Void where prohibited by law

Commonlaw Copyright © 2010 - 2014 My Private Audio - All Rights Reserved
Info from Hailstone Episode 196 January 10, 2013

I just got the Calif. General Revenue Act 1857 as amended 1859 about
sixteen pages or so. Thanks to Russ for his credit card!!!

Remember we were talking about this... I think it will be well
worth your peoples time if they have any extra to read this and find their
states equivalent.
The 1857 Calif. General Revenue Act authorized a excise tax stamp on
notes or negotiable instruments.,
The 1857 General Revenue Act as Amended 1859  is where they created
property tax of all kinds owned by corporations… the State by this Act
started collecting property tax on FICTIONS, person, corporations,
company's, property of all kinds furniture animals property and owned
land and instruments....
The 1857 Act is on the first page of the act, the stamp tax… its
required on negotiable instruments, it is a stamp tax on paper and
look at the date  its pre 14 amendment...
person!!! NOT Natural persons or their property!!!!
We have to remember this as we read this, and look at those little
side notes!!!!
Some may think this is not current law but the on line manual for the
California Board of Equalization states in one of its first paragraphs
In its current online manual that it derives its authority from the
1857 as amended 1859 Calif. General Revenue Act...and I’ve seen it
quoted in other places as well.

And I have that case Site from that 1920 Calif Code book that
mentions... People v Mcreery, that stated property tax as related to
private property is not constitutional and then sites the Calif 1857
as amended in 1859 General Revenue Act.

As you will in the 1859 Amendment they applied the tax on the backs of
the corporate
interest...and negotiable paper, the stamp tax on paper instruments...

Of special interest, see the first page bottom on the 1857 Act… Attorney License
tax....I’m sure you will find the same application in your state...

Why did your fiduciary trustee real estate agent/broker Title
Company, Real Estate Attorney fail to properly transfer the land with
a proper Acceptance and Acknowledgment in the original deed and never
accepted the patent or land grant...this is why the county applied
property tax because they assumed because of the omitted A & A on the
Deed that you
were registering corporate owned property...and also left it open so
the bank could steal the real estate.
The Acceptence and Acknowledgement for Deeds for corporations and
private people are diffrent.

Now also you may need to look at all your mortgage paper work to see
if in fact they did not pay this Excise Tax... it may be in certain
cases they included the tax in all the fees associated in the

I think people need to think about making a affidavit of status, this
shows that you are a real live Natural person man, not a corporation
fiction subject to taxation, with an acceptance and acknowledgement of
the patent/land grant and a  acceptance and acknowledgement  Grant
Deed Allodial Title Free of Fee.

The Excise Tax is only if you bought the land by a negotiable
instrument, a note.
The trustees failed to inform you that you were reasonable for this
Stamp Tax, surely the montage instrument stated you were responsible
for the taxes,  but did they mention this excise tax.?
Now plan on a little trouble at the County Recorders Offices, be kind,
be polite they are not going to want everyone to  correct the title...
they stand to lose all the revenue on all this private property Tax
they have been getting for a very long time.

Why this fella Paul in the Washington State just by paying the excise
tax did his lender remove the lien? He stated it was about two weeks
after paying the excise tax that he recived two letters from his
lender romoving the liens... and I assume he was able to record a new
deed as that was what started his quest at the county clerk/recorders

What do you think?

California 1857 General Revenue Act with 1859 amendment pdf

Reference Desk
Sacramento County Public Law Library
609 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Hours of Operation
8am - 8pm Monday - Thursday
8am - 5pm  Friday
9am - 4pm Saturday


Hailstone on Talkshoe Episode 196 January 10, 2013 | Episode 200 February 7, 2013 | Episode 201 February 14, 2013
From Readers Digest March 2013


This site, which was founded in 2006 by the director of Stanfords's
Continuing Studies Program, Brings together "high-quality cultural and Educational media" for lifelong learners. It features about 500
movies, 375 e-books, 475 audio texts, and 575 online courses- 
The books and info as mentioned tonight Feb 7, 2013, on your Talkshoe

The 1920 Court Case about Property Tax in Calif....
came from;
Kerr's code's of California 1920 Political Code ( now called the
Calif. Government code) TAXATION-EXEMPTION-FRANCHISE Page 1247 sec 91
Same- EXEMPTION of Private Property-Under General Revenue Act of 1857
as amended in 1859 (Stats 1859, p.343), so far as it includes private
property is in violation of constitution-People V McCeery, 34 Cal.


