<font color=darkblue face="tahoma">I was actually reading through one of my own posts on the Citizenship/Jurisdiction Forum and came across this:
<quote>
"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has
no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract."
Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.[emphasis added]
</quote>
Correct me if i'm wrong, but this seems to imply 2 important points:
- In a case brought by the Agency against a Licensee, it <u>must</u> be proven that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of
- To NOT do so is <u>CRIMINAL</u>
I would love some comments on this. Ice, SJ, Jerseee? any takers?
-BT[/color]