File Room
Articles Written by Richard
James, McDonald
Richard James, McDonald Law Lectures
Transcript of a Seminar on state Citizenship by Richard James, McDonald
FREE Download- Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856
Thomas Jefferson
Constitution of the State of California, 1849
Are you one of the "People" or a "Person"?
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924);
Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 222 Pac.2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).
1. LICENSES (§ 5*) - CHAUFFEURS.
The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation and therefore permitting a regulatory license tax.
[Ed. Note. -For other cases, see licenses, Cent. Dig §§4, 19; dec. Dig. § 5*]
2. STATUTES (§ 81*) - SPECIAL LEGISLATION-CLASSIFICATION.
Dividing, as does St. 1913, p. 639, drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual fee of $2, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay a license fee, is sound classification and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation.
Ex parte Stork (Feb. 24, 1914), 167 Cal. 294
WHO IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER LICENSE?
"As indicated by it title, the act was designed to impose a license tax upon those engaged in the business of operating motor vehicles upon the public highways for the transportation of persons or property for compensation. Section 1 defines certain words and phrases employed in the act. The term 'operator' is declared generally to include all persons, firms, associations, and corporations who operate motor vehicles upon any public highway in the state and thereby engage in the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation. The term 'motor vehicles' is defined to mean and include all vehicles, automobiles, trucks, or trailers operated upon or over the public highways of this state whether the same be propelled or operated by steam or electricity or propelled or operated by combustion of gasoline, distillate, or other volatile and inflammable liquid fuels. ...
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States
Title 18 UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions
Traffic/DMV Issues
BLASHFIELD'S AUTOMOBILE LAW AND PRACTICE (selected sections re "Classifcation")
Blashfield's Automobile Law And Practice (selected sections re "License")
California Procedure (Selected Sections)
California Jurisprudence (selected sections)
Codes of California
California Code Of Judicial Ethics
California Procedure (selected sections)
The "United States" is a Corporation
Richard James, McDonald Law Lectures
Transcript of a Seminar on state Citizenship by Richard James, McDonald
FREE Download- Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856
Thomas Jefferson
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established."
Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:422
Citizenship
Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (Granted "Civil Rights" to "Persons")
Constitution for the United States
The Annotated Constitution
The Roots of the Constitution
Reference and Source Material re the Constitution
Declaration of Independence (Original caps)
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789 (Jefferson was heavily influenced by this document)
Documentary History of the Bill of Rights
Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948
The Law - by Frederick Bastiat
Common Sense, by Thomas Paine
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, by Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
Jefferson Quotes - Inalienable Rights
The Writings of George Washington - from the Original Manuscript Sources
1745-1799
James Madison Archives
Journals of the Continental Congress
Right of Private Property - Executive Order D - 79 - 89 - Issued by Cal Governor George Dukemejian
The Levellers
[3] The fact the restraint on Ms. Spicer's liberty was minimal does not make the restraint a reasonable one. The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including those consuming no more than a minute. (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 879-880 [45 L.Ed.2d at pp. 615-616].)
PEOPLE v. SPICER, 157 Cal.App.3d 213
[Crim. No. 45072. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven. June 15, 1984.]
CALIFORNIA v. HODARI D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991)
FLORIDA v. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
HORTON v. CALIFORNIA, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)
ALABAMA v. WHITE, 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
UNITED STATES v. SOKOLOW, 490 U.S. 1 (1989)
UNITED STATES v. HENSLEY, 469 U.S. 221 (1985)
MICHIGAN v. LONG, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)
FLORIDA v. ROYER, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)
UNITED STATES v. CORTEZ, 449 U.S. 411 (1981)
ROBBINS v. CALIFORNIA, 453 U.S. 420 (1981)
REID v. GEORGIA, 448 U.S. 438 (1980)
UNITED STATES v. MENDENHALL, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)
DELAWARE v. PROUSE, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
SOUTH DAKOTA v. OPPERMAN, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)
U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975)
ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ v. UNITED STATES, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969)
Terry v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
SIBRON v. NEW YORK, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)
OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
United States Code (USC)
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Federal Rules of Evidence
American Jurisprudence 2d (selected sections)
Robert's Rules of Order
California is a commonwealth.