The 1857 as California General Revenue Act as Amended in 1859
This is the Act that created the Excise tax on Negotiable
Instruments. its a stamp tax for the privilege of using a Fiction note
to purchase anything. in 1857

The Amended Act in 1859 is what Created property Tax on CORPORATIONS
property of all kinds including land, real estate,furnishing machinery
vessels such as boats ECT...NOT PEOPLE this is also the act that
required the corporation to make a declaration to the County Treasury
Office of ALL Property Owned by the Corporation by a certain date each
year Feb 30?
you already have this link.


Introduction to the Law of Real Property
Cornelius J Moynihan 1962
An Historical Background of the Common Law of Real Property and its
Modern Application
This book along with Blackstone commentaries describes the Evolution
of land transfers, in England, Pre Norman invasion of England and post
invasion of England to today in America.
Livery of Seisen which loosely means Delivery of Possession, it was
the act of transfer of land by DEED, prior to being memorialized on
paper as done today.
Summary of Contents
1. The BackGround
2. Freehold Estates
3. Non Freehold Estates
4. Seisin and Its Significance
5. Common Law Types of Future Interests
6. The Rule in Shelly’s Case
7. Common Law Methods of Conveyancing
8. Uses and the law of Statutes
9. The Effects of the Statutes of Uses
10 Concurrent Ownership
Table of cases

Section 1983 Civil Rights Digest
USC. Title 42 sec. 1983 civil rights violations under color of law
Table of Contents
Rosenstock's  Section 1983 Civil Rights  Digest...Hundreds of case sites
617 p.

If you may be  considering a USC Title 42 1983 civil rights lawsuit.
You may want to take  a look at this Digest...Rosenstock's  Section
1983 Civil Rights  Digest...Hundreds of case sites by James Publishing

Its not just 14  Amendment...

My 1997 version has 617 pages of instruction by court  cases site example,
This book has chapters among others...
Nature of Actions,  Actions Under Color of State Law.
First Amendment,
Petition of Redress  of Grievances,
Fourth Amendment,
Seizure of Person,
Excessive  Force,
Seizure of Property,
Malicious Prosecution,
Procedural Due  Process,
Substantive Due Process
Equal Protection,
Eighth  Amendment,
Eleventh  Amendment
Summary  Judgments

Rosenstock's  section 1983 Civil Rights  Digest...Hundreds of case sites


This  digest identifies key United States Supreme Court and Circuit Court
cases  in critical areas of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Litigation.
Covering the time  period from 1983 through October 1997, (The date of
my Book 1998, they have  updated as shown below) the digest
concentrates on the major areas of  constitutional claims brought
pursuant to section 1983, with an emphasis on  state actions, First
Amendment claims, fourth Amendment claims, procedural  and substantive
due process claims, equal protection claims, supervisory  liability,
and available defense.

The key note system is extensive  in order to better assist the
practitioner in the developing area of the  law. Section 1983 is the
most powerful litigation tool available to remedy  Constitutional
claims; therefore, because of the complexity of section 1983  claims
and the number of circuit cases on this one statute, this digest  dose
not contain sections on other federal civil rights  statutes

Google search, Rosenstock's section 1983 Civil Rights  Digest

Rosenstock's Section 1983 Civil Rights  Digestwww.jamespublishing.com ›
Books › Employment Law Books Cached -  Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo


The Adminstrative Procedure Act is within Calif. Government Code
section 11500 et seq

Call or Email your Office of Adminstrative Adjudication for your free
Adminstrative Procedure handbook. They are located at your State
I like the older version 1987 for Calif. as the language is more
clear. This is not an internal Adminstrative hearing office...

In some States its Called Office of Adminstrative Hearings... OAH.

This is the State Version of The Adminstrative Procedure Act.
Handbook... If you accepted any citation form a State Government Agent
This is where you start with a notice of defense within 10 or 15 days
check your rules...If you do not set up this hearing you wave the
right to face the so called Contract that you have violated and cited
by a government Agent...The Feds and County have the same procedure.

