be said the legislative omission was inadvertent. (cite omitted) If there is a need for such an exception, it must be initiated by the legislature, not by the courts. (cite omitted)”).
“A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. When certain persons or thing are specified are specified in law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” Black’s, 6th Edition, definition of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”“Definitions are integral to statutory scheme and of highest value in determining legislative intent. . . . To ignore definition section is to refuse to give legal effect to part of statutory law of state.” State v. Taylor, 30 Wash.App. 89, 632 P.2d 892 (1981).
“When legislative body provides definition for statutory terms, it is that definition to which a person must conform his conduct.” City of Seattle v. Koh, 26 Wash.App. 708, 614 P.2d 665 (1980).
12 See Yelle v. Bishop, 55 Wn.2d 286, 295, 306 (1959). See also Cook v. State, 83 Wash.2d 725, 735, 521 P.2d 725 (1974)(“Whether the legislature acted wisely by creating the challenged restriction is not a proper subject for judicial determination. (cite omitted) The fact that the legislature made no exception for minors does not give rise to some latent judicial power to do so by means of a volunteered additional proviso. This is true even if it could be said the legislative omission was inadvertent. (cite omitted) If there is a need for such an exception, it must be initiated by the legislature, not by the courts. (cite omitted)”).InState v. Becker, 39 Wn. (2d) 94, 96, 234 P. (2d) 297, the supreme court of this state said:
“. . . where general and special laws are concurrent, the special law applies to the subject matter contemplated by it to the exclusion of the general law. . . .”AGO 1959 No. 61 – August 21, 1959
An oft repeated rule of statutory construction is that of ejusdem generis. In State ex rel. Gilroy v. Superior Court, 37 Wn. (2d) 926, 932, 226 P. (2d) 882, the supreme court quoted with approval fromState v. Hemrich, 93 Wash. 439, 447, 161 Pac. 79, L.R.A. 1917B, 962, as follows:
“‘”In statutory construction, the ‘ejusdem generis rule’ is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned.” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 415.'”Washington State has consistently attempted to hide the true nature of the meaning and definition of “DRIVER” , “MOTOR VEHICLE”, instead of defining the words directly they have resorted to a slight of hand and “ADOPTED” the definitions used by the “Federal Government” as is detailed below, which they then attempt to conceal from view in the Washington Administrative Code.
The Washington Administrative Code states that the “State” has adopted the definition of “DRIVER” as defined in 49 CFR Part 390 for all Washington intrastate operations.
WAC 480-30-221
Vehicle and driver safety requirements.
(1) Companies must comply with all state and local laws and rules governing licensing, vehicle safety, and driver safety. Companies must also comply with the parts of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), adopted by reference, that are shown in the following chart. Information about 49 CFR, including the version adopted by the commission and where to obtain copies is set out in WAC 480-30-999.Also Driver is defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Part 390: General §390.5 Definitions.Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.
49 CFR Part: Notes:
Part 40 – Procedures For Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs Entire Part 40 is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 382 – Controlled Substance and Alcohol Use and Testing Entire Part 382, including definition of commercial motor vehicle, is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 383 – Commercial Driver’s License Standards; Requirements and Penalties Entire Part 383, including definition of commercial motor vehicle, is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 390 – Safety Regulations, General Entire Part 390 is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations, with the following exceptions:
(1) The terms “motor vehicle,” “commercial motor vehicle,” and “private vehicle” are not adopted. Instead, where those terms are used in Title 49 CFR, they have the meanings assigned to them in WAC 480-30-036 (Motor vehicle and private vehicle) and WAC 480-30-211 (Commercial motor vehicle).(2) Whenever the term “director” is used in Title 49 CFR, it means the commission.
WAC 480-30-036
“Motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means:
(a) As related to auto transportation companies: Every self-propelled vehicle used on the public highways, for the transportation of persons for compensation.
(b) As related to charter and excursion carriers: Every self-propelled vehicle with a manufacturer’s seating capacity for eight or more passengers, including the driver, used on the public highways, for the transportation of persons for compensation.
“Private motor vehicle” means a vehicle owned or operated by a private carrier.
WAC 458-20-175 No agency filings affecting this section since 2003
Persons engaged in the business of operating as a private or common carrier by air, rail or water in interstate or foreign commerce.
The term “private carrier” means every carrier, other than a common carrier, engaged in the business of transporting persons or property for hire.The term “watercraft” includes every type of floating equipment which is designed for the purpose of carrying therein or therewith persons or cargo. It includes tow boats, but it does not include floating dry docks, dredges or pile drivers, or any other similar equipment.
The term “carrier property” means airplanes, locomotives, railroad cars or watercraft, and component parts of the same.
The term “component part” includes all tangible personal property which is attached to and a part of carrier property. It also includes spare parts which are designed for ultimate attachment to carrier property. The said term does not include furnishings of any kind which are not attached to the carrier property nor does it include consumable supplies. For example, it does not include, among other things, bedding, linen, table and kitchen ware, tables, chairs, ice for icing perishables or refrigerator cars or cooling systems, fuel or lubricants.
“Such persons,” and “such businesses” mean the persons and businesses described in the title of this rule.
WAC 480-30-211 Agency filings affecting this section
Commercial vehicle defined.
Unless otherwise stated, for the purposes of the rules in Part 5 — Equipment and Drivers, “commercial motor vehicle” means any motor vehicle used by an auto transportation company or charter and excursion carrier to provide passenger transportation services over the public highways of Washington state.[Statutory Authority: RCW 80.01.040, 81.04.160, 81.12.050, 81.68.030, and 81.70.270. 06-13-006 (General Order No. R-533, Docket No. TC-020497), § 480-30-211, filed 6/8/06, effective 7/9/06.]
DEFINITION OF “COMPANY”
82.04.030
“Person,” “company.”
“Person” or “company”, herein used interchangeably, means any individual, receiver, administrator, executor, assignee, trustee in bankruptcy, trust, estate, firm, copartnership, joint venture, club, company, joint stock company, business trust, municipal corporation, political subdivision of the state of Washington, corporation, limited liability company, association, society, or any group of individuals acting as a unit, whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit, or otherwise and the United States or any instrumentality thereof.
[1995 c 318 § 1; 1963 ex.s. c 28 § 1; 1961 c 15 §
82.04.030. Prior: 1955 c 389 § 4; prior: 1949 c 228 § 2, part; 1945 c 249 § 1, part; 1943 c 156 § 2, part; 1941 c 178 § 2, part; 1939 c 225 § 2, part; 1937 c 227 § 2, part; 1935 c 180 § 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 8370-5, part.]
Notes:
Effective date — 1995 c 318: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [May 11, 1995].” [1995 c 318 § 12.]
Effective date — 1963 ex.s. c 28: “This act shall take effect on July 1, 1963.” [1963 ex.s. c 28 § 17.]
International companies investing in Washington — Eligibility for excise tax incentives: RCW 43.330.068.As can easily be seen all definitions of “DRIVER” refer to “for hire” or “employed” obviously this is a Commercial License (Business License ) to “Operate” upon the public roads and highways, and not a right to travel.
WAC 480-30-999
Adoption by reference.
In this chapter, the commission adopts by reference all or portions of regulations and standards identified below. They are available for inspection at the commission branch of the Washington state library. The publications, effective dates, references within this chapter, and availability of the resources are as follows:(1) North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) is published by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA).
(a) The commission adopts the version in effect on April 1, 2010.
(b) This publication is referenced in WAC 480-30-121 (Certificates, applications, charter and excursion) and WAC 480-30-221 (Vehicle and driver safety requirements).
(c) The North American Out-of-Service Criteria is a copyrighted document. Copies are available from CVSA in Washington, D.C.
(2) Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, cited as 49 CFR, including all appendices and amendments is published by the United States Government Printing Office.
(a) The commission adopts the version in effect on June 30, 2010, except that for 49 CFR Part 40, the commission adopts the version in effect on October 1, 2010.
(b) This publication is referenced in WAC 480-30-221 (Vehicle and driver safety requirements) and WAC 480-30-226 (Intrastate medical waivers).
(c) Copies of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations are available from the U.S. Government Online Bookstore, http://bookstore.gpo.gov/, and from various third-party vendors.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 80.01.040, 80.04.160, 81.04.160, and 34.05.353. 11-04-041 (Docket A-101466, General Order R-562), § 480-30-999, filed 1/25/11, effective 2/25/11; 09-01-171 (Docket A-081419, General Order R-554), § 480-30-999, filed 12/23/08, effective 1/23/09. Statutory Authority: RCW 80.01.040, 81.04.160, 81.12.050, 81.68.030, and 81.70.270. 06-13-006 (General Order No. R-533, Docket No. TC-020497), § 480-30-999, filed 6/8/06, effective 7/9/06. Statutory Authority: RCW 80.01.040, 80.04.160, 81.04.160 and 34.05.353. 05-21-022 (Docket No. A-050271, General Order No. R-521), § 480-30-999, filed 10/10/05, effective 11/10/05; 04-01-152 (General Order No. R-511, Docket No. A-030852), § 480-30-999, filed 12/22/03, effective 1/22/04; 02-18-033 (Docket No. A-020379, General Order No. R-501), § 480-30-999, filed 8/26/02, effective 9/26/02. Statutory Authority: RCW 80.01.040, 80.04.160, 81.04.160, and 34.05.310. 01-20-061 (Docket No. A-010827, General Order No. R-491), § 480-30-999, filed 9/28/01, effective 10/29/01.]
Motor vehicle
“(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.”
— Title 18, Section 31(a)(6) & (10) United States Code“The Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1913, p.639) is not unconstitutional…in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license tax, but exempts all others operators of such vehicles from such tax and regulation.” In re Stork, (1914), 167 C. 294.
“A chauffeur is one who is paid compensation for his services.” Hunton v. California Portland Cement Co. (1942), 50 C.A. 2d 684, 123 P.2d 947.
Bovier’s Law Dictionary describes TRANSPORTATION as: “punishment. In the English law, this punishment is inflicted by virtue of sundry statutes; it was unknown to the common law. 2 H Bl. 223. It is a part of the judgment or sentence of the court, that the party shall be transported or sent into exile. 1 Ch. Cr. Law, 789 to 796: Princ. of Pen. Law, c. 4 2.”
“TRAFFIC”–. Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.
–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1914Title 1 RCW
General provisionsGeneral definitions
RCW 1.16.080
“Person” — Construction of “association,” “unincorporated association,” and “person, firm, or corporation” to include a limited liability company.
(1) The term “person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual.(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms “association,” “unincorporated association,” and “person, firm, or corporation” or substantially identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.
[BELOW ARE THE REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL SESSION LAWS ENACTED BY THE WASHINGTON LEGISLATURE THAT THE RCW’S REFER TO( THE RCW’S ARE THE INTERPRETATION , CODIFICATION , INDEXING OF THE ACTUAL LAWS INTO THE “CODE”)]
[1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.]
Notes:
Reviser’s note: This section is a part of 1891 c 23 § 1. The introductory phrase of that section provides: “The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:”.
Criminal proceedings, person defined: RCW 9A.04.110.
Declaratory judgments, person defined: RCW 7.24.130.
Eminent domain by cities, person defined: RCW 8.12.020.
Notice to alien property custodian, person defined: RCW 4.28.340.
Wrongful death, person defined: RCW 4.20.005.IN the Session Law of 1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 CHAPTER XXII. [S.B. NO. 78]
Construction of Statutes, Specifically states that any use of the word “PERSON” shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.
