Driving = Comercial

[Codee]

UNLAWFULLY, pleadings. This word is frequently used in indictments in the description of the offence; it is necessary when the crime did not exist at common law, and when a statute, in describing an offence which it creates, uses the word, 1 Moody, Cr. Cas. 339; but it is unnecessary whenever the crime existed at common law, and is manifestly illegal. 1 Chitty, Crim. Law, *241; Hawk. B. 2, c. 95, s. 96; 2 Roll. Ab. 82; Bac. Abr. Indictment, G 1 Cro. C. C. 38, 43.


OFFENCE, crimes. The doing that which a penal law forbids to be done, or omitting to do what it commands; in this sense it is nearly synonymous with crime. (q. v.) In a more confined sense, it may be considered as having the same meaning with misdemeanor, (q.v.) but it differs from it in this, that it is not indictable, but punishable summarily by the forfeiture of a penalty. 1 Chit. Prac. 14.

CRIME. A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general signification, comprehends all offences but, in its limited sense, it is confined to felony. 1 Chitty, Gen. Pr. 14.
2. The term misdemeanor includes every offence inferior to felony, but punishable by indictment or by-particular prescribed proceedings.
3. The term offence, also, may be considered as, having the same meaning, but is usually, by itself, understood to be a crime not indictable but punishable, summarily, or by the forfeiture of, a penalty. Burn's Just. Misdemeanor.
4. Crimes are defined and punished by statutes and by the common law. Most common law offences are as well known, and as precisely ascertained, as those which are defined by statutes; yet, from the difficulty of exactly defining and describing every act which ought to be punished, the vital and preserving principle has been adopted, that all immoral acts which tend to the prejudice of the community are punishable by courts of justice. 2 Swift's Dig.
5. Crimes are mala in se, or bad in themselves; and these include. all offences against the moral law; or they are mala prohibita, bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy; which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent. Crimes may be classed into such as affect:
6.- 1. Religion and public worship: viz. blasphemy, disturbing public worship.
7. - 2. The sovereign power: treason, misprision of treason.
8. - 3. The current coin: as counterfeiting or impairing it.
9. - 4. Public justice: 1. Bribery of judges or jurors, or receiving the bribe. 2. Perjury. 3. Prison breaking. 4. Rescue. 5. Barratry. 6. Maintenance. 7. Champerty. 8. Compounding felonies. 9. Misprision of felonies. 10. 6ppression. 11. Extortion. 12. Suppressing evidence. 13. Negligence or misconduct in inferior officers. 14. Obstructing legal process. 15. Embracery.
10. - 5. Public peace. 1. Challenges to fight a duel. 2. Riots, routs and unlawful assemblies. 3. Affrays. 4. Libels. 11. - 6. Public trade. 1. Cheats. 2. Forestalling. S. Regrating. 4. Engross- ing. 5. Monopolies.
12. - 7. Chastity. 1. Sodomy. 2. Adultery. 3. ******. 4. Bigamy. 5. Fornication.
13. - 8. Decency and morality. 1. Public indecency. 2. Drunkenness. 3. Violatiug the grave.
14. - 9. Public police and economy. 1. Common nuisances. 2. Keeping disorderly houses and bawdy houses. 3. Idleness, vagrancy, and beggary.
15. - 10. Public. policy. 1. Gambling. 2. Illegal lotteries.
16. - 11. Individuals. 1. Homicide, which is justifiable, excusable or felonious.
2. Mayhem. 3. Rape. 4. Poisoning, with intent to murder. 5. Administering drugs to a woman quick with child to cause, miscarriage. 6. Concealing death of bastard child.
7. Assault and battery, which is either simple or with intent to commit some other crime. 8. kidnapping. 9. False imprisonment. 10. Abduction.
17. - 12. Private property. 1. Burglary. 2. Arson. 3. Robbery. 4., Forgery. Counterfeiting. 6. Larceny. 7. Receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, or theft-bote. 8. Malicious mischief. 18. - 13. The public, individuals, or their property, according to the intent of the criminal. 1. Conspiracy.