This will also teach you that you were never under contract to perform
a duty to a state agency...so that you can learn how to deal with a
Rouge Government Agent.
The Government Agents have only been taught to ID conduct, get your
name and trick you into signing a Citation...then because you have
never contracted with Government before you never knew you were
supposed to exhaust your Adminstrative remedies through The Office of
Adminstrative Adjudacation...this is  how they tricked you into their
Contract Court...This is why that Judge says you cannot bring up the
constitution because its a contract court and you did not Force the
Adminstrative Hearing, and force the agent to produce the Contract you
signed into Knowingly Intentionally and Voluntarily with a
consideration to perform a duty with full disclosure of all elements
of the Contract...If at the Adminstrative Hearing that Agent dose not
produce the original contract( that never existed) you have the right
to a judicial Review writ of mandamus...the only question is " WHERE
to which I received a consideration to perform a duty to your agency
that you have cited me for violating...It never existed this is the
sham! this is the catch 22 you have been in...

No 4th Article of Amendment of The US Constitution Warrant,
No Valid Verified Complaint from a real party of interest with a
Affidavit under Oath and affirmation in support, No proper Warrant
with a Affidavit under Oath and affirmation in support...No witness of
a Public Offence harming person or property...No valid Terry Stop
where the Cop witnessed the potential to harm or rob somebody or
business...NO VALID STOP PERIOD..A Blatent Due Process Violation!!
The Court lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Not that they would not
have subject matter jurisdiction over these types of actions... But
because of No Valid Verified Complaint from a real party of interest
with a Affidavit under Oath and Affirmation in support, No proper
Warrant from a real party of interest with a Affidavit under Oath and
affirmation in support...No witness of a Public Offence harming person
or property...No valid Terry Stop where the Cop witnessed the
potential to harm or rob somebody or business the Prosecutor or court
dose not have subject matter Jurisdiction in this action, A Blatent
Due Process Violation!!...all other arguements are a moot point...They
have Violated the restrictions placed on the Agent and his Oath... Now
you can sue him for any or all the below...

A Direct Claim for Damages on his Bond...His bond not the county or
state. The fiction state or county could not violate your rights, But
The Man that took that position in Government that stepped outside his
lawful authority by and under his oath of office violated you and his
oath because he didn’t have lawful cause, a valid Complaint with a
Verified affidavit from the real party of interest a valid warrant
with a affidavit under oath or affirmation and No contract you signed
to perform a duty to his agency.
He violated your rights under color of lawful Authority..

or A suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty as per Howard Griswold
Same issues as above...

or a
Title 42 section 1983 Civil Rights Violations Under Color of Law Color
of Lawful Authority
Same issues as above...Plus you get to depose The Agent and a
statements of issues questionnaire...You will use all the statements
against him because he was trained to violate You for revenue...they
can just replace this stooge with another...

Now I know some people dont want to admit to a 14th amendment
citizenship...However you signed all those contracts/contacts with
Government admitting you were a US Citizen residing in the state...Why
not take advantage of that fact and use this remedy? to hammer an out
of control Government agency/agent that violated your rights under
color of lawfull authority...

We really need to included or start to Notice the Commissioner or
Directors of these agency put them on notice, under the principle of
responde superior they are ultimately reasonable for there
subordinates training and deliberate miss training for revenue
generating purposes.
at the very least let these agents they have a claim against the
agency for miss training him and causing this liability on him and
causing him to loose his job and subject them to these types of Law


How to sue Judges $ 200.00
I dont recall the Auther

as per Robert Scheafer aka William Clark
This book really shows all the issues that dont work to sue Judges
However it does cover the one issue that a Judge loses His Immunity and thats
lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction which is a blatent Due Process
Violation...when Brought to his attention that the action lacks
Subject Matter jurisdiction in relation to the charges at hand, Not
that the Court may have Jurisdiction over these types of action... But
Because of No Verified Complaint with supporting Affidavit Under Oath
or Affirmation by a Real Party of Interest.
No 4th Article of Amendment Warrant supported by Verfied Affidavit
under Oath or Affirmation. It becomes A Blatent Due Process
The case law to support this includes that the Judge should have
dismissed on his own initiative, Sua Sponte,
Blacks law 4th
Sua Sponte Lat. Of his or its own will or motion; voluntarily;
without prompting or suggestion.


The Constitution for the United States of America Analysis and Interpretation.

Is a book printed by the Government Printing Office and given to all
members of the House and Senate.

This book teaches members of the House and Senate they wear two hats,
when they are creating legislation for the DC, Guam, Porto Rico. or
when the Constutitional alows for the regulations of their property
within the state boundry like Forts, Arsenal, and Dock Yards and other
needful buildings. or for International, or Interstate Commerce.