People v. County of Marin, (1894) 103 Cal. 223
"The United States and the State of California
are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
Thus in [13 Cal.3d 551] determining that California citizens are entitled to greater protection under the California Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures than that required by the United States Constitution, we are embarking on no revolutionary course. Rather we are simply reaffirming a basic principle of federalism -- that the nation as a whole is composed of distinct geographical and political entities bound together by a fundamental federal law but nonetheless independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their citizens.
The ultimate confirmation of our conclusion occurred, finally, when the people adopted article I, section 24, of the California Constitution at the November 1974 election, declaring that "Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution."
People v. Brisendine, 13 Cal.3d 528
[Crim. No. 16520. Supreme Court of California. February 20, 1975.]
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
Thus in [13 Cal.3d 551] determining that California citizens are entitled to greater protection under the California Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures than that required by the United States Constitution, we are embarking on no revolutionary course. Rather we are simply reaffirming a basic principle of federalism -- that the nation as a whole is composed of distinct geographical and political entities bound together by a fundamental federal law but nonetheless independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their citizens.
The ultimate confirmation of our conclusion occurred, finally, when the people adopted article I, section 24, of the California Constitution at the November 1974 election, declaring that "Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution."
People v. Brisendine, 13 Cal.3d 528
[Crim. No. 16520. Supreme Court of California. February 20, 1975.]
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
§ 100.
(a) The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof, and all writs
and processes shall issue in their name.
(b) The style of all process shall be "The People of the State of California," and all prosecutions shall be conducted in their name and by their authority.
§ 11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
§ 54950 DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created”.
(b) The style of all process shall be "The People of the State of California," and all prosecutions shall be conducted in their name and by their authority.
§ 11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
§ 54950 DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created”.
"[T]he Legislature, either by amending (section
1382) or otherwise, may not nullify a constitutional provision."
Rost v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial Dist., County of San Mateo (1960) 85 A.L.R.2d 974, 979 Headnote 5.
B. Constitution of California
2. ['51] Restrictive and Enabling Provisions
Rost v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial Dist., County of San Mateo (1960) 85 A.L.R.2d 974, 979 Headnote 5.
B. Constitution of California
2. ['51] Restrictive and Enabling Provisions
(a) Restrictions on State Powers. The
California Constitution, like other state constitutions, is generally a restriction
upon the powers of the state.
Summary of California Law, vol 7, Constitutional Law, p. 9
Summary of California Law, vol 7, Constitutional Law, p. 9
Constitution of the State of California, 1849
Are you one of the "People" or a "Person"?
"State Citizenship is a vested substantial
property right, and the State has no power to divest or impair these rights."
Favot v. Kingsbury, (1929) 98 Cal. App. 284, 276 P. 1083.
Although recognizing the authority of this court to construe the California Constitution to provide protection beyond that afforded by parallel provisions of the federal document, we nevertheless find the reasoning of Crews persuasive and consistent with past California decisions; we therefore adopt Crews as defining the rights of the parties under the California Constitution.
People v. Teresinski, 30 Cal.3d 822
[Crim. No. 20497. Supreme Court of California. February 18, 1982.]
NOTICE: FindLaw.com offers free access to California Appellate and Supreme Court decisions dating to 1934, like the above cases People v. Spicer & People v. Teresinski for example. This is a tremendous resource for those interested in all topics related to our rights. To review or download cases of the Appellate and Supreme Court of California simply click here.
Favot v. Kingsbury, (1929) 98 Cal. App. 284, 276 P. 1083.
Although recognizing the authority of this court to construe the California Constitution to provide protection beyond that afforded by parallel provisions of the federal document, we nevertheless find the reasoning of Crews persuasive and consistent with past California decisions; we therefore adopt Crews as defining the rights of the parties under the California Constitution.
People v. Teresinski, 30 Cal.3d 822
[Crim. No. 20497. Supreme Court of California. February 18, 1982.]
NOTICE: FindLaw.com offers free access to California Appellate and Supreme Court decisions dating to 1934, like the above cases People v. Spicer & People v. Teresinski for example. This is a tremendous resource for those interested in all topics related to our rights. To review or download cases of the Appellate and Supreme Court of California simply click here.
Constitution of the State of California,
1849
Article I, Sec. 10.
Article I, Sec. 10.
The people shall have the
right freely to assemble together,...
It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the
people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen
of the state.Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924);
Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 222 Pac.2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).
1. LICENSES (§ 5*) - CHAUFFEURS.
The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation and therefore permitting a regulatory license tax.