PUBLIC. By the term the public, is meant the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state; sometimes it signifies the inhabitants of a particular place; as, the New York public.
2. A distinction has been made between the terms public and general, they are sometimes used as synonymous. The former term is applied strictly to that which concerns all the citizens and every member of the state; while the latter includes a lesser, though still a large portion of the community. Greenl. Ev. 128.
3. When the public interests and its rights conflict with those of an individual, the latter must yield. Co. Litt. 181. if, for example, a road is required for public convenience, and in its course it passes on the ground occupied by a house, the latter must be torn down, however valuable it may be to the owner. In such a case both law and justice require that the owner shall be fully indemnified.
4. This term is sometimes joined to other terms, to designate those things which have a relation to the public; as, a public officer, a public road, a public passage, a public house.

[Codee]

PENALTY, contr. A clause in an agreement, by which the obligor agrees to pay a certain-sum of money, if he shall fail to fulfil the contract contained in another clause of the same agreement.
2. A penal clause in an agreement supposes two obligations, one of which is the primitive or principal; and the other, is, conditional or accessory.
3. The penal obligation differs from an alternative obligation, for this is but one in its essence; while a penalty always includes two distinct engagements, and, when the first is fulfilled, the second is void. When a breach has taken place, the obligee has his option to require the fulfilment of the first obligation, or' the payment of the penalty, in those cases which cannot be relieved in equity, when the penalty is considered as liquidated damages. Dalloz, Dict. mots Obligation avec clause penale.
4. It is difficult, in many cases, to distinguish between a penalty and liquidated damages. In general, the courts have inclined to consider the sum reserved by such agreement to be a penalty, rather than as stipulated damages. (q. v.)
5. The sum will be considered as a penalty, and not as liquidated damages, in the following cases: 1. When the parties to the agreement have expressly declared the sum to be a penalty, and no other intent is to be collected from the instrument. 2 Bos. & P. 346; 1 H. Bl. 227; 1 Pick. 45 1; 4 Pick. 179; 7 Wheat. 14; 3 John. Cases, 297. 2. When from the form of the instrument, as in the case of a money bond, it is sufficiently clear a penalty was intended.
3. When it is doubtful whether the sum was intended as a penalty or not, and a certain damage or debt is made payable on the face of the instrument. 2 B. & P. 350; 3 C. & P. 240. 4. When the agreement was evidently made for the attainment of another object, to which the sum, specified is wholly collateral, 11 Mass. 76; 15 Mass. 488; 1 Bro. C. C. 418, 419. 5. When the agreement contains several matters, of different degrees of importance, and yet the sum mentioned is payable for the breach of any, even the least. 6 Bing. 141; 5 Bing. N. C. 390; 7 Scott, 364. 6. When the contract is not under seal, and the damages may be ascertained and estimated; and this though the parties have expressly declared the sum to be as liquidated damages. 2B. & Ald. 704; 6 B. & C. 216; 4 Dall. 150; 5 Cowen, 144. See 2 Greenl. Ev. 258. 1 Holt N. P. C. 43 1 Bing. R. 302; S. C. 8 Moore, 244; 4 Burr. 2229.
6. The penalty remains unaffected, although the condition may have been partially performed; as in a case where the penalty was one thousand dollars, and the condition was to pay an annuity of one hundred dollars, which had been paid for ten years; the penalty was still valid. 5 Verm. 365.
7. A distinction seems to be made in courts of equity between penalties and forfeitures. In cases of forfeiture for the breach of any covenant other than a covenant to pay rent, relief will not be granted in equity, unless upon the ground of accident, fraud, mistake, or surprise, when the breach is capable of compensation. Edin. on Inj. 22; 16 Ves. 403; S. C. 18 Ves. 58 3 Ves. 692; 4 Bouv. List. n. 3915.
8. By penalty is understood, also, the punishment inflicted by law for its violation; the term is mostly applied to a pecuniary punishment. See 6 Pet. 404; 10 Wheat. 246; 1 Gall. R. 26; 2 Gall. R. 515; 1 Mason, R. 243; 3 John. Cas. 297: R. 451; 15 Mass. 488; 7 John. 72 4 Mass. 433; 8 Mass. 223; 8 Com. Dig. 846; 16 Vin. Ab. 301; 1 Vern. 83, n.; 1 Saund. 58, n.; 1 Swans. 318; 1 Wash. C. C. R. 1; 2 Wash. C. C. R. 323; Paine, C. C. R. 661; 7 Wheat. 13. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.


