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.

The above article is not accurate.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) is a case where the city did stop the development, contact owner for the exact details.

M1S – 90 MSO, New Auto, Saved 5000$ on plating fees.

‘MSO Retention’, new automobile purchases, success.

  1. Client wished to buy a new $50,500.00 sports car.
  2. Client wishes to retain the MSO (Manufacturing Statement of Origin) from the car dealership.
  3. Instructions – xxxx
  4. Client told dealership he did not want a loan, only direct payment.
  5. Client showed up on the day of closing and handed the owner of the dealership xxxx
  6. Dealership said he has no way of xxxx
  7. Client said that he has a friend xxxx
  8. Dealer said great.
  9. Client handed 50k xxxx
  10. Dealer then commenced writing a receipt to Client for xxxx
  11. Client said can I make a call to the local State Attorney General to make sure xxxx
  12. Client contacted State Attorney General, explained what the Dealer was doing with the receipt of payment, state attorney general said that would be a false receipt and a felony if it is over 300$.
  13. State attorney general proceeded to tell the Dealer to xxxx  
  14. Client saved more than 5000$ in tax, and xxxx 6% luxury tax, and he also now has the MSO.
  15. Client got a state xxxx from the Governor on the MSO, xxxx
  16. Then the Client had a copy xxxx laser engraved on two metal, front and rear, license size plates. (You can use durable plastic if you wish.)
  17. 2009 to the present (2020) client is often traveling from far middle-south to far north-east of America, no problems, with just an occasional short stop by state patrol.
  18. I do not know how he handles traffic citations; I trust he gets them occasionally; the car is rated as 1600 HP off the crank.
  19. Thus far no one has elected to find its top speed.

7/2020 – Lawyer, Paul John Hansen, freeinhabitant.info

Order the full INFO, and package that this client used to do the above > (CLICK HERE) then click on Product 99.

NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CORRECT THE RECORD

Posted: 3rd June 2020 by admin in Travel Rights

15$ Package, how to serve the proper government departments to get documentation of proof on/for non-governance, non-inclusion.

  1. All U.S. government agencies rely predominately on their misleading paper trail to give a presumption of administration, or inclusion.
  2. This is the case with registrations, licenses, and every taxable activity.
  3. We provide precise documents that force the various government agencies to correct their records and give you the necessary documents (apostille certified) to carry with you so you can readily show any ‘policy enforcer’ that you are ‘not to be detained’, and ‘not to be arrested’, unless observed in violating a true crime.
  4. Remember they must provide remedy, or be held personally commercially liable, as a matter of law.
  5. Lawyer Hansen – pauljjhansenLAW@gmail.com
  6. To order click on M1S 98.

TOOLS to Force Remedy.

Posted: 19th May 2020 by admin in Remedy, Tools

The people I work with have achieved remedy in excess of four (4) billion dollars using the below. A chess game of many pieces, not easily won. One gets to be a master chess player by losing thousands of games, we have lost thousands to get to the point of now losing few. You need not repeat our progression, simply utilize our services.
http://freeinhabitant.info/

  1. FOIA Request;
  2. FDCPA Request;
  3. Administrative Process;
  4. Notary Presentment,
  5. Video recording of mailing contents;
  6. Filing in a government office for later need for certified copies for court evidence;
  7. File for Record v. Registration/Recording;
  8. Affidavits / Statements / Verifications;
  9. Negative Armaments;
  10. Positive Averments;
  11. Challenges;
  12. Motions;
  13. Judicial Notice;
  14. Aid of U.S. Marshals upon judges duty to follow the law;
  15. Use judges tenure as leverage;
  16. ‘Bill of Rights of 1791’, as afforded to you as a man with unalienable rights;
  17. Make no statements, keep full burden on moving party;
  18. Use ‘calls for a legal determination’;
  19. Common Law of Man v. Common Law of ‘Persons’ / ‘States’;
  20. Courtesy, non-accusatory, non-emotional, grace;
  21. Use the sealing of the case in your financial favor (leverage).
  22. Proof of clearance/independence by Governor with State Apostille.