Very large book comes in two forms one with Case Law within the text
or with footnotes to support..
Bill Thornton suggest to get a older version...Bookfinder.com
This is the book that mentions a Fourteenth Amendment Citizen is NOT
entitled to the Second Amendant...Check out Bill Thornton 1215.org he
has a chart compiled from this book of the rights granted or not
granted to a Fourteenth Amendment Citizen.

This came from MJA as a further study of the Primer on Eminent Domain
and the email titled County Code has no effect on the People...

I dont know if you want to post but this info, However it would
impower people of their property rights if they would read it.

It dose go along with what we spoke about on your call.

FYI follow up on your email that was forwarded to me.  Excellent work.
See attachments from my research on the "City of Boise City" - a mere
corporation registered with the Idaho Secretary of State.  It's not
Boise.  Not Boise City.  Not City of Boise.  It's the "City of Boise
City."  Sounds dumb which is one reason why they don't use their
official name.  The other reason is that it would reveal the corporate
fraud on the people if we were to analyze the official corporate name.
To wit:

The Idaho Constitution was adopted "at Boise City."  Boise City is the
real, lawful, de jure "City."  By using the "term" "City" twice in the
official registered corporate name, it is either redundant and
therefore an unnecessary repetition, OR, each term "City" in the name
"City of Boise City" has a different meaning which must be the case.
The first term "City of" means "Corporation of."  The City of Boise
City means the "Corporation" of Boise City.

I attended my son's graduation ceremony at the University of Puget
Sound, and the speaker said that "in 1905, Puget Sound University was
reincorporated as the University of Puget Sound."  Bingo!  The light
went on.  Any time you see something that proceeds the term "of" it
means "corporation!"  e.g., State OF Idaho instead of Idaho state.
County OF Ada.  United States OF America.  And on it goes.

I have many more corporate listings from Selectory.com which is (was
-- D & B now uses Hoovers) a division of Dun and Bradstreet, that
indicate the DUNS business number for the entities and that say

Also see my attachment on the IDAHO INFERIOR LEGISLATIVE COURTS
ANALYSIS.  There are NO judicial courts in Idaho.  They are
legislative courts, created by the legislature!

Also attached the state of Idaho organizational chart.  We, the
people, the Citizens of Idaho are at the top of the chart.  We are the
bosses and we need to start acting like it.

I.C. 67-2340. -- The people of the state of Idaho in creating the
instruments of government that serve them, do not yield their
sovereignty to the agencies so created.

Feel free to return mail or contact me.

I remain, yours,

Pro Libertate Patriae,
"For the Liberty of My Country"

Michael James Anthony

"History interposes with evidence that tyranny and wrong lead
inevitably to decay; that freedom and right, however hard may be the
struggle, always prove resistless."

--George Bancroft, Statesman and Historian (1800-1891)

Starve the Beast into submission!!!

I also have a book link to a book I have from 1914, Common Law Pleading, Cases on Procedure, Annotated.

I've been talking to some people about this excellent book! I emailed a link to Bill Thornton and asked him also the following question...

I think possibly, the problem we have been having, is that we have been demanding a Common Law Court of Record in the Wrong Form of
pleadings...Yes the Courts were combined Law and Equity however the
two are like night and day apart.

So, in FORM, we have still been using Equity Civil Legislative
Pleadings, Demanding Common Law Court of Record. When in Common Law you only use in FORM of Pleadings, "Declarations" and depending on the classifaction of the action, the injury, determinded what Form of action filed. such as Tresspass, Case, etc. And then all the proper elements required in a proper Common Law Pleading Declaration, the Elements/Substance of the claim, such as, date, injury, whos involved, where the injury took place, the damages sustained, the restutition. The whole Common Law Action is in the Declaration.

So when we plead and demand a Common Law Court Of Record... we must use the proper FORM of pleadings and the proper SUBSTANCE..."the elements" of a proper pleading by Declaration. I think that the problem is that we have been demanding Common Law Court of Record Claims in Equity Civil Legislative in FORM Pleadings which make them "unintellagable" to the Equity Legislative Court, and they proceed in Equity Civil Legislative Law in FORM and not Common Law Court of Record. as Demanded and promised in the Constitutions to the People

Of course the Attorney are Statute Merchants, so they need us to stay
in the equity civil legislative form and substance of pleading side as
they would have no Statutes/Bonds to sell !

I've brought this issue up and sent the link to the book to several
people that do pleadings... and they are very intrigued. I think you may want to post the link to this book. look at the Table of Contents, its spilt into the Forms of Common Law Actions and then Chapter 4 is the Elements Required in the Declarations. Very Interesting. and all shown by example, case law up to 1914

Thank you for your time, energy, the web site, talkshoe call and all you do.


