Client Notice

Posted: 3rd July 2017 by admin in Facebook

To all Clients: If you are missing any products in our ‘Shared Dropbox‘, or believe they may not be ‘updated, email me

and we will refresh the account to assure you have the latest versions of your ordered products. To follow only “my” law

postings send me an invite to (CLICK>) “Paul Severe” by Facebook.

[Below, year of  1922, is excellent case opinion, though not directly for a man’s right to travel, yet it does elude to the same conclusively.]

MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Petitioner,
v.
CHARLES J. CHENU,
etc., Respondent
S. F. No. 10,210
Supreme Court of California
188 Cal. 734; 207 P. 251; 1922 Cal.
Supreme Court of California.
In Bank.
188 Cal. 734 (Cal. 1922)

SHAW, C. J.
The plaintiff applies to this court for a writ of mandate directing the defendant, as chief of the division of motor vehicles of the department of finance of the state of California, to issue to the plaintiff certain license plates, with the accompanying certificates, such license plates to be attached to certain automobiles owned by the plaintiff, as required by the Motor Vehicle Act. The plaintiff is a municipal water district, organized under the act of May 11, 1911, and amendments thereto. (Stats. 1911, p. 1290; Stats. Ex. Sess. 1911, p. 92.) By the act of April 6, 1915, the organization of said district was declared valid and it was declared to be duly created as a public corporation. (Stats. 1915, p. 84.) The plaintiff has constructed and completed a large water collecting, storing, and distributing system, and is operating the same in accordance with said act, by collecting, selling, and distributing water to the inhabitants of the district and others. In carrying out its public duties and obligations under the act, as required, it is necessary for it to use thirteen motor vehicles, all of which are used exclusively by it in the discharge of its public duties. It applied to the defendant for the necessary licenses, certificates, and license plates, as required by the Motor Vehicle Act from persons operating and owning motor vehicles. The defendant refused to issue the licenses, certificates, or plates except upon the payment of the license fees prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Act, amounting to $133.60, whereupon the plaintiff began this proceeding in mandamus.
Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1915, p. 400) provides that “every owner of a motor vehicle which shall be operated or driven upon the public highways shall” cause the same to be registered with the motor vehicle department and shall deposit with his application for a certificate “the proper registration fee as provided in section 7 of this act.” Section 7 of the act (Stats. 1919, p. 198) specifies the fees to be paid to the motor vehicle department upon the registration of such motor vehicle. It is conceded that the amount demanded by the defendant was the proper amount for the vehicles belonging to the plaintiff, if the plaintiff is liable therefor. The section also provides that a number plate shall be given to the person registering the vehicle upon the payment of such fees. Section 8 (Stats. 1919, p. 199) provides that a certificate of registration shall also be issued by the motor vehicle department showing the name of the registered owner and other particulars.
The act further provides that all moneys received by the department from such license fees shall be paid into the state treasury to the credit of a fund designated as the motor vehicle fund; that one-half of said fund shall be paid to the counties from which the moneys were received, as determined by the residence of the persons paying the same, for the benefit of the road funds of such counties; that the other one-half, after deducting certain moneys for the expenses of the department, shall be expended by the state department of engineering for the maintenance of roads, highways and parks in this state. It will be seen, therefore, that the moneys are to be used for public purposes and that the license fees are in the nature of a tax. (Madera v. Black, 181 Cal. 310 [184 P. 397].)
The claim of the plaintiff is that it is a public corporation, municipal in character, established and organized for the purpose of carrying on within the district the public service of furnishing water to the public; that it is a state agency for that purpose, and that under the well-established rule that words in a statute providing for the payment of fees or imposing burdens on property shall not be deemed to apply to public agencies or public property, unless such intent is clearly expressed, the language of this act providing for the payment of license fees cannot be considered as having been intended to include or apply to water districts organized under the act first referred to. This doctrine has been frequently expounded and applied in this state (Balthasar v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 187 Cal. 302 [19 A. L. R. 452, 202 P. 37]), where it was held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act did not apply to or include motor vehicles belong to the fire and police departments of municipalities of the state. Other illustrations of the rule are found in the citations and quotations made in that case.
The defendant claims that the rule is inapplicable in this case because of the provisions of section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act. This section provides that: “All motor vehicles owned and used in the transaction of official business by the representatives of foreign powers or by officers, boards or departments of the government of the United States, and all motor vehicles owned by and used in the operative work of such corporations as are taxed solely for state purposes under the provisions of the constitution of this state, and such self-propelling vehicles as are