[Ed. Note. -For other cases, see licenses, Cent. Dig §§4, 19; dec. Dig. § 5*]
2. STATUTES (§ 81*) - SPECIAL LEGISLATION-CLASSIFICATION.
Dividing, as does St. 1913, p. 639, drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual fee of $2, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay a license fee, is sound classification and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation.
Ex parte Stork (Feb. 24, 1914), 167 Cal. 294
WHO IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER LICENSE?
"As indicated by it title, the act was designed to impose a license tax upon those engaged in the business of operating motor vehicles upon the public highways for the transportation of persons or property for compensation. Section 1 defines certain words and phrases employed in the act. The term 'operator' is declared generally to include all persons, firms, associations, and corporations who operate motor vehicles upon any public highway in the state and thereby engage in the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation. The term 'motor vehicles' is defined to mean and include all vehicles, automobiles, trucks, or trailers operated upon or over the public highways of this state whether the same be propelled or operated by steam or electricity or propelled or operated by combustion of gasoline, distillate, or other volatile and inflammable liquid fuels. ...
"Section 2 of the act provides: 'Each operator of a motor vehicle within
this state who transports or desires to transport for compensation or hire
persons or property upon or over any public highway within this state shall
apply to and secure from the board of equalization of the State of California
a license to operate each and all of the motor vehicles which such operator
desires to operate or which such operator from time to time may operate.'
It is provided in Section 7 that any operator using the public highways
of the state for the transportation of persons or property for hire, either
as a public or private carrier without first obtaining the license ... is
guilty of a misdemeanor ..."
Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss (1926) 199 Cal. 21, 26 - 27.
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States
Title 18 UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions
When used in this chapter the term -''Motor vehicle'' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;
Traffic/DMV Issues
BLASHFIELD'S AUTOMOBILE LAW AND PRACTICE (selected sections re "Classifcation")
Blashfield's Automobile Law And Practice (selected sections re "License")
California Procedure (Selected Sections)
California Jurisprudence (selected sections)
Codes of California
California Code Of Judicial Ethics
California Procedure (selected sections)
Police officers are members of the Executive branch
of government. they are Executive officers
of government. they are Executive officers
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1849
Article XI: Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 3.
Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive
and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before they
enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe
the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear
(or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the
constitution of the United States, and
the Constitution of the State of California;
and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ------
according to the best of my ability."
"We thus require citizens to apprise themselves
not only of statutory language but also of legislative history ... and underlying
legislative purposes [citation]. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
People v. Morse (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 259 , 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 816
[Nos. A058935, A060033. First Dist., Div. Three. Dec 22, 1993.]
"Everyone is presumed to know the law" (Boehm v. Spreckels, 183 Cal. 239, 245 [191 P. 5]), ..."
People ex rel. Mosk v. Lynam , 253 Cal.App.2d 959
[Civ. No. 31452. Second Dist., Div. One. Aug. 29, 1967.]
People v. Morse (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 259 , 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 816
[Nos. A058935, A060033. First Dist., Div. Three. Dec 22, 1993.]
"Everyone is presumed to know the law" (Boehm v. Spreckels, 183 Cal. 239, 245 [191 P. 5]), ..."
People ex rel. Mosk v. Lynam , 253 Cal.App.2d 959
[Civ. No. 31452. Second Dist., Div. One. Aug. 29, 1967.]
The "United States" is a Corporation
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."Judicial Interpretation of "the District of Columbia"
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
(15) “United States” means -
(A) a Federal corporation:
* United States Code, Title 28 - Judicial and Judiciary Procedure, §3002. Definitions, (15)(A), p. 564
* UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15) ''United States'' means -
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States
(* USC Title 26 is the location of the laws related to federal income tax.)
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
SECTION 9301- 9342
9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
The “Conspiracy Theory” of the Fourteenth Amendment, Yale Law Journal 371 - 375 (1938)
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.U.S. Supreme Court Opinions - decisions since 1893, free to view and download
Jones v. Temmer, 829 Fed. Supp. 1226 (1993)
Supreme Court Decisions re Distinctions Between state and US citizenship
Ninth Circuit Opinions - free to view and download
Repositories for Source Material
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School (this is an incredible collection)
LONANG Library
The Constitution Society
Medieval Legal Sourcebook — Collection of documents and links at Fordham University.
Primary Source Documents Pertaining to Early American History
E-Mail
Richard James, McDonald