Here is a Trinity County Risk Managment form in PDF...( Thanks to FM) This form is for seeking damages against the county employee for violations of rights under color of law, color of lawful authority. if you have no contract, no duty to perform or owed to that county agency or are not in the capicity of a employee of government at the time of
the so called violations, you may consider a complaint for damages on
the offending agent...You will need to find your County Risk Managment
Office...Ours is in the Trinity County Calif. Court House.. and
request Claim for damages forms.
Our risk managent office is handing the forms out like candy...one
fella picked up 12 forms at once.
  Its just Bond/Insurance claim form, you are making a claim for
damages for that agent stepping out side his limited authority under
color of law in his official capacity and violating you with no
contract violation or an injured party.
This is why the Agent or the office have to be bonded, because they
are in a limited capacity of holding that office or position in an
agency of government and cannot step outside that limited authority.

It is suggested to included a proper Verified under Notoary Oath and
seal Affidavit of any statutory violations under color of lawful
authority you can Identify and how they violated you briefly.  Attach
this to the completed complaint form and hand to risk managment for
Keep it simple, just the facts, here are the stautes they violated and
how they violated them.
This form is for county employees violations only... you will need to
find the bonding company for State and/or Federal agents...is there an
office of risk managent at the State and Federal level? this needs
looking into...

However, at times, just explaning that you are private, that your
property is private, that the application of the law they are trying
to enforce on you is out side the scope of the authority granted by
the Act of the legislature... asking politly the County, State or
Federal Office holder for the information, such as his true full name,
home address, phone number and where his bond is held because he has
left you no choice but to file a complaint on his bond for violating
you under color of lawful authority and that you are trying to prevent
the agent from further injurying you, has been enough to shake the
agent up so bad as to them coming back and apologizing...and not
bother the people again!

You may also want to file an interagency complaint... if at the
county, state or Federal level, 3 interagency complaints may get him
fired or at least under control .

Also If you can Identify any State or Federal law violations that
occured by a county office or agent, contact the Office of  Managment
Budget at the federal level...request to file a complaint with them as
the county agreed to NOT violate Federal or State Law in the agreement
to recive Federal grants...You may want to ask OMB if there is any
other agency at the federal level to file a complaint with.
This complaint may pull the federal funding to the county!!! Starve the Beast!!!

The beauty of these types of complaints is the "person" complained of
may lose his job and to get another Cushey Gooberment Job he will have
to  fill out a questionair for the new bond for the new agency and may
not be approved, as he already has had claims for damages on his prior
Bonds...so he may never work in Government again...And the new agent
is sure to hear why the prior agent was let go!!!

Now the Agent may/could have a claim against his superior's for
damages for not properly training him to conduct his self properly in
the capicity he held, if that was the case and if he were to lose his

Please be careful with these type of claims and learn to understand
them so as you can educate the agents. They are people, and have been
trained and condictioned to beleave what they are doing is correct...
get them in line so that you dont have to file claims against the
bonds...sometimes just an explanation that you are private, and not
subject to them, you have no duty to their agency, they have no
contract signed by you, you have recived no consideration to which you
owe an obligation or duty to that agency if that is the case,  and
they did not witness you violate another...  that they will leave you
no choice but to file a claim for damages on the bond, This may
straight'en them out if givin time to talk with a superior or
director/commisioner of their agency.

You could also tell them you could file a writ of mandamus for them to
produce the contract that subjected you to the agency...or a declatory
judgment of the application of the laws they are trying to enforce on
you...you could get a declatory judgement ahead of time and put the
agency on notice!

We want to fix this, not create enemies, Do we not?

Now this dose not preclude you from filing a Criminal, Civil, or a
Breach of Fiducary Duty suit...these are all seperate actions.

Thanks to many who contribute to these issues, especially Kurt Riggin,
Wish you well!



see also

Again I dident write this, but these 3 emails help to understand the
peoples relationship
to their private property and public servants.

Not sure if you want to post.