>>> used neither for the conveyance of persons for hire, pleasure, or business, nor for the transportation of freight, are hereby exempted from the payment of the fees in this act prescribed.<<< [comment by Hansen – such as a man’s automobile not used to transport cargo or passengers for a profit.]

The department shall furnish, free of charge, distinguishing plates for motor vehicles thus exempt.”
The claim is that by this specification of vehicles which are to be exempt the statute evinces an intention to exclude all other vehicles and persons from the exemption.
We think that section 2, instead of justifying the position of the defendant, is positive evidence against the same. It excludes specifically all motor vehicles that are not used for the conveyance of persons for hire, for pleasure or for business. There is a companion rule of construction to that above mentioned, to the effect that exceptions in a statute imposing burdens are to be liberally construed in favor of the public. Even without the aid of this rule, however, we think a motor vehicle owned and used by a municipal water district organized under the law for the purpose of collecting and distributing water to the public, and for the management of its works and system in discharging its public duties is not used in “business” as that term is used in section 2 aforesaid. The municipal water district is not a commercial corporation. It does not operate for profit. It is not intended that it shall earn any money in excess of the necessary operating expenses of the plant devoted to the public use and for the acquisition of property necessary thereto. While the operations of such a public corporation are sometimes referred to as its “business,” it is nevertheless true that the context indicates that the word was used in a narrower meaning in this section. The general definition of the word is “that which busies, or engages time, attention, or labor, as a principal serious concern or interest,” but the word has a narrower meaning applicable to occupation or employment for livelihood or gain, and to mercantile or commercial enterprises or transactions. It is not to be presumed that the legislature undertook to place public corporations of this character in the same class as private corporations engaged in ordinary business. The rule of construction we have already referred to forbids it. The passage evidently refers to ordinary business and not to the operations of the public corporations of the state. The phrase “for the conveyance of persons for hire, pleasure, or business, nor for the transportation of freight,” clearly indicates an intention to describe ordinary occupations engaged in by private persons or private corporations, either for business or pleasure, and so far as it refers to business it would include private business and not public business. If the word “business” was given the broader meaning contended for by the defendant it would require the imposition of the license fees upon every municipality in the state and even the state itself, as a condition precedent to the issuance of license plates and certificates for the operation of all the motor vehicles used by any of them in the public business of the state.
For these reasons we are of the opinion that the motor vehicle department must issue these license plates and certificates to the petitioner for the motor vehicles in question without charging the statutory fee therefor.
Let the writ issue as prayed for.
Lennon, J., Wilbur, J., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Richards, J., pro tem., concurred.

Note when I, the host of this site, Paul Hansen, uses ‘free inhabitant’ I now define the term so that is is clearly different from one associated with the US.

Click on the below, a document created by a great organization sedm.org for a distinction of a NONResident v. Inhabitant.

INHABITANT

 

 

Repealing the 2nd Amendment, say what???

Posted: 19th May 2018 by admin in 2nd Amendment

Powerful Gun Speech

The most articulate gun speech I've ever heard. Everyone needs to hear this. Make this go viral.Bill Whittle is the speaker in the video.https://www.facebook.com/billwhittle/

Posted by Daily Mentions on Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Repealing the 2nd Amendment, say what???

