Persons that State legislature CAN regulate, are State RESIDENTS, CORPORATIONS, and those operating in COMMERCE.
So a letter addressed to you WITHOUT a ZIP code would be one such evidence. Or a Declaration of Domicil sent to the State Secr. of State. Or a demand for lawful money addressed to Secr. of State or a Bill of Sale using gold or silver coins.
I.e. these would be evidences to challenge the State’s (the plaintiff’s) standing in a court action = pleading (objecting) to plaintiff.
BTW. Under Common Law, you can (1) plead (object) to jurisdiction, (2) plead (object) to plaintiff and (3) plead (object) to the charges. But if you just plead (object) to the charges, you have WAIVED the first two pleadings (objections). I.e. you’ve ACCEPTED the plaintiff and the court’s jurisdiction as being VALID (as being without objection).
Of course, 14th Amendment US citizens in a State might also be considered as a foreign corporation subject to regulation.
And there were people before who challenged the legislative jurisdiction of Congress or of the State legislature, but who weren’t very successful with that, probably because they didn’t have the proper EVIDENCE to back up their challenge.
A STATUTE IS NOT A LAW.
But it is a “prima facie” evidence of the law, so it has the force of law, UNLESS it is rebutted by EVIDENCE that you’re NOT a ‘person’ whom the legislature intended to or can regulate. (My explanation).
For example, State Inhabitants have no contract with a State so the State CANNOT regulate them unless they engage in COMMERCE, instead of trade.
A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), A “Code’ or Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law).�A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’ of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
Basically, State Inhabitants are like the American Indians in the USA or the aboriginals in Australia: And American Indians on reservations are NOT subject to federal law, EXCEPT for 13 COMMON LAW crimes, and I don’t think the Australian aboriginals are subject to statutes either.
1. inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous.
1. an aboriginal inhabitant of a place.
synonyms: native, aborigine, original inhabitant;
So basically, State Inhabitants are ABORIGINAL to the existence of the CORPORATE STATE. I.e. they existed BEFORE the current corporate Democracy was created. So they should be EXEMPT from statutory “law”; UNLESS they operate in commerce, instead of trade.