This Session Law specifically limits the application of any part of the “CODE” to only the named and stated “ENTITIES” listed and to NO other, this also confirms that the entire “CODE” is “PRIVATE LAW” and NOT applicable to the General public or man or woman as the lawyers, judges, police would like to have us believe. In order to be subject to the provisions of the “CODE” one first must be one of the specifically named “PERSONS”.1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 CHAPTER XXII. [S.B. NO. 78] Construction of Statutes.
An Act concerning the construction of statutes.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Section 1. The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction. The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof. The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual. Words importing the singular number may also be applied to the plural of persons and things; words importing the plural may be applied to the singular, and words importing the masculine gender may be extended to females also. The word “month” or “months” whenever the same occurs in the statutes of this state now in force, or in statutes hereinafter enacted, or in any contract made in this state, shall be taken and construed to mean “calendar months”.
Approved February 24, 1891
RCW 1.16.080 also refers to Washington Session “LAWS” and the previous “LAWS” as enacted by the Washington Territory Legislature which are to be construed as continuations of previous “LAWS”, “STATUTES”;“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.
1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS CHAPTER 231
[Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 61681
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES ACT-REVISIONS
AN ACT Relating to limited liability companies; amending RCW 1.16.080, 19.80.005,
19.80.010, 25.04.720, 25.15.010, 25.15.020, 25.15.045, 25.15.150, 25.15.270, and 25.15.325;
adding new sections to chapter 25.15 RCW; and creating a new section.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Sec. 1. RCW 1.16.080 and 1891 c 23 s 1, part are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The term “person” may be construed to include the United States, this
state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited
liability company, as well as an individual.
(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms “association.”
“unincorporated association,” and “person”, firm, or corporation” or substantially
identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other
type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.
1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS are a continuation of the Session Laws of 1891 Chapter 23 Section 1, which only amended the 1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS to include a Limited Liability Company to be included within the existing definition, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”.
1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 . [S.B. NO. 78] Construction of Statutes.
An Act concerning the construction of statutes.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Section 1. The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction. The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof. The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 are a continuation of the Session Laws of Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”.
Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964
“Whenever the term “person” or other word is used to designate the party whose property is the subject of an offense, or against whom any act is done, with the intent to defraud or injure, the term may be construed to include the United States, this territory, or any State or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual;”
“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964 are a continuation of the Session Laws of Washington Territory Code 1857 p 46 §1, and 1854 p 99 § 134, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”, which was established by Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134
Washington Territory Code 1857 p 46 §1, and 1854 p 99 § 134
“Whenever the term “person” is used to denote a party to a suit or the party whose property is the subject of the action, or of an offense, or against who anything is done, with the intent to injure or defraud, the term may be construed to include the United States, this territory, or any State or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual;”The foundation for the complete definition of “PERSON” is established by Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134, and each subsequent definition does not change or alter the foundational definition but each additional definition refers to the foundational definition found at Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134
Bouviers 1856
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly−synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R.178.By applying the rules of statutory construction;
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind.
Bouvier’s law Dictionary, 1856
It can be clearly determined that the intent of the Legislature is directed upon artificial creations or entities and NOT a man or woman, It can also be assumed that if the Legislature did wish to include a man or woman they would have deliberately included them in the Law in an unambiguous manner.To clarify the term “Individual”;
“Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See also Person.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]
“Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by status term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]
Natural person. Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being so recognized by law. [296 NY 395, 72 NE2d 716. Radin, Law Dictionary (1955)]
… natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the State. [Pembina v. Penn. 125 U.S. 181, 189 (1888)]
human. 1. Belonging to man or mankind… 3. Profane; not sacred or divine. [American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1928]
human being. See Monster. [2 Bl. Com. 24. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations by James Ballentine, 1948 Edition]
monster. A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal… [2 Bl. Com. 24. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations by James Ballentine, 1948 EditionSole proprietor individual proprietorship
Are you a—-
PERSON = INDIVIDUAL = COMPANY = SOLE PROPRETOR = BUSINESS ENTITY26CFR301.7701 “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”
Sec. 310.7701-2 “Business entities; definitions.
a. Business entities, for purposes of this section and Sec. 301.7701-3, a business entity is any entity recognized for federal tax purposes (including an entity with a single owner that may be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner under Sec. 301.7701-3) that is not properly classified as a trust under Section 301.7701-4 or otherwise subject to special treatment under the Internal Revenue Code. A business entity with two or more members is classified for federal tax purposes as either a corporation or a partnership. A business entity with only one owner is classified as a corporation or is disregarded; if the entity is disregarded, its activities are treated in the same manner as a sole-proprietorship, branch, or division of the owner.”
26CFR31.0-2 General Definitions and use of terms
a. In general. As used in the regulations in this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated—(1) The terms defined in the provisions of law contained in the regulations in this part shall have the meanings so assigned to them.
(8) Person Includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust or estate, a joint-stock company, an association, or a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization or group, through or by means of which any business, financial operation or venture is carried on.
26CFR3401(c)-1 Employee.
a. The term “employee” includes every individual performing services if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs such service is the legal relationship of employer and employee.
b. Generally, physicians, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, auctioneers, and others who follow an independent trade, business, or profession, in which they offer their services to the public, are not employees.AN INDIVIDUAL
IS A
SOLE PROPRIETOR,
a business entity, ie, U S Citizen.
Individual = business entity = US citizenSole Proprietorship
A form of business in which one person owns all the assets of the business, in contrast to a partnership or a corporation.
A person who does business for himself is engaged in the operation of a sole proprietorship. Anyone who does business without formally creating a business organization is a sole proprietor. Many small businesses operate as sole proprietorships. Professionals, consultants, and other service businesses that require minimum amounts of capital often operate this way.
A sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity, like a partnership or a corporation. No legal formalities are necessary to create a sole proprietorship, other than appropriate licensing to conduct business and registration of a business name if it differs from that of the sole proprietor. Because a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity, it is not itself a taxable entity. The sole proprietor must report income and expenses from the business on Schedule C of her or his personal federal income tax return.
A major concern for persons organizing a business enterprise is limiting the extent to which their personal assets, unrelated to the business itself, are subject to claims of business creditors. A sole proprietorship gives the least protection because the personal liability of the sole proprietor is generally unlimited. Both the business assets and the personal assets of the sole proprietor are subject to claims of the sole proprietorship’s creditors. In addition, existing liabilities of the sole proprietor will not be extinguished upon the dissolution or sale of the sole proprietorship.
Unlike the managers of a corporation or a partnership, a sole proprietor has total flexibility in managing and controlling the business. The organizational expenses and level of formality in a sole proprietorship are minimal as compared with those of other business organizations. However, because a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity, it terminates when the sole proprietor becomes disabled, retires, or dies. As a result, a sole proprietorship lacks business continuity and does not have a perpetual existence as does a corporation.
For working capital, a sole proprietorship is generally limited to the individual funds of the sole proprietor, along with any loans from outsiders willing to provide extra capital. During her lifetime, a sole proprietor can sell or give away any asset because the business is not legally separate from the sole proprietor. At the death of the sole proprietor, the business is usually dissolved. The proprietor’s estate, however, can sell the assets or continue the business.
Cross-references
S Corporation.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
________________________________________
sole proprietorship n. a business owned by one person, as distinguished from a partnership or corporation.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.sole proprietorship
Definition
A business structure in which an individual and his/her company are considered a single entity for tax and liability purposes. A sole proprietorship is a company which is not registered with the state as a limited liability company or corporation. The owner does not pay income tax separately for the company, but he/she reports business income or losses on his/her individual income tax return. The owner is inseparable from the sole proprietorship, so he/she is liable for any business debts. also called proprietorship
Copyright©2011 by WebFinance, Inc.Sole proprietorship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sole proprietorship, also known as a sole trader or simply a proprietorship, is a type of business entity that is owned and run by one individual and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business. The owner receives all profits (subject to taxation specific to the business) and has unlimited responsibility for all losses and debts. Every asset of the business is owned by the proprietor and all debts of the business are the proprietor’s. This means that the owner has no less liability than if they were acting as an individual instead of as a business. It is a “sole” proprietorship in contrast with partnerships.
A sole proprietor may use a trade name or business name other than his or her legal name. In many jurisdictions there are rules to enable the true owner of a business name to be ascertained. In the United States there is generally a requirement to file a doing business as statement with the local authorities.[1] In the United Kingdom the proprietor’s name must be displayed on business stationery, in business emails and at business premises, and there are other requirementssole proprietorship
Definition
Simplest, oldest, and most common form of business ownership in which only one individual acquires all the benefits and risks of running an enterprise. In a sole-proprietorship there is no legal distinction between the assets and liabilities of a business and those of its owner. It is by far the most popular business structure for startups because of its ease of formation, least record keeping, minimal regulatory controls, and avoidance of double taxation.
Business dictionary.comDuhaime
Sole Proprietorship definition:A business by a single individual which is not formally organized and for which the individual and the business are indistinguishable in law.
.Also known as a proprietorship.Where an individual starts a business of any kind, and without another person, which would then constitute a partnership, the law treats the business as a sole proprietorship. This characterization results in the complete liability of the individual to the tort, contract and other liabilities of the business.
For example, litigation against a sole proprietor would usually refer to the defendant as:
“John Doe, operating as Doe Painting, a sole proprietorship”
Where a single individual carries on a business, it is necessarily conducted as either a sole proprietorship or a corporation.
A sole proprietorship is the default structure when a single individual starts a business as a partnership requires another individual and a corporation, a charter from the government.
In most jurisdictions, though, as a matter of transparency and consumer protection, a minor form of government registration is usually required, such as a city or other business license, or the registration of the business name. Tax authorities may also require registration and a tax number, as well as distinct financial disclosure in terms of income and expenses of the sole proprietorship, as opposed to such other income irrelevant expenses of the tax payer.
Sole proprietorships often operate under a name distinct from the owner (“Barb’s Fish and Chips”), and the owner is often entitled to reserve a distinct name for exclusive use.
In a sole proprietorship, there is no sharing of responsibilities; the individual does it all and can fully bind the business by his/her sole signature. Conversely, and contrary to a corporation but similar to a general partner, the personal assets of the sole proprietorship are exposed to satisfy any tort, contractual or judgment debt of the business.
Most tax authorities prevent the sole proprietor from benefiting from favorable tax treatment as an employee of the business, since the proprietor and the employee are inseparable in law. Further, sole proprietors are not attractive to investors since – absent some contractual arrangement to the contrary – the individual proprietor has exclusive ownership in the assets of the business, and accounts receivable.
Sole proprietorships are common in the fishing and farming industry.
All of the above is codeified in Washington “LAW” going back to the beginning of the Washington Territory in 1854 — A FRANCHISE of the UNITED STATES, which is continued to present times.
CODE OF PROCEDURE – STATE OF WASHINGTON
1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 CHAPTER XXII. [S.B. NO. 78] Construction of Statutes.
An Act concerning the construction of statutes.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Section 1. The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction. The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof. The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual. Words importing the singular number may also be applied to the plural of persons and things; words importing the plural may be applied to the singular, and words importing the masculine gender may be extended to females also. The word “month” or “months” whenever the same occurs in the statutes of this state now in force, or in statutes hereinafter enacted, or in any contract made in this state, shall be taken and construed to mean “calendar months”.
Approved February 24, 1891
RCW 1.16.080 also refers to Washington Session “LAWS” and the previous “LAWS” as enacted by the Washington Territory Legislature which are to be construed as continuations of previous “LAWS”, “STATUTES”;“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.
