Section 257.40
						
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 300 of 1949

257.40 “Person” defined.

Sec. 40.

“Person” means every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation and their legal successors.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949

© 2017 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

1)   No statutory inferior corporate court shall have any ability to harm a Man or his property in 
	any way.

2)   It was shown to the court that a fraud was used to enable the corporate system, i.e. (twnsp,
	county and corporate state) to change the proper christian name of the sorereign, John
	Perry Ludtke to the corporate entity known as JOHN PERRY LUDTKE.

3)  Cannon of law, Maxum of law, "That what is not included in Statue, is excluded."
( statute defination of person.)   Robert A. Katzmann, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York

8.3a Approved usage; technical words and phrases.
Sec. 3a.
All words and phrases shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.

History: Add. 1959, Act 189, Imd. Eff. July 22, 1959

Here we see that there are special words that the statutes are going to use and 
define or may I say really, "redefine" as they are english words and they are going to get
a new meaning in the statutes.  This is called "Legalese" or legal english.  This is not to 
be confused with common english which can be found in a english dictionary.  We are 
told these are "technicial words and phrases",  and any word that is defined within the 
statutes is a "technicial word or phrase", and will have a special meaning.  The statute 
tells us these words, "shall be construed and understood according to their meaning
or defination.  In other words if the statutes define a word you must use their word when 
in the statute.  In the statutes here means anytime you are within the area of their rules 
and regulations.  In the courts or contracting with any government or agency of the state.

	Let's see some of these words that now have a new meaning when in the area 
of the government.  The foundation of any story is the "Who", who is liable to be regulated
by the statutes?  I now bring forth the word "person", who in here believes themselves to 
be a "person" within the defination used in the statutes?

STATE OF MICHIGAN
FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

 Opinion No. 6628  April 26, 1990
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

. However, it is a common maxim of statutory construction that "expressio unius est exclusio alterius,"' express mention in a statute of one thing implies the exclusion of other similar things. Sebewaing Industries, Inc v Village of Sebewaing, 337 Mich 530; 60 NW2d 444 (1953). 

	One other thing in my bag of legalisms to decode the statutes, and that is the following:

 A sovereign is not a "person" in a legal sense and as far as a statute is concerned; a) " 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) ...

 US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 SCt 677 (1947): 
    "In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." 

US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315: 
    "Since in common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." 

U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: 
    "In common usage the word `person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign."

Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425: 
    "The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1." 

	The state of Michigan's Attorney General has spoken, the united States Supreme 
Court has spoken and the statute's defination of the technicial word has spoken.  Anyone 
who would like to invest the time and effort to try to provide any higher office that could in 
any way over turn the above listed is welcome.