First the 10 individual amendments that were selected as part of the ‘Bill of Rights’ (i.e. 10 Amendments of 1791) are not written ‘law’, they are enumerated, unalienable ‘rights’.

Congress cannot, as is true with all men, take a right from another man, except for criminal punishment, on American soil.

Congress has no authority to take the ‘right to bear arms’, from any man, period, for such is unconstitutional. Simply put congress was never constituted with that authority by the American People.

Now if all congress would vote to remove any right such act would have no effect on that right, legally or constitutionally.

All 10 of the ‘Bill of Rights’ have existed for mankind from the beginning and will be until the end.

So what can a congress on American soil legislate?

They can only legislate the intent of their given constituted authority, which is military necessity/purpose, which naturally is inseparable from all nations.

So as to ‘the right to bear arms’ can only be restricted, governed, altered, in military purposed land*.

The United States can only own land for military purpose.

The United States must part with land that is not utilized for a military purpose within 5 years* of taking possession of such land.

An American has no right to carry anything in any military purposed land.

An American has no right to even be in military purposed land.

Any man in military purposed land can only have permission to be in such land.

The ‘Bill of Rights’ does not operate in military purposed lands.

Approximately 24% of America is military purposed land (land owned by ‘The United States of America’).

Approximately 76% of America is non-military purposed land (land not owned by ‘The United States of America’).

Congress governs arms on the 24%.

American People, by American common law, governs arms on the 76%.

If you are in a US court and the charged activity occurred in land not evidenced as of the 24%, you are in the wrong court.

Three things that are paramount in court: 1. territorial jurisdiction, 2. territorial jurisdiction, and lastly 3. territorial jurisdiction.

Utilize the ‘American Common Law Court’ (7th Amendment/right).

Contact Lawyer-Hansen for the document procedure to ‘challenge’ territorial jurisdiction, with estoppel. freeinhabitant.info.

((Land* = Space – one is not on land, one is in land, in a space. In, within, land. To be on a space is to be not within the space. The US courts will use this legal trickery to secure faulty territorial jurisdiction determinations. The Alice in Wonderland = Wonderspace.))

GOVERNMENT CODE, TITLE 10. GENERAL GOVERNMENT, SUBTITLE E. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY CHAPTER 2204. ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR STATE AND FEDERAL PURPOSES, SUBCHAPTER A. ACQUISITION OF LAND BY STATE, Sec. 2204.304. REVERSION TO STATE ON NONUSE. A grant under this subchapter must contain a reservation providing that if any part of the property granted ceases to be used for the purposes set out in Section 2204.301 for a continuous period of five years*, that part shall immediately and automatically revert to this state at the end of that period.

P.S. – Attorneys of the ‘BAR ASSOCIATION‘ that utilize such challenges get barred from association. Most attorneys, and congressmen, that understand this are privileged traitors.

INTRO

Posted: 13th April 2018 by admin in INTRO

INTRO:                  (Click on the COLORED below for link access.)

  1. pauljjhansen.com, a general compilation of primarily law information, with the main goal is to instruction how to live unrestrained by the tyrannical UNITED STATS, and its states.
  2. freeinhabitant.info, much the same as the above, more geared to providing specific instructions in warding off various state intervention.
  3. Paul Sever Briefing, Facebook, is a periodical posting of concise law brief points, with links to expanded information. Recommended for the serious-minded patriot. This facebook page is only for postings and not for reciprocal face-booking.
  4. https://uberxo.com/2017/08/02/uberxo-compaulseverefacebookpostings/  –  A list of all ‘Paul Sever Briefing’ posts, in chronological order, with searchable category capacity.
  5. Paul John Hansen, Facebook, Hansen’s general Facebook page.
  6. uberxo.com is a site, managed by Hansen, that allows for users, like you, to post info associated with any freedom movement for only pennies per month.

Administrative Process (AP) = (Non-Judicial request for remedy, INFO, Declaration of ‘state compelling interest’, notice of trespass, and gives notice of law at the same time.) Notary Presentment.

AP is a process that is respected in all US statutory courts , and American common law courts.

It is a tool that forces an answer from any man that may be making a claim on America soil.

The Petitioner (you) send, with aid of notary (me), by certified mailing, to the Respondent (them), clearly, precisely, written negative and positive averments*, and Admissions.

Respondent must reply by sworn affidavit to each point.

If no response is made the facts shall be deemed, as true, as stated, as written, by Petitioner, as evidence for use in any court in America.

See M1S-65 at Click> HERE.

As a lawyer I believe this is by far the most important tool to force any man, or any government agent, to full transparency. Most US, and state written laws, are unconstitutionally applied because government agents are almost never compelled in a state court to give full disclosure to all the elements of written law they are attempting to enforce. I have had four high level officers of US government resign from their job when I served this AP upon them, for once they are duly noticed they are now personally liable for all acts outside of the scope of the written law they are utilizing. This includes all US administrators (statism, state-ist, judges).

 

a·ver·ment*, noun, 1. an affirmation or allegation. 2, a formal statement by a party in a case of a fact or circumstance that the party offers to prove or substantiate.

Notary, Full Presentment Services

Posted: 27th June 2017 by admin in Notary Service

NOTARY COMMISSION No. 804917, STATE OF IOWA —

If you need proof of service.

If you are out of state, or in state, PDF me a copy of the signed documents and I’ll mail them as a NOTARY OF THE STATE (An Officer of the Court), this serves as legal service in all jurisdictions in America Common Law courts, and also in all US courts.

Administrative Process with Notary Presentment can be a tremendous tool to force any man, state or private, to provide evidence for you to win a judgment, that you generally can not get in a US court environment in many cases.

See M1S-65 (MS10065) at > CLICK HERE.

I can generally do it at a very low cost, mostly because it needs to be done, much of America’s liberties depends on this.

Paul John Hansen – pauljjhansenLAW@gmail.com

Estimated Cost:

Generally, a single notary presentment mailing takes between 15 to 30 minutes. It all depends on how large the mailing is, how many people it is mailed to, (more people generally gets the cost down per mailing due to efficiency due to volume), how organized it is when I get it, and how much difficulty I have in assembling the product and filling in all the documents as to the mailing affidavit. The more the client does the less I have to do, thus a lower charge from me. I presently charge 35$ per hour. Each mailing has two notary actions on my end. My aiding notary generally does not charge for his services, and I only charge 35$ per hour, so if it only takes 15 minutes it is only $8.75 for labor plus the printing, envelopes, and certified mailing charge by USPS. I have done close to one hundred mailing and have never had a client complain of the cost, most say I am half the fee of other notaries. I also act as the receiving party for any reply from the mailing as additional evidence for the court process. This process is a 7th amendment court recognized process.

 

We need able men across the country who are willing to provide godly aid for jury determinations in Common Law proceedings.

If the Lord would so lead you to commit contact the court clerks office at >        courtclerk107@gmail.com

This court will utilize the internet to provide due process for each participant. The safest adjudicating hands on earth are of those of a Christian based jury.

Federal* Supreme Court, of the People,   (< styled name.)

Common Law Venue; Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction,

A superior court sitting with the power of a circuit, in ‘United States of America’*,

in and of de jure counties.

Court record of – ‘Independent Jural Society Community Court’.

(This court is fully validated with US court rulings, and thousands of years of operation. Come and see how attorneys use this court to get justice that is often not available in US statutory courts.)

– 7th Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution – “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

– NW Ordinance 1787, Art. 2 “… Trial by Jury, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the Common Law.”

– (a) Saving to suitors, in all cases, the Right to a Common Law Remedy, where the Common Law is competent to give it;

– Christian Law and Common Law is synonymous” – Strauss v. Strauss, 3 So. 2nd 772 at 728 (1941).

– “the Law of the Land” means “the Common Law“. – State v. Simmon, 2 Spears 761, at 767 (1884).

 

Terms Defined:

United States of America‘* – proper noun. A country, a people, occupying most of the southern half of North America and including also Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands.

federal*, adjective – having or relating to a system of government in which several states, man, form a unity, for a specific purpose, but remain independent in general.

“Sovereignty” can, may, be a trick term.

Posted: 10th April 2017 by admin in Sovereignty

((Hansen comments.))

Sovereignty was first recognized by the high Court in this case.

 

CHISHOLM, Ex’r. versus GEORGIA. 

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES, 2 U.S. 419; 1 L. Ed. 440; 1793 U.S.

LEXIS 249; 2 Dall. 419

 

To the Constitution of the United States the term

SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place

where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in

that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the

delicacy of those, who ordained [***86] and established

that Constitution.  They might have announced themselves

“SOVEREIGN” people of the United States: But serenely

conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious

declaration.”

((No man as to his being associated with the fiction ‘United States’ remains sovereign as to that relationship, he too becomes a legal person (fiction), at parity, but yet his sovereignty remains on his private side.))

 

“As the State has claimed precedence of the people; so, in

the same inverted course of things, the Government has

often claimed precedence of the State; and to this

perversion in the Second degree, many of the volumes of

confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence.”

 

((State precedence can only be over the ‘person’ (the fiction) (contracted terms), never over the man, for such can not waive any right, or yield precedence to another.))

 

Sovereignty was defined and those who are sovereign were identified by this case; and, it is the standing law on sovereignty today.

 

 Supreme Court in DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), where the High Court stated, in relevant part:

      @ 404

            “…The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are

synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political

body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty,

and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their

representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people’, and

every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this

sovereignty…”

((Sovereignty only in the institution (government), that only goes to consent to being governed, one that has not consented is not a party to this institution.))

 

 

 

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were

at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in

the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none

other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posteritybut for no one

else.  And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new

sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members

of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by

birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions

of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.” (emphasis

added) Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, at 406.

((I want independence from any state to which I have not, upon full disclosure, consented to association, contract. The above is bad if it is a state not compliant to your wishes, good if it is. All such states today are not of my wish today. I wish not associate, contract.))

 

 

Even the States recognize this sovereignty.

 

R. W. Kemper v. The State,

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

63 Tex. Crim. 1; 138 S.W. 1025; 1911 Tex. Crim. App.

LEXIS 365

 

The rule in America is that the American people are the

sovereign, and in them is lodged all power, and the agencies of

government possess no authority save that which is delegated

to them by the people…”.  Also, see Perry v. United States,

294 US 330, 353 (1935), “The Congress as the instrumentality

of **sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on

behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the

Constitution ordains.  The Congress cannot invoke the

sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus

declared.”

 

((America is not the same as United States, the first is a nation, the second, a tool of that nation.))

((This **sovereignty is in house, not to be confused with the people not of that house.))

 

((I conclude that I wish independence of these body politics. They look good on the surface, but all are addressing those that consent to be governed by them.))

Another One Bites The Dust, 13K$ Credit Card Victory

I have won every credit card case I have ever been involved with in the last 1o years.

BRANCH BANKING & TRUST CO.       Bladen County, North Carolina

My client had a $13,581.33 claimed outstanding credit card bill due to the above bank.

We challenged all the elements of evidence of a true loan of substantive funds.

The bank folded and dismissed the court case.

Banks are limited, by congress, to only lending “true” designated funds, they use to do this, now seldom do it.

The result is massive profits for the bank, and massive inflation for your community.

Take responsible banking and sound money back for you and your community, most every extension of credit by banks today are not compliant with congressional law, or biblical law.

This is why your savings are not worth saving.

This is crime to the trillionth degree.

Crime that is robing your local community of millions of dollars every year.

Hire me, I can generally cancel you outstanding credit balances, that is due, with any bank in America.

10.01 Dismissal (1)
10.00 Dismissal (1)