1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS CHAPTER 231
[Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 61681
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES ACT-REVISIONS
AN ACT Relating to limited liability companies; amending RCW 1.16.080, 19.80.005,
19.80.010, 25.04.720, 25.15.010, 25.15.020, 25.15.045, 25.15.150, 25.15.270, and 25.15.325;
adding new sections to chapter 25.15 RCW; and creating a new section.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Sec. 1. RCW 1.16.080 and 1891 c 23 s 1, part are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The term “person” may be construed to include the United States, this
state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited
liability company, as well as an individual.
(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms “association.”
“unincorporated association,” and “person”, firm, or corporation” or substantially
identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other
type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.
1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS are a continuation of the Session Laws of 1891 Chapter 23 Section 1, which only amended the 1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS to include a Limited Liability Company to be included within the existing definition, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”.
WASHINGTON SESSION LAW 1891 Chapter 23 Section 1
1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 . [S.B. NO. 78] Construction of Statutes.
An Act concerning the construction of statutes.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Section 1. The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction. The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof. The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 are a continuation of the Session Laws of Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”.
Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964
“Whenever the term “person” or other word is used to designate the party whose property is the subject of an offense, or against whom any act is done, with the intent to defraud or injure, the term may be construed to include the United States, this territory, or any State or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual;”
“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964 are a continuation of the Session Laws of Washington Territory Code 1857 p 46 §1, and 1854 p 99 § 134, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”, which was established by Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134
Washington Territory Code 1857 p 46 §1, and 1854 p 99 § 134
“Whenever the term “person” is used to denote a party to a suit or the party whose property is the subject of the action, or of an offense, or against who anything is done, with the intent to injure or defraud, the term may be construed to include the United States, this territory, or any State or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual;”The foundation for the complete definition of “PERSON” is established by Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134, and each subsequent definition does not change or alter the foundational definition but each additional definition refers to the foundational definition found at Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134
Bouviers 1856
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly−synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R.178.By applying the rules of statutory construction;
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind.
Bouvier’s law Dictionary, 1856
It can be clearly determined that the intent of the Legislature is directed upon artificial creations or entities and NOT a man or woman, It can also be assumed that if the Legislature did wish to include a man or woman they would have deliberately included them in the Law in an unambiguous manner.To clarify the term “Individual”;
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of
the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual
entity.” Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.“Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See also Person.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]
“Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by status term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]
Natural person. Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being so recognized by law. [296 NY 395, 72 NE2d 716. Radin, Law Dictionary (1955)]
… natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the State. [Pembina v. Penn. 125 U.S. 181, 189 (1888)]
human. 1. Belonging to man or mankind… 3. Profane; not sacred or divine. [American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1928]
human being. See Monster. [2 Bl. Com. 24. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations by James Ballentine, 1948 Edition]
monster. A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal… [2 Bl. Com. 24. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations by James Ballentine, 1948 EditionThe Washington state supreme court on a number of occasions has indicated that:
“. . . A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that the words to be construed must be given their usual and ordinary meaning. . . .”
See,Pacific Etc. Alloys v. State, 49 Wn.2d 702, 306 P.2d 197 (1957). Also, seeCrown Zellerbach Corp. v. State, 53 Wn.2d 813, 328 P.2d 884 (1958), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 79 S.Ct. 1138, 359 U.S. 531 (1959), 3 L.Ed.2d 1029; andState ex rel. Longview Fire Fighters Union, Local 828, I. A. F. K. v. City of Longview, 65 Wn.2d 568, 399 P.2d 1 (1965).
A second rule of construction which must be applied in the case of the statute here being considered is the well-established rule that criminal statutes (i.e., statutes defining a crime for which punishment may be imposed) are always to be strictly construed against the state and in favor of the accused. See, e.g.,City of Seattle v. Green, 51 Wn.2d 871, 322 P.2d 842 (1958), andState v. Thompson, 38 Wn.2d 774, 232 P.2d 87 (1951). The meaning of this rule was explained by our court in State v. Rinkes, 49 Wn.2d 664, 306 P.2d 205 (1957), as follows:
“Penal statutes are to be construed strictly, to the end that offenses not entitled to be included shall not be prosecuted. But they are not to be construed so strictly that they would be defeated by a forced and over-strict construction. State v. Larson, 119 Wash. 123, 125, 204 Pac. 1041 (1922), and cases cited.“Strict construction of a penal statute means merely that the punitive sanctions must be confined to such matters as are clearly and manifestly within the statutory terms and purposes. It does not mean that a forced, narrow, and over-strict construction should [[Orig. Op. Page 6]] be applied to defeat the obvious intent of the legislature. SeeNorthern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 48 L.Ed. 679, 24 S.Ct. 436 (1904);United States v. Coplon, 88 F.Supp. 912 (1949);State v. Zazzaro, 128 Conn. 160, 20 A.2d 737 (1941); People v. Conti, 127 Misc. Rep. 244, 216 N.Y.S. 442 (1926).
Cite as: AGO 51-53 No. 502 March 25, 1953
Thus, our interpretation of this statute must depend upon general rules of construction. The principle is well established that, whenever possible, statutes are so construed as to give effect to the purposes for which they were enacted. 50 Am.Jur., 283 et seq. (Stats. § 303).
The only logical conclusion is that “person”, and “individual” are terms referring to legal fictions, or a straw man. Both of these words are also said to be “natural persons” and as such are legal entities and “members of the body politic owing allegiance to the State.” These entities are created in and exist in the civil society that we call “the public”. As such they are subject to the rules established by their creators, the civil government. Men, on the other hand, are outside of “the public”, and not an artificially created entity created by the State, unless of course the State is stating that it, the State, has created me, a Man.The Washington state supreme court on a number of occasions has indicated that:
“. . . A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that the words to be construed must be given their usual and ordinary meaning. . . .”
See,Pacific Etc. Alloys v. State, 49 Wn.2d 702, 306 P.2d 197 (1957). Also, seeCrown Zellerbach Corp. v. State, 53 Wn.2d 813, 328 P.2d 884 (1958), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 79 S.Ct. 1138, 359 U.S. 531 (1959), 3 L.Ed.2d 1029; andState ex rel. Longview Fire Fighters Union, Local 828, I. A. F. K. v. City of Longview, 65 Wn.2d 568, 399 P.2d 1 (1965).
A second rule of construction which must be applied in the case of the statute here being considered is the well-established rule that criminal statutes (i.e., statutes defining a crime for which punishment may be imposed) are always to be strictly construed against the state and in favor of the accused. See, e.g.,City of Seattle v. Green, 51 Wn.2d 871, 322 P.2d 842 (1958), andState v. Thompson, 38 Wn.2d 774, 232 P.2d 87 (1951). The meaning of this rule was explained by our court in State v. Rinkes, 49 Wn.2d 664, 306 P.2d 205 (1957), as follows:
“Penal statutes are to be construed strictly, to the end that offenses not entitled to be included shall not be prosecuted. But they are not to be construed so strictly that they would be defeated by a forced and over-strict construction. State v. Larson, 119 Wash. 123, 125, 204 Pac. 1041 (1922), and cases cited.“Strict construction of a penal statute means merely that the punitive sanctions must be confined to such matters as are clearly and manifestly within the statutory terms and purposes. It does not mean that a forced, narrow, and over-strict construction should [[Orig. Op. Page 6]] be applied to defeat the obvious intent of the legislature. SeeNorthern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 48 L.Ed. 679, 24 S.Ct. 436 (1904);United States v. Coplon, 88 F.Supp. 912 (1949);State v. Zazzaro, 128 Conn. 160, 20 A.2d 737 (1941); People v. Conti, 127 Misc. Rep. 244, 216 N.Y.S. 442 (1926).
Cite as: AGO 51-53 No. 502 March 25, 1953
Thus, our interpretation of this statute must depend upon general rules of construction. The principle is well established that, whenever possible, statutes are so construed as to give effect to the purposes for which they were enacted. 50 Am.Jur., 283 et seq. (Stats. § 303).
The only logical conclusion is that “person”, and “individual” are terms referring to legal fictions, or a straw man. Both of these words are also said to be “natural persons” and as such are legal entities and “members of the body politic owing allegiance to the State.” These entities are created in and exist in the civil society that we call “the public”. As such they are subject to the rules established by their creators, the civil government. Men, on the other hand, are outside of “the public”.Sole proprietor individual proprietorship
26CFR301.7701 “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”
Sec. 310.7701-2 “Business entities; definitions.
b. Business entities, for purposes of this section and Sec. 301.7701-3, a business entity is any entity recognized for federal tax purposes (including an entity with a single owner that may be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner under Sec. 301.7701-3) that is not properly classified as a trust under Section 301.7701-4 or otherwise subject to special treatment under the Internal Revenue Code. A business entity with two or more members is classified for federal tax purposes as either a corporation or a partnership. A business entity with only one owner is classified as a corporation or is disregarded; if the entity is disregarded, its activities are treated in the same manner as a sole-proprietorship, branch, or division of the owner.”
26CFR31.0-2 General Definitions and use of terms
b. In general. As used in the regulations in this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated—(1) The terms defined in the provisions of law contained in the regulations in this part shall have the meanings so assigned to them.
(8) Person Includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust or estate, a joint-stock company, an association, or a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization or group, through or by means of which any business, financial operation or venture is carried on.
26CFR3401(c)-1 Employee.
c. The term “employee” includes every individual performing services if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs such service is the legal relationship of employer and employee.
d. Generally, physicians, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, auctioneers, and others who follow an independent trade, business, or profession, in which they offer their services to the public, are not employees.Sole Proprietorship
A form of business in which one person owns all the assets of the business, in contrast to a partnership or a corporation.
A person who does business for himself is engaged in the operation of a sole proprietorship. Anyone who does business without formally creating a business organization is a sole proprietor. Many small businesses operate as sole proprietorships. Professionals, consultants, and other service businesses that require minimum amounts of capital often operate this way.
A sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity, like a partnership or a corporation. No legal formalities are necessary to create a sole proprietorship, other than appropriate licensing to conduct business and registration of a business name if it differs from that of the sole proprietor. Because a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity, it is not itself a taxable entity. The sole proprietor must report income and expenses from the business on Schedule C of her or his personal federal income tax return.
A major concern for persons organizing a business enterprise is limiting the extent to which their personal assets, unrelated to the business itself, are subject to claims of business creditors. A sole proprietorship gives the least protection because the personal liability of the sole proprietor is generally unlimited. Both the business assets and the personal assets of the sole proprietor are subject to claims of the sole proprietorship’s creditors. In addition, existing liabilities of the sole proprietor will not be extinguished upon the dissolution or sale of the sole proprietorship.
Unlike the managers of a corporation or a partnership, a sole proprietor has total flexibility in managing and controlling the business. The organizational expenses and level of formality in a sole proprietorship are minimal as compared with those of other business organizations. However, because a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity, it terminates when the sole proprietor becomes disabled, retires, or dies. As a result, a sole proprietorship lacks business continuity and does not have a perpetual existence as does a corporation.
For working capital, a sole proprietorship is generally limited to the individual funds of the sole proprietor, along with any loans from outsiders willing to provide extra capital. During her lifetime, a sole proprietor can sell or give away any asset because the business is not legally separate from the sole proprietor. At the death of the sole proprietor, the business is usually dissolved. The proprietor’s estate, however, can sell the assets or continue the business.
Cross-references
S Corporation.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
________________________________________
sole proprietorship n. a business owned by one person, as distinguished from a partnership or corporation.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.sole proprietorship
Definition
A business structure in which an individual and his/her company are considered a single entity for tax and liability purposes. A sole proprietorship is a company which is not registered with the state as a limited liability company or corporation. The owner does not pay income tax separately for the company, but he/she reports business income or losses on his/her individual income tax return. The owner is inseparable from the sole proprietorship, so he/she is liable for any business debts. also called proprietorship
Copyright©2011 by WebFinance, Inc.Sole proprietorship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sole proprietorship, also known as a sole trader or simply a proprietorship, is a type of business entity that is owned and run by one individual and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business. The owner receives all profits (subject to taxation specific to the business) and has unlimited responsibility for all losses and debts. Every asset of the business is owned by the proprietor and all debts of the business are the proprietor’s. This means that the owner has no less liability than if they were acting as an individual instead of as a business. It is a “sole” proprietorship in contrast with partnerships.
A sole proprietor may use a trade name or business name other than his or her legal name. In many jurisdictions there are rules to enable the true owner of a business name to be ascertained. In the United States there is generally a requirement to file a doing business as statement with the local authorities.[1] In the United Kingdom the proprietor’s name must be displayed on business stationery, in business emails and at business premises, and there are other requirementssole proprietorship
Definition
Simplest, oldest, and most common form of business ownership in which only one individual acquires all the benefits and risks of running an enterprise. In a sole-proprietorship there is no legal distinction between the assets and liabilities of a business and those of its owner. It is by far the most popular business structure for startups because of its ease of formation, least record keeping, minimal regulatory controls, and avoidance of double taxation.
Business dictionary.comDuhaime
Sole Proprietorship definition:A business by a single individual which is not formally organized and for which the individual and the business are indistinguishable in law.
.Also known as a proprietorship.Where an individual starts a business of any kind, and without another person, which would then constitute a partnership, the law treats the business as a sole proprietorship. This characterization results in the complete liability of the individual to the tort, contract and other liabilities of the business.
For example, litigation against a sole proprietor would usually refer to the defendant as:
“John Doe, operating as Doe Painting, a sole proprietorship”
Where a single individual carries on a business, it is necessarily conducted as either a sole proprietorship or a corporation.
A sole proprietorship is the default structure when a single individual starts a business as a partnership requires another individual and a corporation, a charter from the government.
In most jurisdictions, though, as a matter of transparency and consumer protection, a minor form of government registration is usually required, such as a city or other business license, or the registration of the business name. Tax authorities may also require registration and a tax number, as well as distinct financial disclosure in terms of income and expenses of the sole proprietorship, as opposed to such other income irrelevant expenses of the tax payer.
Sole proprietorships often operate under a name distinct from the owner (“Barb’s Fish and Chips”), and the owner is often entitled to reserve a distinct name for exclusive use.
In a sole proprietorship, there is no sharing of responsibilities; the individual does it all and can fully bind the business by his/her sole signature. Conversely, and contrary to a corporation but similar to a general partner, the personal assets of the sole proprietorship are exposed to satisfy any tort, contractual or judgment debt of the business.
Most tax authorities prevent the sole proprietor from benefiting from favorable tax treatment as an employee of the business, since the proprietor and the employee are inseparable in law. Further, sole proprietors are not attractive to investors since – absent some contractual arrangement to the contrary – the individual proprietor has exclusive ownership in the assets of the business, and accounts receivable.
Sole proprietorships are common in the fishing and farming industry.
The word “person” is used in many laws. If you don’t know what the term means, you might be fooled into thinking that you are one. People are not persons.
A legal maxim says “Man is a term of nature; person of the civil law”
The legislated word person does indeed refer to natural people, but only to those who have a status within the government. The word Person also includes corporations, municipalities, universities, labor organizations, partnerships, trustees, legal representatives, and illegitimate children. And sometimes a viable fetus.
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13 (1910):
Page 137 ”This word `person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use … A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.”
Page 162 “A moments reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.”People are not persons. As we study legal definitions of the word `person’, you will see persons are defined as non-sovereigns. A sovereign is someone who is not subject to legislated statutes. A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes.
Church of Scientology v. U.S. Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417 @425:
“the word `person’ in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1.”All men are created equal. They remain equal until they make themselves unequal by swearing oaths of allegiance to artificial man-made (graven) images. Your status with the state makes you subject to the artificial State government.
For example, the US Supreme Court case that legalized divorce in 1888, Maynard v. Hill 125 US 190, used the word status three times, and each occurrence of the word status was in italics, to refer to the type of marriage that can be divorced. At page 212, the Supreme Court confirmed that real “marriage is a relation for life” (not the divorceable type of marriage). And indeed, real marriage had always been enforced by courts because it is until death they depart. Marriage was defined in the Garden of Eden, and cannot be changed by man. It is until death. But by getting a marriage license, you agree that you don’t have a right to marry. It is only this fake marriage that is divorceable. If you were married by the state’s permission, then the courts must rule that the marriage contract was never legal and that all children are bastards. (By the way, bastards are property of the state) More details are available in the book Defense of Marriage which is available at the Family Guardian web site. In the book, you will learn that the original definition of marriage is still valid and that traditional marriage cannot be divorced.
Some courts say that sovereignty exists in the people:
Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939 @ 943:
“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.”1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey:
“… Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people”1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith:
“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.”US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402: “The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people… The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution…”
US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581:
“… The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. …The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.”US Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, page 370:
“While sovereign powers are delegated to … the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people..”
Yick Wo is a powerful anti-discrimination case. You might get the impression that the legislature can write perfectly legal laws, yet the laws cannot be enforced contrary to the intent of the people. It’s as if servants do not make rules for their masters. It’s as if the Citizens who created government were their masters. It’s as if civil servants were to obey the higher authority. You are the higher authority. Imagine that! Isn’t it a shame that your government was surrendered to those who are a terror to good works? Isn’t it a shame that you enlisted to obey them?US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman: 110 US 421:
“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.”US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):
“In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941):
“Since in common usage the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 67 SCt677 (1947):
“In common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so.”US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315:
“Since in common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530:
“In common usage the word `person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign.”In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. US (294 US 330) the Supreme
Court found that “In United States, sovereignty resides in people… the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared.”,That’s right! According to the US Supreme Court, the people are non-persons.
This all makes sense; after all, servants don’t make rules for their masters.
In his book Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, tax attorney Jeffrey Dickstein included the transcript of the tax trial US v. Carl Beery, Case A87-43CR Vol. III transcript. On page 296 of the book, you will read where the IRS claims, in court, that “an individual is somebody with a social security number.”
Author of “Common Sense”
________________________________________
Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.
Constitution for the State of Utah, Article I, Section 27
________________________________________
“The best way of determining disputes and of investigating truth is by ascending to elementary principles.”
Alexander Hamilton“Opinions are valueless as evidence without exploration of the underlying facts and rational showing the path from the facts to the opinion.”
U.S. v. R.J. Reynolds, 416 F. Supp. 316, 325.
________________________________________
“We start with first principles….”
U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549OCCAM’S RAZOR
Occam’s razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”, “If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest”, or “keep things simple.”
As you work your way through the maze of quotations, explanations, discourses and seminars, endeavor to look for the simplicity in the discussions. As far as one’s liability for federal or state laws, the simplest explanation is; “If I can do it, you (they) can do it.” Do the genealogy; Follow the delegation of Authority.
The creature cannot exceed the creator! Ezra Taft Benson
“One’s rights to life, liberty, and property … and other fundamental rights may not be admitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election. A citizen’s constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.” Lucas vs. Forty-forth General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964)BLACKS 1910
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a
coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with
horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle,
tricycle, or motor car, though not a street
railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112
Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A. 615;
Gen. St Conn. 1902, § 2038; Isaacs v. Railroad
Co., 47 N. Y. 122, 7 Am. Rep. 418.EMPLOY. To engage in one’s service;
to use as an agent or substitute in transacting
business; to commission and intrust with
the management of one’s affairs; and, when
used in respect to a servant or hired laborer,
the term is equivalent to hiring, which implies
a request and a contract for a compensation,
and has but this one meaning when
used in the ordinary affairs and business of
life. McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 605;
Murray v. Walker, 83 Iowa, 202, 48 N. W.
1075; Malloy v. Board of Education, 102 Cal.
642, 36 Pac. 948; Gurney v. Railroad Co., 58
N. Y. 371.
EMPLOYED. This signifies both the act
of doing a thing and the being under contract
or orders to do it. U. S. v. Morris, 14
Pet. 475, 10 L. Ed. 543; U. S. v. The Catharine,
2 Paine, 721, Fed. Cas. No. 14,755.
EMPLOYEE. This word “is from the
French, but has become somewhat naturalized
in our language. Strictly and etymologically,
it means ‘a person employed,’ but,
in practice in the French language, it ordinarily
is used to signify a person in some official
employment, and as generally used with
us, though perhaps not confined to any offi>
cial employment, it is understood to mean
some permanent employment or position.”
The word is more extensive than “clerk”
or “officer.” It signifies any one in place,
or having charge or using a function, as well
as one in office. See Hitter v. State, 111 Ind.
324, 12 N. E. 501; Palmer v. Van Santvoord,
153 N. ^ ‘ 6 1 2 , 47 N. E. 915, 38 L. R. A. 402;
Frick Co. v. Norfolk & O. V. R. Co., 86′ Fed.
738, 32 C. C. A. 3 1 ; People v. Board of Police,
75 N. Y. 38; Finance Co v. Charleston,
C. & C. R. Co. (C. C.) 52 Fed. 527; State v.
Sarlls, 135 Ind. 195, 34 N. B. 1129; Hopkins
v. Cromwell, 89 App. Div. 481, 85 N. Y. Supp.
839.
EMPLOYER. One who employs the services
of others; one, for whom employees work
and who pays their wages or salaries.
—Employers’ l i a b i l i t y acts. Statutes defining
or limiting the occasions and the extent
to which employers shall be liable in damages
for injuries to their employees occurring in the
course of the employment, and particularly (in
recent times) abolishing the common-law rule
that the employer is not liable if the injury is
caused by the fault or negligence of a fellow
servant.
EMPLOYMENT. This word does not
necessarily import an engagement or rendering
services for another. A person may as
well be “employed” about his own business
as in the transaction of the same for a principal.
State v. Canton, 43 Mo. 51.NON-RESIDENT. One who is not a
dweller within some jurisdiction in question;
not an inhabitant of the state of the forum.
Gardner v. Meeker, 169 111. 40, 48 N. B. 307;
Nagel v. Loomis, 33 Neb. 499, 50 N. W. 441;
Morgan v. Nunes, 54 Miss. 310. For. the
distinction between “residence” and “domicile,”RES. Lat. In the civil law. A thing;
an object. As a term of the law, this word
has a very wide and extensive signification,
including not only things which are objects
of property, but also such as are not capable
of individual ownership. See Inst. 2, 1, pr.
And in old English law it is said to have a
general import, comprehending both corporeal
and incorporeal things of whatever kind,
nature, or species. 3 Inst. 182. See Bract,
fol. 76.
By “res,” according to the modern civilians,
is meant everything that may form
an object of rights, in opposition to “persona,”
which is regarded as a subject of
rights. “Res,” therefore, in its general
meaning, comprises actions of all kinds;
while in its restricted sense it comprehends
every object of right, except actions. Mackeld.
Rom. Law, § 146. This has reference
to the fundamental division of the Institutes,
that all law relates either to persons, to
things, or to actions. Inst. 1, 2, 12.