Two Classes of (c)Citizenship

Posted: 17th December 2019 by admin in Citizen vs. Free Inhabitant

The 1901 Downes vs Bidwell decision and later the 1945 Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt decision addressed the latter two classes of (c)Citizenship: 

A TERRITORIAL citizen has no rights. A TERRITORIAL citizen is, simply, SUBJECT to The Congress. A SUBJECT IS A SLAVE.    A state Citizen, on the other hand, is also subject to the Congress, BUT, with a Stipulation: ” 

A state Citizen has Rights.   A State Citizen enjoys The Congress ‘…bound by the chains of the constitution’ when legislating over the state citizen.  A state Citizen is differentiated from a territorial citizen in writing by the capitalization of the letter “C” in Citizenship for a state Citizen and the use of lower case for the territorial citizenship in legal writings.

The *American class is NOT a class of citizenship and is NEVER discussed by government today.  The *American class has Rights provided by YaHuWaH, The All Mighty ONE, Whom our Founding Fathers called ‘Providence’.

HOWEVER…..

EVERYTHING, you think about that relates to ‘freedom’ is ensconced in these people.

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.”

“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.”

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:  “…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…”

“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 POLITICAL BODY; BUT NONE OTHER; IT WAS FORMED BY THEM, AND FOR THEM AND THEIR POSTERITY, BUT 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.

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.”

So, what is the big picture here?

When we were Colonists and then formed the various states of The Union, we recognized that ‘

Is there a difference between being an American and a U.S. citizen, in your opinion?

Michael Edward

Michael Edward, Facilitator at www.AmericansRestoringAmerica.com (2005-present)Answered Dec 19, 2018

YOU WON’T LIKE THIS, HOWEVER I QUOTE THE LAW AND AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU FANTASIZE . . .

U.S. Citizenship

The US citizen

A US citizen does not have any rights.

“…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

Defendants’ error lies in assuming that the right to vote is an essential right of citizenship. The proposition is beguiling, but it will not stand analysis. The only absolute and unqualified right of citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States; a citizen cannot be either deported or denied reentry. The Supreme Court explained in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627,

“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.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.

“…it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ….. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.” Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,…..”

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the “citizenship” to the agencies of government.”

City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

“Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State.” Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905

and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery;

“The unborn are not included within the definition of “person” as used in the 14th Amendment.” Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957,

<<<<<<<>>>>>>>

There are two SCOTUS decisions that deal with 2 of the 5 status types of people on the soil South of Canada and North of Mexico; illegal alien, legal alien, *American, TERRITORIAL citizen, and STATE Citizen.

The Bidwell decision and later the Hooven decision addressed the latter two classes of (c)Citizenship. A TERRITORIAL citizen has no rights. A TERRITORIAL citizen is SUBJECT to The Congress. A SUBJECT IS A SLAVE. A state Citizen, on the other hand, has Rights provided by YaHuWaH, The All Mighty ONE, Whom our Founding Fathers called ‘Providence’. State Citizens are differentiated from territorial citizens by the capitalization of the letter “C” in Citizenship for a state Citizen and the use of lower case for the territorial citizenship in legal writings.

The *American class is NOT a class of citizenship and is NEVER discussed by government today.

HOWEVER…..

EVERYTHING, you think about that relates to ‘freedom’ is ensconced in these people.

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.”

“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.”

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…”

“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 ME POLITICAL BODY; BUT NONE OTHER; IT WAS FORMED BY THEM, AND FOR THEM AND THEIR POSTERITY, BUT 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.

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.”

IRS LIEN released with our process.

Posted: 1st March 2019 by admin in Uncategorized

We challenged the IRS agent that created the assessment and the lien, in affidavit form, notary presentment with threat of litigation, lien was released. SEE lien as attached.

 

This phone service was a scam from the beginning, they orchestrated payments from 10s of thousand, by lies, and then sold the company that then went bankrupt, as planed. Evil people, pray that their stolen wealth may rot in their mouths.