Most State Statutes,  County Code or County/State agents/agency have no
force in law or application to the private sovereign people, unless
you are on state/municiple owned property an employee or fiction
created by county enity, Or have contracted to perform a duty under
contract by the county/state agency to which you agreed knowingly
intentionly and volintarily to the contract and to which you are
reciving a consideration to perform the duty with full disclosure or
excepted a benefit to which you owe obligations .
OR YOU Acquiesce by failing to object timily and assert your rights
not to be held to any contract that you dident engage in knowingly
intentionally and volintiarly to which you recived a consideration to perform.
They have a vaild timily 4 Article of Amendment Warrant supported by
Affidavit under oath or affirmation not a stall warrant 6 months or
older...or the agent Witnessed you harm person or property in his
He witnessed a public offense as per Calif Penal Code.


Topic: Common Law by Dale Pond, Rick Knutson, Howard Fisher and others
Section: 25.0 - Code Has No Force of Law
Table of Contents to this Topic

COMES NOW the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or
voluntarily herein, to move this court of record to dismiss the
charges against this Free and Natural Person as the Boise City Code
has no force of law over this Accused person.

1. IC 1-701. District courts established.--- The District courts were
established in each county for "the purpose of hearing and determining
all matters and causes arising under the laws of the state."
2. IC 1-2208 allows the District Court to assign any and all cases
within its jurisdiction to the magistrates division for misdemeanor
and quasi-criminal actions and proceedings to prevent the commission
of crimes.
3. The City of Boise is a municipality, an administrative body, an
incorporated town with certain privileges and has no Sovereign powers.
The City's privileges are quite limited by its master, the State, and
like any artificial being, it must petition its master for any
privileges it desires.
4. Since a municipality, city, or town has no sovereignty it cannot
create laws pertaining to the citizens of the state. It can only
enforce the laws of its master (LAWS OF THE STATE) however, the city
can regulate those artificial beings it creates or natural persons it
5. In this case, Boise City Code has no authority of law as the
Accused is not an employee of the City nor a created being of the
City; nor has he a license, permit, or any other agreement or contract
with the City. Therefore, this proposed action is in direct violation
of the laws of the state and cannot be enforced against this free and
natural person. It is axiomatic that no municipality can create any
code that is in conflict with its creator's law. The Idaho State
Constitution states: "Any county or incorporated city or town may make
and enforce, within its limits, all such local police, sanitary and
other regulations as are not in conflict with its charter or with the
general laws." Article 12, Section 2, Idaho State Const.

This has been upheld numerous times by the Idaho Supreme Court and a
few of the cases are as follows: "This provision of the Constitution
authorizes the council of Boise City to make and enforce ordinances
that are not in conflict with the general laws, and forbids the making
and enforcing of any ordinance in conflict with the general laws."
(emphasis added) In re Ridenbaugh, 5 Idaho 371, 375.

"This power, vested by direct grant, is as broad as that vested in the
legislature itself, subject to two exceptions: It must be local to the
county or municipality and must not conflict with general laws."
(emphasis added) State v. Musser, 67 Idaho 214, 219.

The Boise City Code is administrative in nature, and only applies to
those it regulates or employs. If this city code were construed to
apply to persons other than those mentioned, it would violate the
rights of other classes of persons and exceed its authority under
Article 12, Section 2, of the Idaho State Constitution and IC 50-302
which states in part: "Cities shall make all such ordinances, by laws,
rules, regulation (regulations) and resolutions not inconsistent with
the laws of the state of Idaho.... to maintain the peace, good
government and welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce and

In this regard, it is only fitting and proper that the Boise City code
regulate those whom it controls. IC 50-302 talks about the "welfare of
the corporation and its trade, commerce, and industry." There can be
no doubt that the Boise City code applies to those artificial entities
as well as natural persons hired by the city. However, the City Code
cannot be stretched to apply to other persons not within its control
(State v. Musser) or there exists a conflict between the Idaho Code
and the Boise City Code. Or perhaps the City of Boise believes their
code supersedes the Idaho Code, and that the Idaho Code does not
pertain within its geographical boundaries. Therefore, the City code
abrogates the Idaho Code. If so, the City's logic is ad absurdism. In
any event, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter only so
long as the charges being brought before it are authorized by the
District Court. The District Court has delegated certain classes of
cases to the magistrate court, and any complaint filed under any
provisions of the Boise City Code is not within the jurisdiction of
the Court. In this case, the Court has no authority to proceed as a
complaint based upon a Boise City Code cannot be heard in the District
Court, as the District Court only has the power to hear cases
pertaining to the laws of the state and the laws of the state are
those passed by the legislature not the Boise City Council.

"The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a senate and
house of representatives." Article III, Section 1, Idaho State

The legislature of this state is the only body that can pass laws of
the state. This is further explained under the enabling clause for
corporations, municipal. "The legislature shall provide by general
laws for the incorporation, organization and classification....which
laws may be altered.... by the general laws." (emphasis added) Article
XII, Section 1, Idaho State Constitution.

Only the legislature can pass general laws or laws of the state as no
where in the Idaho State Constitution did the Sovereign People give
any entity, other than the state legislature, the ability to pass laws
of the state. Local municipalities.(counties, cities, and towns) were
only authorized to make regulations. "Any county or incorporated city
or town may make and enforce, within its limits, all such local
police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with its
charter or with the general laws." (emphasis added) Article XII,
Section 2, Idaho State Constitution. The state legislature is
authorized to enact general laws/laws of the state and any other
governmental entity or municipality are only authorized to make
regulations ---- not enact laws of the state.

Regulations do not have the force and effect of law on all citizens.
Regulations only pertain to certain classes of persons. Regulations
are defined as: "Such are issued by various governmental departments
to carry out the intent of the law." Black's law Dictionary, 5th
edition, p. 1156 "Regulations are implementary to existing law."
Gibson Wine Co. v. Snyder, 194 F. 2d 329, 331 Regulations then, are
things issued to carry out the intent of law but of and by themselves
are not law. In short, they can only be considered administrative
procedures and edicts.

"Agencies issue regulations to guide the activity of those regulated
by the agency and of their own employees and to ensure uniform
application of the law." (emphasis added) Black's supra Regulations,
within constitutional provisions that municipalities may enforce such
local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict
with general laws, refers to rules relating for instance, to operation
of a police department,..." (emphasis added) State ex rel. Lynch v.
City of Cleveland, 132 N.E. 2d 118, 121 Regulations then, are written
to guide a specific agency in its operation, to guide those being
regulated by the agency, and to guide the employees of the agency. In
the case of the municipality of Boise, their code is to guide in the
operation of the corporation, to guide those controlled by the
corporation, and to guide the employees of the corporation ---- not
the citizenry at large. "Regulations are not the work of the
legislature and do not have the effect of law..." Black's supra.

"The terms by-laws, ordinances, and municipal regulations have
substantially the same meaning, and are the laws of the corporate
district made by the authorized body, in distinction from the general
laws of the state. They are local regulations for the government of
the inhabitants of the particular place. They are not laws in the
legal sense, though binding on the community affected. They are not
prescribed by the supreme power of the state, from which alone a law
can emanate, and therefore cannot be statutes, which are the written
will of the Legislature, expressed in the form necessary to constitute
parts of the law." (emphasis added) Rutherford v. Swink, 35 S.W. 554,

"An ordinance of a municipal corporation is a local law, and binds
persons within the jurisdiction of the corporation." (emphasis added)
Pittsburgh, C., C. & St L. Ry. Co. v. Lightheiser, 71 N.E. 218, 221;
Pennsylvania Co. v. Stegemeier, 20 N.E. 843.

"An ordinance is a local law, a rule of conduct prospective in its
operation, applying to persons and things subject to local
jurisdiction." (emphasis added) C.I.R. v. Schnackenberg, C.C.A., 90 F.
2d 175, 176.

"Ordinances...are laws passed by the governing body of a municipal
corporation for the regulation of the corporation." (emphasis added)
Bills v. City of Goshen, 20 N.E. 115, 117.

"The terms ordinance, by-law, and municipal regulation...are local
regulations for the government of the inhabitants of a particular
place, and though given the force of law by the charter for the
purposes of the municipal government, yet relate to that solely, and
prosecutions for their violation have no reference, as a general rule
to the administration of criminal justice of the state." (emphasis
added) State v. Lee, 13 N.W. 913.

"Ordinances are laws of municipality made by authorized municipal body
in distinction from general laws of the state and constitute local
regulations for government of inhabitants of particular place."
(emphasis added) State v. Thomas, 156 N.W. 2d 745.

"...defining the term criminal offense as any offense for which any
punishment by imprisonment or fine, or both, may by law be inflicted,
a violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal offense...an
ordinance being a regulation adopted by a municipal corporation and
not a law in the legal sense." (emphasis added) Meredith v. Whillock,
158 S.W. 1061, 1062.

"A city ordinance is not a law of the same character as a statute. It
is merely a regulation; a rule of conduct passed by the common council
for the direction and supervision of its citizens." (emphasis added)
People v. Gardner, 106 N.W. 541, 545.