PECUNIARY. That which relates to money.
2. Pecuniary punishment, is one which imposes a fine on a convict; a pecuniary legacy is one which entitles the legatee to receive a sum of money, and not a specific chattel. In the ecclesiastical law, by pecuniary causes is understood such causes as arise either from the withholding ecclesiastical dues, or the doing or omitting such acts relating to the church, in consequence of which damage accrues to the plaintiff. In England these causes are cognizable in the ecclesiastical courts.

FORFEITURE, punishment, torts. Forfeiture is a punishment annexed by law to some illegal act, or negligence, in the owner of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, whereby he loses all his interest therein, and they become vested in the party injured, as a recompense for the wrong which he alone, or the Public together with himself, hath sustained. 2 Bl. Com. 267.
2. Lands, tenements and hereditaments, may be forfeited by various means: 1. By the commission of crimes and misdemeanors. 2. By alienation contrary to law. 3. By the non-performance of conditions. 4. By waste.
3. - 1. Forfeiture for crimes. By the Constitution of the United States, art. 3, s. 3, it is declared that no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. And by the Act of April 30, 1790, s. 24, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 88, it is enacted, that no conviction or judgment for any of the offences aforesaid, shall work corruption of blood, or any forfeiture of estate. As the offences punished by this act are of the blackest dye, including cases of treason, the punishment of forfeiture may be considered as being abolished. The forfeiture of the estate for crime is very much reduced in practice in this country, and when it occurs, the stater takes the title the party had, and no more. 4 Mason's R. 174; Dalrymple on Feudal Property, c. 4, p. 145-154; Fost. C. L. 95.
4. - 2. Forfeiture by alienation. By the English law, estates less than a fee may be forfeited to the party entitled to the residuary interest by a breach of duty in the owner of the particular estate. When a tenant for life or years, therefore, by feoffment, fine, or recovery, conveys a greater estate than he is by law entitled to do, he forfeits his estate to the person next entitled in remainder or reversion. 2 Bl. Com. 274. In this country, such forfeitures are almost unknown, and the more just principle prevails, that the conveyance by the tenant operates only on the interest which he possessed, and does not affect the remainder-man or reversioner. 4 Kent, Com. 81, 82, 424; 1 Hill. Ab. c. 4, s. 25 to 34; 3 Dall. Rep. 486; 5 Ohio, R. 30.
5. - 3. Forfieture by non-performance of conditions. An estate may be forfeited by a breach, or non-performance of a condition annexed to the estate, either expressed in the deed at its original creation, or impliedly by law, from a principle of natural reason. 2 Bl. Com. 281; and see Ad Eject. 140 to 173. Vide article Reentry; 12 Serg. & Rawle, 190.
6. - 4. Forfeiture by waste. Waste is also a cause of forfeiture. 2 Bl. Com. 283. Vide article Waste.
7. By forfeiture is also understood the neglect of an obligor to fulfil his obligation in proper time: as, when one has entered into a bond for a penal sum, upon condition to pay a smaller at a particular day, and he fails to do it, there is then said to be a forfeiture. Again, when a party becomes bound in a certain sum by a recognizance to pay a certain sum, with a condition that he will appear at court to answer or prosecute a crime, and he fails to do it, there is a forfeiture of the recognizance. Courts of equity, and now courts, of law, will relieve from the forfeiture of a bond; and upon a proper case shown, criminal courts will in general relieve from the forfeiture of a recognizance to appear. See 3 Yeates, 93; 2 Wash. C. C. 442 Blackf. 104, 200; Breeze, 257. Vide, generally, 2 Bl. Com. ch. 18; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.; 2 Kent's Com; 318; 4 Id. 422; 10 Vin. Ab. 371, 394 13 Vin. Ab. 436; Bac. Ab. Forfeiture Com. Dig. h. t.; Dane's Ab. h. t.; 1 Bro Civ. L. 252 4 Bl. Com. 382; and Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture for High Treason, London ed. l746.

[redy2fiyt]

Damn your good.

OK, so:

2. The term misdemeanor includes every offence inferior to felony, but punishable by indictment or by-particular prescribed proceedings.