In modern usage, the term is particularly
applied t o an object, subject-matter, or status,
considered as the defendant in an action, or
as the object against which, directly, proceedings
are taken. Thus, in a prize case,
the captured vessel is “the res.” And proceedings
of this character are said to be in
rem. (See IN PERSONAM; IN REM.) “Res”
may also denote the action or proceeding, as
when a cause, which is not between adversary
parties, is entitled “In re .”
Classification. Things (res) have been variously
divided and classified in law, e. g., in the
following ways: (1) Corporeal and incorporeal
things; (2) movables and immovables; (3) res
mancipi and res neo mancipi; (4) things real
and things personal; (5) things in possession
and choses (*. e., things) in action; (6) fungible
things and things not fungible, (fungibiles vel
non fungibiles;) and (7) res singula (i. e.. individual
objects) and universitates rerum, (i. e.,
aggregates of things.) Also persons are for some
purposes and in certain respects regarded as
things. Brown.
—Res aceessoria. In the civil law. An accessory
thing; that which belongs to a principal
thing, or is in connection with it—Res adj
u d i c a t a . A common but indefensible misspelling
of res judicata. The latter term designates
a point or question or subject-matter which was
in controversy or dispute and has been authoritatively
and finally settled by the decision of a
court. Res adjudtcata (if there be such a term)
could only mean an article or subject of property
“awarded to” a given person by the judgment
of a court, which might perhaps be the
case in replCTin and similar actions.—Res caduea.
In the civil law. A fallen or escheated
thing; an escheat. Hallifax, Civil Law, b. 2,
e. 9, no. 60.—Res communes. In the civil
law. Things common to all; that is, those
thin’gs which are used and enjoyed by every one,
even in single parts, but can never be exclusively
acquired as a whole, e. g., light and air.
Inst. 2, 1, 1 ; Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 169.—Res
c o n t r o v e r s a . In the civil law. A matter controverted;
a matter in controversy; a point in
question; a question for determination. Calvin.
—Res coronse. In old English law. Things of
the crown; such as ancient manors, homages of
the king, liberties, etc. Fleta, lib. 3, c. 6, § 3.
—Res corporales. In the civil law. Corporeal
things; things which can be touched, or are
perceptible to the senses. Dig. 1, 8, 1, 1; Inst.
2, 2 ; Bract, fols. 76, 106, 136.—Res d e r e l i c t a.
Abandoned property; property thrown away or
forsaken by the owner, so as to become open to
the acquisition of the first taker or occupant.
See Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Tex. 313, 84 Am.
Dec. 631.—Res f u n g i b i l e s . In the civil law.
Fungible things; things of such a nature that
they can be replaced by equal quantities and
qualities when returning a loan or delivering
goods purchased, for example, so many bushels
of wheat or so many dollars; but a particular
horse or a particular jewel would not be of this
character.—Res furtivae. In Scotch law.
Goods which have been stolen. Bell.—Res gestae.
Things done; transactions; essential circumstances
surrounding the subject. The circumstances,
facts, and declarations which grow
out of the main fact, are contemporaneous with
it, and serve to illustrate its character. See
Stirling v. Buckingham, 46 Conn. 464; Ft.
Smith Oil Co. v. Slover, 58 Ark. 168, 24 S. W.
106; State v. Prater, 52 W. Va. 132, 43 S. B.
230; Davids v. People, 192 111. 176, 61 N. E.
537; Hall v. State, 48 Ga. 607; Railway Co.
v. Moore, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 489, 59 S. W. 282.
—Res h a b i l e s . In the civil law, things which
are prescriptible; things to which a lawful title
may be acquired by ordinary prescription.—
Res immobiles. In the civil law. Immovable
things; including land and that’ which is
connected therewith, either by nature or art,
such as trees and buildings. Mackeld. Rom.
Law, § 160.—Res i n c o r p o r a t e s . In the civil
law. Incorporeal things; things which cannot
be touched; such as those things which consist
in right Inst. 2, 2; Bract, fols. 76, 105. Such
things as the mind alone can perceive.—Res I n t
e g r a . A whole thing; a new or unopened
thing. The term is applied to those points of
law which have not been decided, which are untouched
by dictum or decision. 3 Mer. 269.—
Res i n t e r alios a c t a . A thing done between
others, or between third parties or strangers.
See Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Schmitz, 211 111..
446, 71 N. E. 1050.—Res i p s a l o q u i t u r . The
thing speaks for itself. A phrase used in actions
for injury by negligence where no proof of
negligence is required beyond the accident itself,
which is such as necessarily to involve negligence;
e. g., a collision between two trains upon
a railway. Wharton. See Benedick v. Potts,
88 Md. 52, 40 Atl. 1067, 41 L. R. A. 478; Griffen
v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 188, 59 N. E. 925, 52
L. R. A. 922, 82 Am. St. Rep. 630; Excelsior
Electric Co. v. Sweet 57 N. J. Law, 224, 30
Atl. 553; Houston v. Brush, 66 Vt. 331, 29
Atl. 380; Scott v. London, etc., Docks Co., 3
Hurl. & C. 596.—Res j u d i c a t a . A matter adjudged;
a thing judicially acted upon or decided;
a thing or matter settled by judgment.
A phrase of the civil law, constantly quoted in
the books. 2 Kent, Comm. 120.—Res l i t i g i –
osae. In Roman law, things which are in litigation
; property or rights which constitute the
subject-matter of a pending action.—Res m a n c
i p i . In Roman law. Certain classes of things
which could not be aliened or transferred except
by means of a certain formal ceremony of
conveyance called “mancipatio,” (q. v.) These
included land, houses, slaves, horses, and cattle.
All other things were called “res nee mancipi”
Res mobiles. In the civil law. Movable
things; things which may be transported ‘from
one place to another, without injury to their
substance and form. Things corresponding with
the chattels personal of the common law. 2
Kent, Comm. 347.—Res nova. A new matter;
a new case; a question not before decided.—
Res nullius. The property of nobody. A
thing which has no owner, either because a
former owner has finally abandoned it, or because
it has never been appropriated by any
person, or because (in the Roman law) it is not
susceptible of private ownership.—Res periit
domino. A phrase used to express that, when
a thing is lost or destroyed, it is lost to the person
who was the owner of it at the time.
Broom. Max. 238.—Res privatse. In the civil
law. Things the property of one or more individuals.
Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 157.—Res
publicae. Things belonging to the public; public
property; such as the sea, navigable rivers,
highways, etc.—Res quotidianae. Every-day
matters; familiar points or questions.—Res
religiosse. Things pertaining to religion. In
Roman law, especially, burial-places, which were
regarded as sacred, and could not be the subjects
of commerce.—Res sacrae. In the civil
law. Sacred things. Things consecrated by the
pontiffs to the service of God; such as sacred
edifices, and gifts or offerings. Inst. 2, 1, 8.
Chalices, crosses, censers. Bract, fol. 8.—Res
sanctse. In the civil law. Holy things; such
as the walls and gates of a city. Inst. 2, 1, 10.
Walls were said to be holy, because any offense
against them was punished capitally. Bract,
fol. 8.—Res universitatis. In the civil law.
Things belonging to a community, (as, to a municipality,)
the use and enjoyment of which, according
to their proper purpose, is free to every
member of the community, but which cannot be
appropriated to the exclusive use of any individual;
such as the public buildings, streets, etc.RESIDENT. One who has his residence
In a place.
“Resident” and “inhabitant” are distinguishable
in meaning. The word “inhabitant” implies
a more fixed and permanent abode than does
“resident;” and a resident may not be entitled
to all the privileges or subject to all the duties
of an inhabitant. Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend.
(N. Y.) 11, 32 Am. Dec. 423.
Also a tenant who was obliged to reside
on his lord’s land, and not to depart from the
same; called, also, “homme levant et couchant,”
and in Normandy, “resseant du fief.”
—Resident freeholder. A person who resides
in the particular place (town, city, county,
etc.) and who owns an estate in lands therein
amounting at least to a freehold interest
Damp v. Dane, 29 Wis. 427; Campbell v. Moran,
71 Neb. 615, 99 N. W. 499; State v. Kokomo,
108 Ind. 74, 8 N. E. 720.—Resident
minister. In international law. A public
minister who resides at a foreign court Resident
ministers are ranked in the third class of
public ministers. Wheat Int. Law, 264, 267.
THIS. When “this” and “that” refer to
different things before expressed, “this” refers
to the thing last mentioned, and “that”
to the thing first mentioned. Russell v.
Kennedy, 66 Pa. 251.SOVEREIGN. A chief ruler with supreme
power; a king or other ruler with limited
power.
I n English law. A gold coin of Great
Britain, of the value of a pound sterling.
—Sovereign people. A term familiarly used
to describe the political body, consisting of the
entire number of citizens and qualified electors,
who, in their collegiate capacity, possess the
powers of sovereignty and exercise them through
their chosen representatives. See Scott v. Sandford,
19 How. 404, 15 L. Ed. 691.—Sovereign
power. That power in a state to which none
other is superior or equal, and which includes
all the specific powers which are necessary to
accomplish the legitimate ends and purposes of
government See Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14
Cal. 309; Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461, 17
N. W. 389, 46 Am. Rep. 637; Com. v. Alger, 7
Cush. (Mass.) 81.—Sovereign right. A right
which the state alone, or some of its governmental
agencies, can possess, and which it possesses
in the character of a sovereign, for the common
benefit, and to enable it to carry out its proper
functions; distinguished from such “proprietary”
rights as a state, like any private # person,
may have in property or demands which it owns.
See St. Paul v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn.
387, 48 N. W. 17.—Sovereign states. States
whose subjects or citizens are in the habit of
obedience to them, and which are not themselves
subject to any other (or paramount) state
in any respect. The state is said to be semisovereign
only, and not sovereign, when in any
respect or respects it is liable to be controlled
(like certain of the states in India) by a paramount
government, (e. g., by the British empire.)
Brown. “In the intercourse of nations, certain
states have a position of entire independence of
others, and can perform all those acts which it
is possible for any state to perform in this particular
sphere. These same states have also
entire power of self-government; that is, of independence
upon all other states as far as their
own territory and citizens not living abroad are
concerned. No foreign power or law can have
control except by convention. This power of
independent action in external and internal relations
constitutes complete sovereignty.”
Wools. Pol. Science, I. 204.
SOVEREIGNTY. The possession of
sovereign power; supreme political authority;
paramount control of the constitution
and frame of government and its administration;
the self-sufficient source of political
power, from which all specific political powers
are derived; the international independence
of a state, combined with the right and
power of regulating its internal affairs without
foreign dictation; also a political society,
or state, which is sovereign and independent
See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 455, 1 L.
Ed. 440; Union Bank v. Hill, 3 Cold. (Tenn.)
325; Moore v. Shaw, 17 Cal. 218, 79 Am.
Dec. 123.
“The freedom of the nation has its correlate
in the sovereignty of the nation. Political
sovereignty is the assertion of the self-determinate
will of the organic people, and in this there
is the manifestation of its freedom. It is in
and through the determination of its sovereignty
that the order of the nation is constituted
and maintained.” Mulford, Nation, p. 129.
“If a determinate human superior, not in a
habit of obedience to a like superior, receive
habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society,
that determinate superior is sovereign in
that society, and the society (including the superior)
is a society political and independent.”
Aust. Jur.Stat pro ratione voluntas. The will
stands In place of a reason. Sears v. Shafer,
1 Barb. (N. Y.) 408, 411; Farmers’ Loan &
Trust Co. v. Hunt, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 514, 525.Stat pro ratione voluntas populi. The
will of the people stands in place of a reason.
People v. Draper, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 344, 376.STATE, v. To express the particulars of
a thing in writing or in words; to set down
or set forth in detail.