"An ordinance prescribes a permanent rule for conduct of government."
(emphasis added) 76 N.W. 2d 1, 5; 61 A.L.R. 2d 583.

"An ordinance is not, in the constitutional sense, a public law. It is
a mere local rule or by-law, a police or domestic regulation, devoid
in many respects of the characteristics of the public or general
laws." (emphasis added) State v. Fourcade, 13 So. 187, 191; McInerney
v. City of Denver, 29 P. 516.

Since regulations are the work of a corporation, they can only apply
to members of that corporation. From IC 50-302 we know that the City
of Boise can only make regulations: "to maintain the peace, good
government and welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce and
industry." IC 50-302 does not even mention persons either natural or
artificial but it does specifically mention the corporation and its
trade, commerce, and industry. Trade commerce and industry are all
artificial entities and either licensed by the state and city or are
corporations both of with have an agreement with the state or city and
through that agreement, those businesses must adhere to the Boise City
Code. However, Natural citizens who are not engaged in trade,
commerce, or industry and do not have any agreements with their state
or city, cannot be bound by the Boise City Code. The Boise city code
is not the law of the State and, this Court has no jurisdiction to
proceed. Therefore, if the Plaintiff wishes to proceed in this case
with charges brought about based upon the Boise City Code, this case
will have to be dismissed and a new action brought before a court of
proper jurisdiction. Since this natural person is not a member of the
municipal corporation; nor licensed by, nor has any other legal
connection with the city; and since the City has no courts, there is
no proper court of jurisdiction to hear an action against this Accused
natural citizen under the provisions of the Boise City Code.

Free and natural citizens are only subject to the Idaho Code, as
stated in IC 19-301, and said Code states, in part: "Every person is
liable to punishment by the laws of this state..." The Accused may be
subject to the laws of the State under the provisions of this Code,
but nowhere does this Code charge the Accused, or any other person, to
be liable to punishment by the code of the City of Boise. Laws of this
state are those brought into being by the legislature of the state of
Idaho, not by an administrative municipality, town, or city. The
courts have often said that the state of the law in Idaho is the Idaho
Code. The Idaho Code is very specific in what laws a person is liable
to, that being laws of the state, not laws of the municipality. This
Court may have jurisdiction over those persons who voluntarily submit
to the Boise City Code. However, this Court can have no jurisdiction
over a free and natural person who challenges the jurisdiction of this
Court over a complaint based upon the Boise City Code, and once
jurisdiction has been challenged by the Accused, the Court can not
proceed until the Plaintiff has not only asserted, but proven
jurisdiction. The Plaintiff must overcome every single argument of the
Accused and have additional matter, before the Court can have
jurisdiction and proceed. In addition, the Court can not assume
jurisdiction by mere act or estoppel. It only follows that if a
municipality has the authority to create a code, that code can only
apply to its subjects or members. As the code pertains to those
persons, it may grant them privileges and regulate their actions.
However, this free and natural person is not a member, subject, or
slave of the municipality and in no way depends upon the City for his
welfare, nor is he a corporation, or involved with trade, commerce, or
industry (see IC 50-302) with or within the City of Boise, and this
person absolutely refuses to enter into any foreign jurisdiction
asserted by Boise City for its subjects, employees, and members. I
would like to remind the learned court that: "A municipal corporation
possesses only such powers as the state confers upon it,.. "Any
ambiguity of doubt arising out of the terms used by the legislature
must be resolved in favor of the granting power. Regard must also be
had to constitutional provisions intended to secure the liberty and to
protect the rights of citizens..." (emphasis added) State v.
Frederick, 28 Idaho 709, 7l5.

In this regard, the state legislature must preserve and protect the
rights of citizens at all times. The State must maintain legislative
power over all citizens throughout the state and therefore the laws of
the state are the only laws applicable to natural citizens. "It is
settled law, that the legislature in granting it, does not divest
itself of any power over the inhabitants of the district which it
possessed before the charter was granted. Laramie County v. Albany
County et al, 92 U.S. 307, 308.

The City is forbidden from making any regulations or from enforcing
any ordinance in conflict with the general laws (re Ridenbaugh, Supra)
and the general law (IC 50-302) of Idaho has not granted the city of
Boise the power to make laws pertaining to free and natural citizens.
It can only make regulations to affect its employees and the trade,
commerce and industry it regulates. Therefore, for the above causes,
the Accused moves the Court to dismiss the charges.