SystemsAnalyst (@SystemsAnalyst)

#LAW, #TAXES, #Licenses, #REGULATIONS, Not many have given the slightest though about the "Stock Market" and how it works. Aside from "Collecting Dividends" not much thought has been given to who the rest of it works. What most already know is that when one "buys" a "Stock Certificate"the only thing they can have claim to is that "Equitable Interest", a/k/a "Dividend Payment". "Stock Certificate" holders have NO liability in the day to day operations and business costs of that Corporation they had invested in. All "Costs of doing Business" and "Responsibilities to comply with associated "Regulations" and such are the exclusive responsibility of the "Corporation" and NOT those who are holding the "Stock Certificates"! What MOST, including "Professionals" who are required to know these things, miss completely is that any and ALL similar "Certificates" operate the exactly the same fashion. That includes; "Certificates of Title" (both Home and Auto), "Insurance Certificates", "Licensing Certificates", such as "Driver Licenses", and "Licenses" of every "Profession" imaginable. In each of these, just as with "Stocks", people are NOT personally liable to PAY for the costs nor maintenance of anything. People are only LAWFULLY there to COLLECT the PROFITS from the BENEFITS so created. It is the actual "HOLDER" of the "Corporate Charter" so created that has to pay for EVERYTHING! Now those "PAYMENTS" might not be due to be paid on a daily basis but certainly on a Monthly, Quarterly or at minimum, a Yearly basis. As with the "Stock Market, Statutes are enacted to regulate commercial activities NOT private activities: “No statutory duty lies to apply for, or possess a driver's license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the 'class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted.” Routh v Quinn. That same can be said for any and ALL Statutory "Agreements"! "The history of the use, and not infrequent abuse of the power to arrest cautions that a relaxation of the fundamental requirements of probable cause would "leave law-biding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice' " Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 476 9 L. Ed 2d 441, 83 S.Ct 407 (1963). "No person shall be imprisoned for debt in ANY action, or on any judgment founded upon contract, unless in cases of fraud." New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Paragraph 13: The Supreme Court of New Jersey takes this point one step further in State v. Madewell, 63 N.J. 506, 512 (1973): "Statutes or ordinances, designed as debt collecting devices under the guise of penal laws, contravene the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. Thus, the legislature may not circumvent the prohibition by rendering criminal a simple breach of contract, the nonpayment of debt, or the failure to use one's own money for a purpose other than for payment of debts. However, statutes against false pretenses, frauds, cheats, and the like, are sustained as against the constitutional objection that such statutes impose imprisonment for debt, on the theory that one who violates the act is punished for the crime he has committed, although civilly the acts may also constitute a breach of contract or the nonpayment of a debt. (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Section 204(4), p.1011)." [bold, underline and italics added] $ 1M settlements by Lawnside NJ for multiple violations by police and their courts 2011 - 2013 et al. “Government jurisdiction does not extend into or onto real or private property.. The right to purchase [and hold] property is a fundamental right of citizenship beyond the powers of the States to deny to any citizen. Property ownership cannot be cause for government to force or coerce title-holder( s) of property to do anything against his or her will. The title-holder has full control over their property and has the right to non- interference from all other parties.” Beech Grove Investment v. Michigan Civil Rights Commission, 157 North Western Reporter, 2d Series, pgs 213-232 (1982) The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___(2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). (butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998). In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $ 8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass . . .