On Friday, April 16, 2021, 09:00:04 AM PDT, veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That the king of England, as sovereign of the nation, is said to be
independent of all, and subject to no one but God: and his crown is stiled
imperial, on purpose to assert that he owes no kind of subjection to any
potentate on earth. No compulsory action can be brought against him, even in
his own courts. That a sovereign, when in a foreign country, is always
considered by civilized nations, as exempt from its jurisdiction, privileged
from arrests, and not subject to its laws. Hence this inference was drawn,
that the court having no jurisdiction over Virginia, all its process against
that state, must be coram non judice, and consequently void. 1 Vatt.P. 2. 133.
2. Vatt. 158. 1 Blackft. 141. 5 Bac. 450. It was then observed, that there
being no instance in our law books, of any process against a sovereign, it was
proper to consider the rules of law relative to process against their
representatives. [* * *]That the true reason of the minister's exemption from
process is the independence and sovereignty of the person he represents. And
although by engaging in trade, he may so far divest himself of his public
character, as to subject these goods to attachment, yet in every case where he
represents his master, his property is sacred. But a sovereign cannot subject
himself by implication: he must do it expressly. M'Carty v. Nixon et al, 1 U.S.
77 (1784)
JOHNSON, J. (the supreme Court of the United States):The right of jurisdiction
is essentially connected to, or rather identified with, the national
sovereignty [We the People! ]. To part with it is to commit a species of
political suicide. In fact, a power to produce its own annihilation is an
absurdity in terms. It is a power as utterly incommunicable to a political as
to a natural person. FLETCHER v. PECK, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)
BARTLEY, C. J. (Supreme Court of Ohio) dissented: There is no tribunal before
which the sovereign can be arraigned, his conduct examined, his errors and
delinquencies detected, those errors corrected, and he punished. PIQUA STATE
BANK OF OHIO v. KNOUP, 6 Ohio St. 342 (1856).
Justice BREWER (Supreme Court of the United States) dissenting: The government
of the United States is one of limited and delegated powers. It takes nothing
from the usages or the former action of European governments, nor does it take
any power by any supposed inherent sovereignty. There is a great deal of
confusion in the use of the word 'sovereignty' by law writers. Sovereignty or
supreme power is in this country vested in the people, and only in the people.
[***] When, therefore, power is exercised by congress, authority for it must be
found in express terms in the constitution, or in the means necessary or proper
for the execution of the power expressed. If it cannot be thus found, it does
not exist. FONG YUE TING v. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
Law of Nations, Book 2 Article 132: "God has created heaven for himself and
his saints, and has given the earth to mankind, intending it for the advantage
of the poor as well as of the rich. The roads are for their use, and God has
not subjected them to any taxes." [a license is a tax and a automobile is
household goods.]
25 AM JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163. "No State government entity has the power
to allow or deny passageon the highways, byways, nor waterways transporting his
vehicles andpersonal property for either recreation or business, but by being
subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed
limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle
registration, or forced insurances."
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 12:47 AM ejartz <ejartz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are you a person, is the vin on a motor vehicle or a household good or consumer
good?
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:23 PM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
? go for it all
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:31 PM NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am thinking only cover the ViN if no plates on car and no registration
Get Outlook for Android
From: administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Jb
<tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:39:49 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: ok to remove or cover VIN of
personal property? It’s legal to cover it
On Apr 15, 2021, at 12:26 PM, NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
That's not what it says in the link below!!! READ IT.....
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2019/title-2c/section-2c-17-6/