To set down in gross; to mention In general
terms, or by way of reference; to refer.
Utica v. Richardson, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 300.
STATE, ». A body politic, or society of
men, united together for the purpose of promoting
their mutual safety and advantage,
by the joint efforts of their combined strength.
Cooley, Const. Lim. 1.
One of the component commonwealths or
states of the United States of America.
The people of a state, in their collective
capacity, considered as the party wronged by
a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of
a cause, “The State vs. A. B.”
The section of territory occupied by one of
the United States.
—Foreign state. A foreign country or nation.
The several United States are considered “foreign”
to each other except as regards their relations
as common members of the Union.—
State’s evidence. See EVIDENCE.—State
officers. Those whose duties concern the state
at large or the general public, or who are authorized
to exercise their official functions
throughout the entire state, without limitation
to any political subdivision of the stare. Jo.
another sense, officers belonging to or exercising
authority under one of the states of the Union,
as distinguished from the officers of the United
States. See In re Police Com’rs, 22 R, I. 654,
49 Atl. 36; State v. Burns, 38 Fla. 378, 21
South. 290; People v. Nixon, 158 N. Y. 221, 52
N. E. 1117.—State paper. A document prepared
by, or relating to, the political department
of the government of a state or nation, and concerning
or affecting the administration of its
government or its political or international relations.
Also, a newspaper, designated by public
authority, as the organ for the publication
of public statutes, resolutions, notices, and advertisements.—
State tax. A tax the proceeds
of which are to be devoted to the expenses of
.the state, as distinguished from taxation for local
or municipal purposes. See Youngblood v.
Sexton, 32 Mich. 413, 20 Am. Rep. 654; State
v. Auditor of State, 15 Ohio St. 482.—State
t r i a l . A trial for a political offense.—State
Trials. A work in thirty-three volumes octavo,
containing all English trials for offenses against
the state and others partaking in some degree of
that character, from the ninth year of Hen. II.
to the first of Geo. IV. -
Completely agree that there are commercial business “ENTITIES” that are owned/controlled by Man / Woman that are in the Capitalized Name of the Man/Woman. Washington State has defined “PERSON” within the LAW.
IN the Session Law of 1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 CHAPTER XXII. [S.B. NO. 78]
Construction of Statutes, Specifically states that any use of the word “PERSON” shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.
This Session Law specifically limits the application of any part of the “CODE” to only the named and stated “ENTITIES” listed and to NO other, this also confirms that the entire “CODE” is “PRIVATE LAW” and NOT applicable to the General public or man or woman as the lawyers, judges, police would like to have us believe. In order to be subject to the provisions of the “CODE” one first must be one of the specifically named “PERSONS”.
1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 CHAPTER XXII. [S.B. NO. 78] Construction of Statutes.
An Act concerning the construction of statutes.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Section 1. The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction. The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof. The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual. Words importing the singular number may also be applied to the plural of persons and things; words importing the plural may be applied to the singular, and words importing the masculine gender may be extended to females also. The word “month” or “months” whenever the same occurs in the statutes of this state now in force, or in statutes hereinafter enacted, or in any contract made in this state, shall be taken and construed to mean “calendar months”.
Approved February 24, 1891
RCW 1.16.080 also refers to Washington Session “LAWS” and the previous “LAWS” as enacted by the Washington Territory Legislature which are to be construed as continuations of previous “LAWS”, “STATUTES”;
“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.
1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS CHAPTER 231
[Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 61681
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES ACT-REVISIONS
AN ACT Relating to limited liability companies; amending RCW 1.16.080, 19.80.005,
19.80.010, 25.04.720, 25.15.010, 25.15.020, 25.15.045, 25.15.150, 25.15.270, and 25.15.325;
adding new sections to chapter 25.15 RCW; and creating a new section.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Sec. 1. RCW 1.16.080 and 1891 c 23 s 1, part are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The term “person” may be construed to include the United States, this
state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited
liability company, as well as an individual.
(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms “association.”
“unincorporated association,” and “person”, firm, or corporation” or substantially
identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other
type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.
“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.
1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS are a continuation of the Session Laws of 1891 Chapter 23 Section 1, which only amended the 1996 C231 SEC 1 SESSION LAWS to include a Limited Liability Company to be included within the existing definition, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”.
1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 . [S.B. NO. 78] Construction of Statutes.
An Act concerning the construction of statutes.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Section 1. The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction. The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof. The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.
1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 are a continuation of the Session Laws of Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”.
Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964
“Whenever the term “person” or other word is used to designate the party whose property is the subject of an offense, or against whom any act is done, with the intent to defraud or injure, the term may be construed to include the United States, this territory, or any State or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual;”
“The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof.” 1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.
Washington Territory Code 1881 § 964 are a continuation of the Session Laws of Washington Territory Code 1857 p 46 §1, and 1854 p 99 § 134, and did not change or alter the previous definition of “Person”, which was established by Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134
Washington Territory Code 1857 p 46 §1, and 1854 p 99 § 134
“Whenever the term “person” is used to denote a party to a suit or the party whose property is the subject of the action, or of an offense, or against who anything is done, with the intent to injure or defraud, the term may be construed to include the United States, this territory, or any State or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual;”
The foundation for the complete definition of “PERSON” is established by Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134, and each subsequentdefinition does not change or alter the foundational definition but each additional definition refers to the foundational definition found at Session Laws of Washington Territory Code at, 1854 p 99 § 134
Bouviers 1856
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly−synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R.178.
By applying the rules of statutory construction;
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind.
Bouvier's law Dictionary, 1856
It can be clearly determined that the intent of the Legislature is directed upon artificial creations or entities and NOT a man or woman, It can also be assumed that if the Legislature did wish to include a man or woman they would have deliberately included them in the Law in an unambiguous manner.
First; a Man or Woman is not an artificial entity, not a thing.
Second ; a business or profession is an artificial entity, a thing.
These are 2 completely separate and different descriptions of 1; a thing and 2; NOT a thing.
Can a Man or Woman be a “THING” or an artificial entity and also “NOT” an artificial entity, and “NOT” a thing at the same time or are these two descriptions completely different and apposing to each other.
Apparently by applying logic and the written record that the government calls “LAW” the licensing agency takes a “NAME” of a Man or Woman and uses that “NAME” as the Business “NAME”, of course they change the CAPITALIZATION so as to make it appear that they (the Government license agency), have “CREATED” the newly formed “ENTITY”.
The Government requires that one be an artificial entity, a thing, before it (the Government), is able to interface with it. That way the Government has complete control over the “ENTITY”, the “ENTITY” has no “RIGHTS”. Example; when you are stopped by a cop the first thing that they want to see is your “ DRIVER LICENSE” as soon as you give it to them you have given them proof that you are “ OPERATING” as a business “ENTITY” and not as a Man or Woman, as such you have no “RIGHTS” as such, only statutory rights that the “STATE” allows you to have while you are an artificial “ENTITY”.
-
In “NOTICE” I think you are making it harder than it needs to be.
Based on the Revised Code of Washington I have come to the following conclusions, I think this may shed some light on this subject of the National ID and Driver License issue.
The Washington Dept. of License is only granted authority to issue Licenses, (see definition of “License” below). A license grants authority to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions.
Quote:A “License” is a “Certificate” that ; include license, certificate of registration, certificate of qualification, certificate of competency, certificate of authority, and any other instrument, by whatever name designated, authorizing the practice of a profession or calling, the carrying on of a business or occupation1. A DRIVER LICENSE IS A BUSINESS LICENSE
2. A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IS A BUSINESS LICENSE (license tabs, license plates)
3. A “CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE” IS A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE,( a “certified birth certificate” is requested or required to obtain a “Driver License”, in effect a business license requesting a business license)
4. The term TRADE OR BUSINESS, at (26 USC 7701 (a) (26), relates to,
Quote:RCW 43.24.020Powers and duties — Licensing, the director of licensing shall administer all laws with respect to the examination of applicants for, and the issuance of, licenses to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions. (does all laws refer to all State and Federal Laws ???? probably so )
5. My copy of birth record given to my parents at the hospital that I was born at clearly shows my true name written in proper grammar, signed by the M.D. and head Nurse, as well as by my parents, (the form of an affidavit), the “certified birth certificate” issued by the “State dept. of Health” indicates my “Name” in ALL CAPITAL letters, that is not proper grammar for a real life man or woman. This fact seems to indicate some type of change occurred after the STATE got a hold of the birth record, hence the STATE turned it, the birth record, into a CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE, apparently a license to engage in a TRADE OR BUSINESS ???????
6. So if the Driver License is a business license the name on the license is the business name ( all capitals) and not the name of the man or woman as is usually given in proper grammar at the time they came into the world.
7. RCW Chapter 46.21 Driver license compact assures all “States” and Federal Government are addressing the same subjects as related to “Driver Licenses”
8. It seems that the National I.D. is only applying to Businesses since the National I.D. is based on the “Driver License”.
9. Interesting also, my daughter seemed to think she needed a STATE I.D. for her 1 year old son, the I.D. has prominently emblazoned on the face the following , LICENSE # xxxxxxxxx. Signifying that the I.D. card is merely a “BUSINESS LICENSE”. By the way Name spelled in all Capitals
Quote:“We have said, and we reiterate, that a license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the grantee, nor is it a property right. See syllabus by the court, No. 4, Prettyman Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442.” Mayo et al. v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc. (1949) 40 So.2d 555.Rules of Construction
RCW 46.98.020 Provisions to be construed in pari materia.
The provisions of this title shall be construed in pari materia even though as a matter of prior legislative history they were not originally enacted in the same statute. The provisions of this title shall also be construed in pari materia with the provisions of Title 47 RCW, and with other laws relating to highways, roads, streets, bridges, ferries and vehicles. This section shall not operate retroactively.
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSE
43.24.020
Powers and duties — Licensing.
In addition to other powers and duties granted to the department, the director of licensing shall administer all laws with respect to the examination of applicants for, and the issuance of, licenses to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions.
43.24.030
“License” defined.
The word “license” shall be construed to mean and include license, certificate of registration, certificate of qualification, certificate of competency, certificate of authority, and any other instrument, by whatever name designated, authorizing the practice of a profession or calling, the carrying on of a business or occupation, or the doing of any act required by law to be authorized by the state.
43.24.086
Fee policy for professions, occupations, and businesses — Determination by rule.
It shall be the policy of the state of Washington that the cost of each professional, occupational[,] or business licensing program be fully borne by the members of that profession, occupation[,] or business. The director of licensing shall from time to time establish the amount of all application fees, license fees, registration fees, examination fees, permit fees, renewal fees, and any other fee associated with licensing or regulation of professions, occupations[,] or businesses, except for health professions, administered by the department of licensing. In fixing said fees, the director shall set the fees for each such program at a sufficient level to defray the costs of administering that program. All such fees shall be fixed by rule adopted by the director in accordance with the provisions of the administrative procedure act, chapter 34.05 RCW.
The use of the word “shall” in a statute generally imposes a mandatory duty. Spokane Cy. ex rel. Sullivan v. Glover, 2 Wn.2d at 162, 169, 97 P.2d 628 (1940).
Chapter 19.02 RCW
Business license center act
19.02.020
Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) “System” means the mechanism by which master licenses are issued and renewed, license and regulatory information is disseminated, and account data is exchanged by the agencies;
(2) “Business license center” means the business registration and licensing center established by this chapter and located in and under the administrative control of the department of licensing;
(5) “License” means the whole or part of any agency permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, charter, or any form or permission required by law, including agency rule, to engage in any activity;
(6) “Regulatory” means all licensing and other governmental or statutory requirements pertaining to business or professional activities; (7) “Person” means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, nonprofit organization, state or local government agency, and any other organization required to register with the state to do business in the state and to obtain one or more licenses from the state or any of its agencies;
(10) “Regulatory agency” means any state agency, board, commission, or division which regulates one or more professions, occupations, industries, businesses, or activities; (11) “Renewal application” means a document used to collect pertinent data for renewal of licenses covered under this chapter; and
46.01.011
Purpose.
*** CHANGE IN 2010 *** (SEE 6379.SL) ***
The legislature finds that the department of licensing administers laws relating to the licensing and regulation of professions, businesses, gambling, and other activities in addition to administering laws relating to the licensing and regulation of vehicles and vehicle operators, dealers, and manufacturers. The laws administered by the department have the common denominator of licensing and regulation and are directed toward protecting and enhancing the well-being of the residents of the state.
82.04.140
“Business.”
“Business” includes all activities engaged in with the object of gain, benefit, or advantage to the taxpayer or to another person or class, directly or indirectly.[
82.04.150
“Engaging in business.”
“Engaging in business” means commencing, conducting, or continuing in business and also the exercise of corporate or franchise powers as well as liquidating a business when the liquidators thereof hold themselves out to the public as conducting such business.
WAC 480-30-010 Definitions.:
(6) The term “motor vehicle” shall include all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular, used upon the public highways for the transportation of persons for compensation.
WAC 480-14-050 Reference to other chapters.
(21) “Motor vehicle” means any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer, propelled or drawn by mechanical power, or any combination of such vehicles, used upon the highways in the transportation of property, including household goods.
46.01.030
Administration and improvement of certain motor vehicle laws.
*** CHANGE IN 2010 *** (SEE 6379.SL) ***
The department shall be responsible for administering and recommending the improvement of the motor vehicle laws of this state relating to:
(1) driver examining and licensing;
(2) driver improvement;
(3) driver records;
(4) financial responsibility;
(5) certificates of ownership;
(6) certificates of license registration and license plates;
(7) proration and reciprocity;
(8) liquid fuel tax collections;
(9) licensing of dealers, motor vehicle transporters, motor vehicle wreckers, for hire vehicles, and drivers' schools;
(10) general highway safety promotion in cooperation with the Washington state patrol and traffic safety commission;
(11) such other activities as the legislature may provide.
46.01.040
Powers, duties, and functions relating to motor vehicle laws vested in department.
*** CHANGE IN 2010 *** (SEE 6379.SL) ***
The department of licensing is vested with all powers, functions, and duties with respect to and including the following:
(1) The motor vehicle fuel excise tax as provided in chapter 82.36 RCW;
(2) The special fuel tax as provided in chapter 82.38 RCW;
(3) The motor vehicle excise tax as provided in chapter 82.44 RCW;
(4) The *house trailer excise tax as provided in chapter 82.50 RCW;
(5) All general powers and duties relating to motor vehicles as provided in chapter 46.08 RCW;
(6) Certificates of ownership and registration as provided in chapters 46.12 and 46.16 RCW;
(7) The registration and licensing of motor vehicles as provided in chapters 46.12 and 46.16 RCW;
(8) Dealers' licenses as provided in chapter 46.70 RCW;
(9) The licensing of motor vehicle transporters as provided in chapter 46.76 RCW;
(10) The licensing of **motor vehicle wreckers as provided in chapter 46.80 RCW;
(11) The administration of the laws relating to reciprocal or proportional registration of motor vehicles as provided in chapter 46.85 RCW;
(12) The licensing of passenger vehicles for hire as provided in chapter 46.72 RCW;
(13) Operators' licenses as provided in chapter 46.20 RCW;
(14) Commercial driver training schools as provided in chapter 46.82 RCW;
(15) Financial responsibility as provided in chapter 46.29 RCW;
(16) Accident reporting as provided in chapter 46.52 RCW;
(17) Disposition of revenues as provided in chapter 46.68 RCW; and
(18) The administration of all other laws relating to motor vehicles vested in the director of licenses on June 30, 1965.
Memorandum; Driver, Driver License
Statement of Fact;
1. Definition of Driver; means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.
2. The State of Washington or for that matter no State or the District of Columbia issues a License to Drive, only a Driver License is issued in all jurisdictions.
3. A license is merely a privilege to do business.
Definitions provided here for convenience;
1a. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals. ;Blacks 1st Ed. Pg. 395
1b. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. ;Blacks 2nd Ed.pg. 398
1c. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. ;Blacks 3rd Ed. Pg.622
1d. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle. ;Blacks 4th Ed. Pg.585
1e. DRIVER – One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle …”
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed.. Pg. 940
1f. DRIVER; One who or that which drives; esp. one who drives an animal or animals, a vehicle, etc., as a coachman, a drover, a chauffeur, or a locomotive-engineer; … ; The New Century Dictionary, pg.460 copyright 1952 (Please Note; all of the above , coachman, drover, chauffeur, or a locomotive-engineer are defined as “for hire”.)
1g. DRIVER- noun, coachman, whip, charioteer, teamster, chauffeur, director, manager, master, taskmaster. Webster’s dictionary and Roget’s thesaurus 2005 ed., pg. 55 (Please Note; all of the above , coachman, whip, charioteer, teamster, chauffeur, director, manager, master, taskmaster are defined as “for hire”.)
1h. DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; ……1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; …..Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition pg.112
The above definitions are consistent with the following court case as decided by the State Court, which appears to have set the definition of the certain words in question as are defined above and below;
Quote:“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ …”Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle. “Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. …It is intended to apply to “for hire” vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)Also Driver is defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
Quote:Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationPart 390: General
§390.5 Definitions.
Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle
.As can easily be seen all definitions refer to “for hire” or “employed” obviously this is a Commercial License (Business License ) to “Operate” upon the public roads and highways, and not a right travel.“In construing a statute, it is safer always not to add to, or subtract from, the language of the statute unless imperatively required to make it . . .rationale . . .” State v. Taylor, 97 Wn.2d 724, 728, 649 P.2d 633 (1982); McKay v. Department of Labor & Indus., 180 Wash. 191, 194, 39 P.2d 997, 98 A.L.R. 990 (1934).”
“. . . It is the rule that in construing statutes the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing under the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. State ex rel. Port of Seattle v. Dept. P.S., 1 Wn.2d 102, 95 P.2d 1007 (1939); State v. Thompson, 38 Wn.2d 774, 232 P.2d 87 (1951); Bradley v. Dept. Labor & Ind., 52 Wn.2d 780, 329 P.2d 196 (1958).” (Wash.) AGO 65-66 No. 69. . . .This conclusion is further supported by the well established rule of constitutional construction, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other. State ex rel. Banker v. Clausen, 142 Wash. 450, 253 Pac. 805 (1927).” See Yelle v. Bishop, 55 Wn.2d 286, 295, 306 (1959). See also Cook v. State, 83 Wash.2d 725, 735, 521 P.2d 725 (1974)(“Whether the legislature acted wisely by creating the challenged restriction is not a proper subject for judicial determination. (cite omitted) The fact that the legislature made no exception for minors does not give rise to some latent judicial power to do so by means of a volunteered additional proviso. This is true even if it could be said the legislative omission was inadvertent. (cite omitted) If there is a need for such an exception, it must be initiated by the legislature, not by the courts. (cite omitted)”).
“A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. When certain persons or thing are specified are specified in law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” Black’s, 6th Edition, definition of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
“Definitions are integral to statutory scheme and of highest value in determining legislative intent. . . . To ignore definition section is to refuse to give legal effect to part of statutory law of state.” State v. Taylor, 30 Wash.App. 89, 632 P.2d 892 (1981).
“When legislative body provides definition for statutory terms, it is that definition to which a person must conform his conduct.” City of Seattle v. Koh, 26 Wash.App. 708, 614 P.2d 665 (1980).
12 See Yelle v. Bishop, 55 Wn.2d 286, 295, 306 (1959). See also Cook v. State, 83 Wash.2d 725, 735, 521 P.2d 725 (1974)(“Whether the legislature acted wisely by creating the challenged restriction is not a proper subject for judicial determination. (cite omitted) The fact that the legislature made no exception for minors does not give rise to some latent judicial power to do so by means of a volunteered additional proviso. This is true even if it could be said the legislative omission was inadvertent. (cite omitted) If there is a need for such an exception, it must be initiated by the legislature, not by the courts. (cite omitted)”).
The Washington Administrative Code states that the “State” has adopted the definition of “DRIVER” as defined in 49 CFR Part 390 for all Washington intrastate operations.
Quote:WAC 480-30-221Vehicle and driver safety requirements.
(1) Companies must comply with all state and local laws and rules governing licensing, vehicle safety, and driver safety. Companies must also comply with the parts of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), adopted by reference, that are shown in the following chart. Information about 49 CFR, including the version adopted by the commission and where to obtain copies is set out in WAC 480-30-999.
Also Driver is defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
Quote:Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationPart 390: General
§390.5 Definitions.
Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.49 CFR Part: Notes:
Part 40 – Procedures For Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs Entire Part 40 is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 382 – Controlled Substance and Alcohol Use and Testing Entire Part 382, including definition of commercial motor vehicle, is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 383 – Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements and Penalties Entire Part 383, including definition of commercial motor vehicle, is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 390 – Safety Regulations, General Entire Part 390 is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations, with the following exceptions:
(1) The terms “motor vehicle,” “commercial motor vehicle,” and “private vehicle” are not adopted. Instead, where those terms are used in Title 49 CFR, they have the meanings assigned to them in WAC 480-30-036 (Motor vehicle and private vehicle) and WAC 480-30-211 (Commercial motor vehicle).
(2) Whenever the term “director” is used in Title 49 CFR, it means the commission.
As can easily be seen all definitions of “DRIVER” refer to “for hire” or “employed” obviously this is a Commercial License (Business License ) to “Operate” upon the public roads and highways, and not a right to travel.
-
In Washington the Term “PERSON” was defined and established at the begining of state hood and continuing everafter, the “CODE” does not change this definition, even though extreme efforts to convince all that it is, or has been enlarged to encompass “MEN, and “WOMEN”, or any one whatsoever.
This particular Session Law was continued from the Territory Code, traced back to at least 1854, nearly the same wording as the previous Code, which was under Federal control, i.e., a Federal definition.
Quote:1891 Chapter 23 Section 1 CHAPTER XXII. [S.B. NO. 78] Construction of Statutes.An Act concerning the construction of statutes.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
Section 1. The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be the rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:
The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction. The provisions of a statute, so far as they are substantially the same as those of a statute existing at the time of their enactment, must be construed as continuations thereof. The term “Person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual. Words importing the singular number may also be applied to the plural of persons and things; words importing the plural may be applied to the singular, and words importing the masculine gender may be extended to females also. The word “month” or “months” whenever the same occurs in the statutes of this state now in force, or in statutes hereinafter enacted, or in any contract made in this state, shall be taken and construed to mean “calendar months”.
