Cites - Registration

[suijuris]

Registration. "This is not a privilege, as of carrying on a business of occupation, but a privilege of exercising a right not a natural right, the right of registration." State ex rel. Hauk v. American Trust Co., 141 Tenn. 243, 208 S.W. 611, 613 (1919). Foster & Creighton Co. v. Graham, 285 S.W. 570 (Tenn.), 47 A.L.R. 971, 976.





Privilege (Lat. Privilegium, from private lex, private law), a special ordinance or regulation, in virtue of which an individual or a class enjoys certain immunities or rights from or beyond the common provisions of the general law of the community. Chambers Encyclopedia, Vol. VI (1893).



Lex, legi, f. [c.f. lego]. 1. Lit. a. a contract, agreement, stipulation, condition: Pl., Ter.: dicere. Hor., Liv.: in mancipi lego, Cic. Of conditions of peace: pacis, Verg,: leges iungere, Verg.: pax data Philippo in leges est, Liv. Latin-English. Thus a tax on the use of carriages [vehicles] was imposed in some of the colonies even prior to the Revolution, and a similar tax imposed by the United States in 1794 was sustained after much discussion as a valid excise. Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 1 U.S. (L.ed) 556. [***] The license tax on automobiles, from which almost every state derives a substantial revenue, are a modern example of the same sort of [excise] tax. In re Schuler, 167 Cal. 282, 139 Pac. 685, Ann. Cas. 1915C 706, and note; Kane v. State, 81 N.J.L. 594, 80 Atl. 453, Ann. Cas. 1912D 237, L.R.A. 1917B 553. 26 R.C.L. (Ruling Case Law), 236.



Motor Vehicles. 168.011. Definitions . Subd. 2. "Application for registration" shall have the same meaning as "listing for taxation," and when a motor vehicle is registered it is also listed. Minnesota Statutes Annotated (1986).





Traffic ticket. "A traffic 'ticket' [is] an informal complaint charging a crime." People v. Flynn, 375 Ill. 366, 31 N.E. 2d 591 (1941). The Sufficiency of Traffic Tickets as Criminal Complaints



Speeding is a crime unknown at common law. (*"The court stated that such an act [i.e. speeding] was not a crime at common law, but has become such by statutory enactment and therefore, should so be charged.") * The Sufficiency of Traffic Tickets as Criminal Complaints, 8 De Paul Law Review 405, 406, 407 (1959).



"An information must charge a crime. In the case before us [i.e., speeding] the offense is purely statutory. At common law such an act [i.e., speeding] was not a criminal offense. A crime must be charged in the name of the statute." People v. Perlman (1957) 145 N.E.2d 763, 767, 15 Ill.App.2d 239.



Personal right of passage. "Excepting the personal right of passage, any use of the highway is a special and extraordinary use which, when allowed, is a privilege---not a vested right---and subject to regulation as such. Thus the transportation of persons as passengers or of their goods as freight is an extraordinary use and is therefore subject to such regulations as may be called for by the public safety and convenience and the protection of the highways from damage." @1 Tex Jur 2d (1956). Highways, 235, p. 765.



Certificate of Title. "A title for a motor vehicle is a security under 18 U.S.C. 2314 and 2315. A motor vehicle is also a security under the new counterfeiting provision in 18 U.S.C. 513 as a motor vehicle title is an instrument issued by a state evidencing ownership of goods, wares or merchandise. (see 18 U.S.C. 513 (c) (3) ( B ))." United States Attorneys Manual, p. 5, 9-61.144, Vol. 2, July 1, 1992.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by suijuris

When a statute, code, or court holding changes tomorrow, does reality change?

Yep

Originally Posted by suijuris

Does truth change? Does right and wrong change?

again, yes. As in the manual (1984, Orwell). Sometimes, 2+2 does not equal 4. It is 5, or 3, or whatever BB tells you it is.

Originally Posted by suijuris

If so, there are no absolutes, and the only logical conclusion is that reality, truth, and right and wrong are determined arbitrarily on a daily basis by those with the most power, guns, and money, and the rest of us can choose to run, fight, or be their slaves.

Absolutely, in political science this is called Barbarism (might makes right). It is a very old form of government. Time tested and preferred by tyrants throughout history.

I am increasingly discouraged the more I look for ways to fight this tyrany. It's kind of tough to get these thugs to play by any rules since they can just change/ignore/make up new rules as they go along.

It's like when you're a kid playing baseball. The kid that is twice your size holding the bat sais how many strikes he gets and makes the call of fair or foul. I'd like to find a new playground and more mature people to play ball with

[weishaupt1776]

All you can do is be a wrench in the machine

They can't steal in slow motion

Remember that it is a very well oiled machine

And what keeps it greased?

There's just too much oil goin' in to it

Too bad there's so many people wasting precious oil on a machine that has been proven not to really work that well

[dadmoonbunny]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

All you can do is be a wrench in the machine

They can't steal in slow motion

Remember that it is a very well oiled machine

And what keeps it greased?

There's just too much oil goin' in to it

Too bad there's so many people wasting precious oil on a machine that has been proven not to really work that well

by your idea that the machine does not work well, of the inventions of Rube Goldberg. So, just to help lighten things up a bit around here, I suggest that any and all do a search on the term Rube Goldberg. Have a great day.

Sic Gorgiamus Alus Subjuctatos Nunc

[weishaupt1776]

Here's the dodging Bill Colectors
http://www.rubegoldberg.com/html/dod...lcollector.htm

Hey guys:
I love reading the threads on this site as well as seeing the truth starting to surface. After reviewing manny threads I realize that the people are aware of the law facts, but unfortunately knowing the law is useless when
we don't understand procedure.

It took a couple of years for me to realize that in the case of the VEHICLE CODE statutes, travelling without a license, and cruising in a car which has not plates were not issues related to the code itself.

About a year ago I found an old edition of the code which was not clipped by the bureaucrat yet, it was in the california vehicle code.

It said something like "absent the definition of a term in Federal law the definitions on this code apply". So I found the definition In United States Code, Title 18, Section 31(a)(6) it states: "The term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo".

Section 31(a)(10) states: "The term 'used for commercial purpose' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit".

These two above federal definitions negate and void all definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE as found in the California Motor Vehicle Code; for it states in Section 15210(i)(7): "IN THE ABSENCE OF A FEDERAL DEFINITION, existing definitions under this code shall apply

The bureaucrat in reality is not the problem mandatory registration applies only to MOTOR VEHICLES and NOT CARS. That goes to say if you go to the DMV and register your car you are admiting to their bull**** and accepting the fact that you do have a MOTOR VEHICLE after all they are the "DEPARTMENT of MOTOR VEHICLES". The same goes to Appliying for a drivers license, if you have one and you show it you are admitting to be a DRIVER as well as a statutory slave.

The only problem we have is not the fight against the court, the banker is the one pressuring the bureaucrat to enforce this bull**** on us because after all he is the one that loaned you the money. In the other hand if you buy a used car and paid cash for it (Now you own this car)

So what do we do now?
I think the first thing to do is getting rid of the state partnership proof
(license plates, any old DMV documents that may be in the car or any indicia of parking permits on a sticker form) It will be best if you destroy them, after all you paid for all of the car including these other items and the plates must be surrendered to DMV but surrendering them to DMV could be incriminating so I would cut them up and throw the away.

Next step is to pay the yearly tax on the car (not registration or stickers).
They will tell you that paying this will not authorize you to DRIVE a MOTOR VEHICLE (They are not lying after all they are DMV but unfortunately that does not prohibit you from cruising in your un-plated car) Once you get it stick the receipt on the rear and a copy in the front window, to show the cop that the tax is paid.

Next, don't register your car, there is nowhere were you can do that, DMV is
the department of "MOTOR VEHICLES" not "CARS"

Now that you own your car and you are not controlled by DMV by not getting a license since you are not a DRIVER, the cops can't really charge you with nothing. Any violation of the VEHICLE CODE does not apply to you, now the court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction on the case. You can suit the police officer personaly for unlawfull arrest if he tickets you or arrests you, if he disregarded your rights it became a personal issue after he exeeded his authority.

Next is a procedure that a patriot has put on his site. Unfortunately he is dead now, so his site still stands there with his words of knowledge. I'm not in the habit of taking text from privately own sites and pasting them somewhere else without permission, but since he passed away there is no one to ask and also I'm affraid this info will be soon lost. Another issue is that it seems to me that when an address is posted as a link and the info is very good somehow the site dissapears in thin air a time after.

So here it goes

The RIGHT TO TRAVEL, as taken from Volume 13 of California Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition, states in Section 238: "Although not explicitly mentioned in the federal Constitution the right to travel freely from one state to another is a basic right under the Constitution. The nature of the federal union and of constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations that... burden or restrict this movement. The right to travel freely... is secured against interference from any source whatever, whether governmental or private... And the constitutional right to travel between states implies a correlative constitutional right to travel within a state."

In California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, we find the expressed right to liberty and privacy: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy."

Almost all law-enforcers try to ignore and deny that citizens have these 'un-take-away-able rights', for they are afraid that citizens will use appropriate force to protect their rights. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

Don't drive! - The word drive means 'to push', as to drive a nail, a golf ball, to drive people crazy or to drive cattle. The word drive took on a commercial meaning because the stagecoach 'driver' pushed the horses that pulled the stage, that transported the passengers, who paid a fee.

In United States Code, Title 18, Section 31(a)(6) it states: "The term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo".

Section 31(a)(10) states: "The term 'used for commercial purpose' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit".