So I'm assuming this means you can be indicted, right? How would you swing this one if you failed to present your license to an officer? Can he actually haul you away? Is a misdemeanor actually considered a civil offense and thus you argue using SMJ (since you will probably be in criminal court)?

Thanks brah -

[clarkee]

Originally Posted by Codee

Because everthing you just said is wrong. It is all evidense of law and law.

When you know who YOU are and not what YOU think YOU are, then we'll talk. Argue with this know-it-all.
www.6towns.com/driving/brief. Now I already know that you know more than this so I'm prepared for any response you'll bring. You seem to like case law, well, here it is. Now, go sit in the corner and think how you won't to respond to this. LOL

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by clarkee

When you know who YOU are and not what YOU think YOU are, then we'll talk. Argue with this know-it-all.
www.6towns.com/driving/brief. Now I already know that you know more than this so I'm prepared for any response you'll bring. You seem to like case law, well, here it is. Now, go sit in the corner and think how you won't to respond to this. LOL

It's kinda hard to argue with a DEAD LINK.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by clarkee

When you know who YOU are and not what YOU think YOU are, then we'll talk. Argue with this know-it-all.
www.6towns.com/driving/brief. Now I already know that you know more than this so I'm prepared for any response you'll bring. You seem to like case law, well, here it is. Now, go sit in the corner and think how you won't to respond to this. LOL

I just never get enough of people that think that words have the same meaning in every state. They do not.

Is this kow-it-all in Califiornia? Probably not. Would it matter? no.

Every law set and codes has its own application and definitions. For one to say "person" means this always... has a MOST limited knowledge in law.

I know who I am. I am Cody.

I do not need to validate myself by arguing with some know-it-all. I can back up every one of my theories with ACTUALL law. (And yes by "actuall law" I mean statutes and codes.)

I seem to "like" case law? yuo have no idea howmuch I despise its use by folks just like you.

I use case law only when needed, such as a ruling overturning a code or statute. You are the dumb ass whos theories are not grounded in any law at all. Clarkee, you are stupid.

And you link is broke.

[clarkee]

Originally Posted by Codee

I just never get enough of people that think that words have the same meaning in every state. They do not.

Is this kow-it-all in Califiornia? Probably not. Would it matter? no.

Every law set and codes has its own application and definitions. For one to say "person" means this always... has a MOST limited knowledge in law.

I know who I am. I am Cody.

I do not need to validate myself by arguing with some know-it-all. I can back up every one of my theories with ACTUALL law. (And yes by "actuall law" I mean statutes and codes.)

I seem to "like" case law? yuo have no idea howmuch I despise its use by folks just like you.

I use case law only when needed, such as a ruling overturning a code or statute. You are the dumb ass whos theories are not grounded in any law at all. Clarkee, you are stupid.

And you link is broke.

Link works fine for me if you know how to operate a computer. Takes you to 6town.com, once there click on driving briefs

[Codee]

Well I just checked out the rest of that site...

CRAP!

It is the same old **** that has been around for ever. Lets see Clarkee there are only about 4000 sites with all the same citations in law and none of those sites has yet to be effective.

Please lets debate this. You come with all the ****ty case law I saw on that site and will tear it to shreads. The entire site is filled with the most ineffective arguments I have read,,, and I read them everywhere. you will not win with them.

[clarkee]

Codee, I stand to be corrected. You are right on your definitions of law. POSITIVE LAW- typically consists of enacted law - the codes, statutes, and regulations that are applied to and enforced in the courts. (Black's Law Dictionary 8th Ed. pg. 1200.) I was reading CTC by Peter Eric Hendrickson and he states: The vast majority of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is not the law itself, but is only evidence - a representation - of the actual statutes in force, and like in the game of post-office, the real language has been a bit garbled in transmission.

[clarkee]

Originally Posted by Codee

Well I just checked out the rest of that site...

CRAP!

It is the same old **** that has been around for ever. Lets see Clarkee there are only about 4000 sites with all the same citations in law and none of those sites has yet to be effective.

Please lets debate this. You come with all the ****ty case law I saw on that site and will tear it to shreads. The entire site is filled with the most ineffective arguments I have read,,, and I read them everywhere. you will not win with them.

Can you prove it? How have these people won then?