Approved February 24, 1891
“PERSON” is an artificial entity, (such as in “DRIVER” is business “LICENSE”), you are still a “MAN” or “WOMAN” you just are in possession of a “BUSINESS LICENSE” which is in the form of your name, (i.e. all capitals), this also includes your;
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IS A BUSINESS LICENSE (license tabs, license plates)
A “CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE” IS A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE,( a “certified birth certificate” is requested or required to obtain a “Driver License”, in effect a business license requesting a business license)
The term TRADE OR BUSINESS, at (26 USC 7701 (a) (26), relates to, RCW 43.24.020
Powers and duties — Licensing, the director of licensing shall administer all laws with respect to the examination of applicants for, and the issuance of, licenses to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions. (does all laws refer to all State and Federal Laws ???? probably so )
the “certified birth certificate” issued by the “State dept. of Health” indicates my “Name” in ALL CAPITAL letters, that is not proper grammar for a real life man or woman. This fact seems to indicate some type of change occurred after the STATE got a hold of the birth record, hence the STATE turned it, the birth record, into a CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE, apparently a license to engage in a TRADE OR BUSINESS
Confirm this with the U.S. Constitution or your State Constitution, in both the “PEOPLE” only give authority to regulate “PERSONS”, while engaged in COMMERCE”, once you obtain and use your “BUSINESS LICENSE” you are completely under the “BUSINESS” regulations and as such you have no “RIGHTS”. more later
-
As can easily be seen all definitions of “DRIVER” refer to “for hire” or “employed” obviously this is a Commercial License (Business License ) to “Operate” upon the public roads and highways, and not a right to travel.
-
In re to blue;
I fully sympathize with your plight and commend you on your quest for freedom, although it appears that you wish complete autonomous freedom, which may not be completely attainable in today’s police state mentality.
The side of the road police stop is not the place to make your case for private travel, the police have no idea of what you are talking about, they are trained only to follow orders of their superiors, (ask for their oath of office and delegation of authority to see this fact), the vast majority if not all Police do not or have they ever read any law, they are only provided with a book of revised codes or statutes and told to enforce them.
Although I have been in a similar situation as you describe, (in Washington, the state), I provide my name only, which will either get me a ticket and release to appear in “Court”, or will get me arrested and set to jail, as was the case with my last encounter, (all charges dismissed, no fine no nothing, a lawsuit is being prepared against the officers and City as that appears to be the only way to curb their illegal activities), Either way I will have time after release to ask for discovery items to defend my position.
The first thing that I have found to be very important is to declare your status through an affidavit, ( I have found the program sold by T.S. found on the web to be more than adequate for my purposes), As you realized and stated in your report the “NAME” appears to be very significant to a “CASE”.
If you do not declare your correct status you will be deemed an artificial entity,( i.e., a BUISNESS or PROFESSION (as in “DRIVER)), which then apparently subjects you to the commercial “COURT”.
You will find the “COURT” rules provide you the opportunity to furnish your true and correct name, (either your commercial name (business license, (DRIVER) all caps), or your name as provided to you by your Mother and Father, (written in proper grammar).
I have not fully research the California Codes but a quick perusal indicates similar results to those here in Washington. I have enclosed a small portion of research below ;
In order for you to be free you must be able to support your contentions with facts not just reasons or opinions why you think you can do an action, that is why this web site is so wonderful it provides the truth in the form of verifiable facts.
Best of luck to you.
Memorandum; Driver, Driver License Statement of Fact;
1. Definition of Driver; means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.
2. The State of Washington or for that matter no State or the District of Columbia issues a License to Drive, only a Driver License is issued in all jurisdictions.
3. A license is merely a privilege to do business.
Definitions provided here for convenience;
1a. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals. ;Blacks 1st Ed. Pg. 395
1b. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. ;Blacks 2nd Ed.pg. 398
1c. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. ;Blacks 3rd Ed. Pg.622
1d. DRIVER; One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle. ;Blacks 4th Ed. Pg.585
1e. DRIVER – One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle …”
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed.. Pg. 940
1f. DRIVER; One who or that which drives; esp. one who drives an animal or animals, a vehicle, etc., as a coachman, a drover, a chauffeur, or a locomotive-engineer; … ; The New Century Dictionary, pg.460 copyright 1952 (Please Note; all of the above , coachman, drover, chauffeur, or a locomotive-engineer are defined as “for hire”.)
1g. DRIVER- noun, coachman, whip, charioteer, teamster, chauffeur, director, manager, master, taskmaster. Webster’s dictionary and Roget’s thesaurus 2005 ed., pg. 55 (Please Note; all of the above , coachman, whip, charioteer, teamster, chauffeur, director, manager, master, taskmaster are defined as “for hire”.)
1h. DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; ……1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; …..Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition pg.112
The above definitions are consistent with the following court case as decided by the State Court, which appears to have set the definition of the certain words in question as are defined above and below;
“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ …”Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle. “Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. …It is intended to apply to “for hire” vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)
Also Driver is defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Part 390: General §390.5 Definitions.
Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.
As can easily be seen all definitions refer to “for hire” or “employed” obviously this is a Commercial License (Business License ) to “Operate” upon the public roads and highways, and not a right to travel.
“In construing a statute, it is safer always not to add to, or subtract from, the language of the statute unless imperatively required to make it . . .rationale . . .” State v. Taylor, 97 Wn.2d 724, 728, 649 P.2d 633 (1982); McKay v. Department of Labor & Indus., 180 Wash. 191, 194, 39 P.2d 997, 98 A.L.R. 990 (1934).”
“. . . It is the rule that in construing statutes the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing under the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. State ex rel. Port of Seattle v. Dept. P.S., 1 Wn.2d 102, 95 P.2d 1007 (1939); State v. Thompson, 38 Wn.2d 774, 232 P.2d 87 (1951); Bradley v. Dept. Labor & Ind., 52 Wn.2d 780, 329 P.2d 196 (1958).” (Wash.) AGO 65-66 No. 69. . . .This conclusion is further supported by the well established rule of constitutional construction, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other. State ex rel. Banker v. Clausen, 142 Wash. 450, 253 Pac. 805 (1927).” See Yelle v. Bishop, 55 Wn.2d 286, 295, 306 (1959). See also Cook v. State, 83 Wash.2d 725, 735, 521 P.2d 725 (1974)(“Whether the legislature acted wisely by creating the challenged restriction is not a proper subject for judicial determination. (cite omitted) The fact that the legislature made no exception for minors does not give rise to some latent judicial power to do so by means of a volunteered additional proviso. This is true even if it could be said the legislative omission was inadvertent. (cite omitted) If there is a need for such an exception, it must be initiated by the legislature, not by the courts. (cite omitted)”).
“A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. When certain persons or thing are specified are specified in law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” Black’s, 6th Edition, definition of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
“Definitions are integral to statutory scheme and of highest value in determining legislative intent. . . . To ignore definition section is to refuse to give legal effect to part of statutory law of state.” State v. Taylor, 30 Wash.App. 89, 632 P.2d 892 (1981).
“When legislative body provides definition for statutory terms, it is that definition to which a person must conform his conduct.” City of Seattle v. Koh, 26 Wash.App. 708, 614 P.2d 665 (1980).
12 See Yelle v. Bishop, 55 Wn.2d 286, 295, 306 (1959). See also Cook v. State, 83 Wash.2d 725, 735, 521 P.2d 725 (1974)(“Whether the legislature acted wisely by creating the challenged restriction is not a proper subject for judicial determination. (cite omitted) The fact that the legislature made no exception for minors does not give rise to some latent judicial power to do so by means of a volunteered additional proviso. This is true even if it could be said the legislative omission was inadvertent. (cite omitted) If there is a need for such an exception, it must be initiated by the legislature, not by the courts. (cite omitted)”).
WAC 480-30-221
Vehicle and driver safety requirements.
(1) Companies must comply with all state and local laws and rules governing licensing, vehicle safety, and driver safety. Companies must also comply with the parts of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), adopted by reference, that are shown in the following chart. Information about 49 CFR, including the version adopted by the commission and where to obtain copies is set out in WAC 480-30-999.
Also Driver is defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Part 390: General §390.5 Definitions.
Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.
49 CFR Part: Notes:
Part 40 – Procedures For Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs Entire Part 40 is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 382 – Controlled Substance and Alcohol Use and Testing Entire Part 382, including definition of commercial motor vehicle, is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 383 – Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements and Penalties Entire Part 383, including definition of commercial motor vehicle, is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations.
Part 390 – Safety Regulations, General Entire Part 390 is adopted and applies to Washington intrastate operations, with the following exceptions:
(1) The terms “motor vehicle,” “commercial motor vehicle,” and “private vehicle” are not adopted. Instead, where those terms are used in Title 49 CFR, they have the meanings assigned to them in WAC 480-30-036 (Motor vehicle and private vehicle) and WAC 480-30-211 (Commercial motor vehicle).
(2) Whenever the term “director” is used in Title 49 CFR, it means the commission.
As can easily be seen all definitions refer to “for hire” or “employed” obviously this is a Commercial License (Business License ) to “Operate” upon the public roads and highways, and not a right to travel.
“We have said, and we reiterate, that a license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the grantee, nor is it a property right. See syllabus by the court, No. 4, Prettyman Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442.” Mayo et al. v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc. (1949) 40 So.2d 555.
RCW 43.24.020 Powers and duties — Licensing.
In addition to other powers and duties granted to the department, the director of licensing shall administer all laws with respect to the examination of applicants for, and the issuance of, licenses to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions.
[1999 c 240 § 1; 1994 c 92 § 496; 1989 1st ex.s. c 9 § 314; 1979 c 158 § 95; 1965 c 100 § 2; 1965 c 8 § 43.24.020. Prior: (i) 1921 c 7 § 96; RRS § 10854. (ii) 1921 c 7 § 104; RRS § 10862. (iii) 1929 c 133 § 1; RRS § 5852-24.]
Notes:
Effective date — Severability — 1989 1st ex.s. c 9: See RCW 43.70.910 and 43.70.920.
Powers, duties and functions of director and department of licensing: Chapter 46.01 RCW.
RCW 43.24.030
“License” defined.
The word “license” shall be construed to mean and include license, certificate of registration, certificate of qualification, certificate of competency, certificate of authority, and any other instrument, by whatever name designated, authorizing the practice of a profession or calling, the carrying on of a business or occupation, or the doing of any act required by law to be authorized by the state.
[1965 c 8 § 43.24.030. Prior: 1921 c 7 § 98; RRS § 10856.]
STATEMENT OF FACT;
A DRIVER LICENSE IS A LICENSE TO OPERATE A BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION
The state DOL is only authorized to issue Business’s or Professional’s the authority granting them the privilege to engage in a business endeavor.
WAC 480-30-036
Definitions, general.
(1) See WAC 480-30-261 for definition of terms used primarily in tariffs and time schedules and WAC 480-30-216 for definitions used in driver and vehicle safety rules.
(2) Unless the language or context indicates that a different meaning is intended, the following definitions apply:
“Motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means:
(a) As related to auto transportation companies: Every self-propelled vehicle used on the public highways, for the transportation of persons for compensation.
(b ) As related to charter and excursion carriers: Every self-propelled vehicle with a manufacturer's seating capacity for eight or more passengers, including the driver, used on the public highways, for the transportation of persons for compensation.
“Private carrier” means a person who transports passengers in the person's own vehicle purely as an incidental adjunct to some other established private business owned or operated by that person in good faith.
“Private motor vehicle” means a vehicle owned or operated by a private carrier.
WAC 480-30-211
Commercial vehicle defined.
Unless otherwise stated, for the purposes of the rules in Part 5 — Equipment and Drivers, “commercial motor vehicle” means any motor vehicle used by an auto transportation company or charter and excursion carrier to provide passenger transportation services over the public highways of Washington state.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 80.01.040, 81.04.160, 81.12.050, 81.68.030, and 81.70.270. 06-13-006 (General Order No. R-533, Docket No. TC-020497), § 480-30-211, filed 6/8/06, effective 7/9/06.]
“'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;” (emph. added) -U.S.C. Title 18 sec. 31