Ruby9 SIM Card, Ruby9 Mobile
Unlimited Talk, Text, and Data 9 YEARS

 $648.00

Top service for the lowest money in America.

LIMITED TIME Offer Includes 9 Years of Service! 

Uses same towers as ‘Sprint’ service providers.

UNLIMITED TALK & TEXT: Unlimited Talk and Text, and data (high speed up to 13GB/Month), in the USA & no roaming charges.

UNLIMITED DATA: Stream video & surf the web – anytime, anywhere! Our unlimited data plan is just that – 13GB High Speed/month with UNLIMITED 4G LTE Data.

FREE MOBILE HOTSPOT: Using your mobile device as a Hotspot is complimentary to all our customers; with the first 13GB 4G LTE

Works With 4G LTE GSM Unlocked Mobile Devices

 9 years –  $648.00 (500 / 9 x 12 = $6.00/month)

Payment plan available.

NOTICE > How I can get you unlimited local calling, and most international calling, texting, and 4G Data, for 6$/month that matches the best coverage of all phones services in America. A quick read can save you thousands. How this company will get paid by “”‘your retailers'”” instead of by you. >>

Unlimited call,
Unlimited text,
Unlimited 13GB data (unless the particular tower you are on is maxed out then you will get throttled down, which is in my experience is close to never, I always have enough to watch YouTube.)
Keeping your existing number may be available.

I had a one-year-old LG phone, which Cricket gave me the unlock code which I use when the Ruby 9 SIM CARD is installed in the LG Phone which was super easy. Google any phone, YouTube will show you how to install the SIM CARD in your phone.
All American cell phone companies must give you the unlock code to your phone if it is 6 months old and fully paid for. (Basically they can not keep it locked from use with another SIM CARD even if you have an extended service contract with them.)

So now I have the exact same 50$ service with Ruby 9 as I had with Cricket for less than 6$ per month for the next 108 months (9 years).

I was paying 50$ per month or $5,400.00 for 9 years.

5,400
(-) 600
$3,800.00 < Saved more than in (108 months.)

All based on an honest cell phone company that is satisfied with the ‘advertising – information mining’ that is associated with all present-day cell phones in the entire World, just as Google and Facebook are doing every-time you get online. You see Google and Facebook and many others pay big money for information mined from everyone that uses their system, and then sell it for big profits, much the same for this company. The difference you profit a great deal also.

Just for an example, every new car in America has close to $2000.00 of paid advertising behind every single sale. Americans buy 45,000 new cars every day of the year. That is why my new cell phone service through Ruby 9 is 6$ per month for the next 108 months (9 years).
— OR —

(Changing over with their SIM CARD does not alter any information stored on your phone, such as pictures, or your collected address and numbers, or any apps.)

NOTICE – To get the 9-year price for this product the order must be placed soon.

((100% money back guarantee if not satisfied.))

Paul Hansen to arrange purchase – email > pauljjhansenlaw@gmail.com

(( As of 9-12-2019 – Upon my own empirical internet research I have not found one negative report on Ruby 9. ))

I only have a few SIM Cards left at this price, so email me today if you are interested.

Ruby9 is my main cell service now and I am well pleased with the service, and especially pleased with the close to 4000$ savings or possibly more over the next nine years.

Client win, no ‘Verified Complaint’ equals no charges, equals no probable cause.

Plivate plate,

no state registration/plate,

no insurance,

no state operators license.

Texas court starts out hyper-aggressive the dismisses.

Click to hear client explain how he has had 30 citations and 30 wins.

The 4th Amendment is your defense.

All state DMV citations are enforced upon ‘persons’ administratively. Never do any of the normal because this traps you administratively.

Contact us you can go back and vacate all your past citations as a matter of law with the proper challenges.

pauljjhansenlaw@gmail.com

and/or  counsel@thelitigationstrategist.com – >> E. D. Hughes >> http://TheLitigationStrategist.com >> (512) 765-5336

Contact us so you can position yourself so that the 4th Amendment applies.

 

[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.