These two above federal definitions negate and void all definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE as found in the California Motor Vehicle Code; for it states in Section 15210(i)(7): "IN THE ABSENCE OF A FEDERAL DEFINITION, existing definitions under this code shall apply."

The 39 white dudes who signed the U. S. Constitution never intended for their posterity to become regulated administrative servants, except if they got into commerce. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, grants to Congress and the States the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several (individual) states. They were never given the right to regulate the common law right to travel and the federal definition of a motor vehicle supersedes any definitions by the states. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is defined in its Code (Section 1500) as being within the Business, Transportation and Housing (rented motor homes) Agency.

The pictured Non-commercial International Travel Permit is a common law indicia or (indicator) for which there can be no criminal 'cause of action'; for it is beyond the 'subject matter' jurisdiction or the 'personal jurisdiction' over a natural individual; and is way beyond any state or federal jurisdiction.

In the criminal case of Bell v. Ed Jagels, (Kern County Case # BF 103938) Judge Roger D. Randall ruled that the 'COMMONLAW TRAVEL PERMITs, that were made by Bell, were completely legal and dismissed those charges. This dismissal was also expressed in the Opinion of the Fifth Appellate Court (F045437). Elements of the case, concerning religion, freedom of speech and press, are now petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of California.

The Commonlaw Travel Permit was based on the California First Appellate Court ruling in 'People v. Monroe' (1993), cited at 12 Cal App 4th 1172 which stated: "We conclude that the proper interpretation of the phrase 'satisfactory evidence of identity' requires an officer to accept as presumptively satisfactory any reliable documentary evidence of identity which bears the minimum amount of data required by Vehicle Code licensing and citation statutes. The form of identification must bear a photograph and description of the person, their signature and a current mailing address, and must be serially or otherwise numbered. Such documentary evidence is the functional equivalent of a drivers's license, because it is of equivalent reliability, and because it bears the information necessary for the citation process. When presented with such proof, an officer must accept it as 'satisfactory'."

to see a picture of the permit which you can save and PHOTOSHOP yourself go to www.backlashlaw.com click on "don't drive, travel!" and scroll down

When you prepare your travel permit, do so based on the above ruling. The 'given name', you think is yours is really your parents and according to California Code of Civil Procedure in Section 1279.5 you have the common law right to change your name any time you want to. What you think is your birthday, is really your delivery day; for you were born, and became a natural person, at conception, or 9 months before the delivery (Rowe v. Wade). You can use DOD instead of DOB.

Lucifer can not find you in his computers unless you give him, (1) your statutory, or given, Name, (2) your statutory Date of Birth, DOB, (3) Social Security number (which is optional and not to be used for identification), (4) your state driver's license or ID card number.

Concerning DMV Regulations, Section 12951(a); The only time you have to have a driver's license in your passession is when driving a MOTOR VEHICLE upon a highway. and in Subsection (b) it states: "The DRIVER of a MOTOR VEHICLE shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing this code." Showing your license to strangers, could cause identity theft.

I have made many travel permits for commercial truckers who use them while traveling outside of commerce. The first thing an officer will ask when he arrests (stops) you is "let me see your driver's license." If you give him one, he knows he 'owns' you and that you have voluntarily submitted to the DMV (Demonically Motivated Villains) and its administrative regulations.

One of my clients, using a travel permit, was stopped 5 times by C.H.P., Sheriff and city officers. When they tried to punch him up in their computers, he was a 'no show' so they just told him to leave, knowing they could be sued for false arrest. While at the Narly Nipple - Blossom gold mine in Nevada, I had a run-in with B. L. M. and was arrested. I used my travel permit with a common law name on it. They called most of the federal agencies, trying to find out who I was. I was taken to Las Vegas, finger-printed and booked as a John Doe. The next day, after a time limit, I was released on O. R. and gone. After they got the results of the finger-prints back, they realized they had lost a notorious felon with state and federal warrants for his arrest. The next week the F.B.I. was making raids, trying to find me, but I was back in California with a new name and travel permit. They really do work, if you understand your rights.

The primary reason nobody has to have a driver's license is found on the application form itself, in the Advisory Statement, it informs you that: "this information is public record and is regularly used by law enforcement agencies and insurance companies... and will be available to various authorized requesters (government agents)." If you refuse to give up your right to privacy, there is no way you can obtain a DMV document and that makes the obtaining of a license or ID card voluntary. The older application forms had required (asked) you to have insurance, or proof of responsibility, and a Social Security Number, which is issued under the federal Health and Welfare Code, Title 42. The Certifications on the application form now includes only your agreement to take a blood, breath, or urine test for drugs or alcohol.

You should know that there was no DMV until 1937 and the Driver's License did not exist until the 1964 'change over'. Before 1964 they had the black and white Operator's License with only a thumb print on it. In the "good old days" noncommercial citizens just traveled.

Commercial entities are required to be insured or to bond their motor vehicles. As a Jesusian I can not have any insurance at all; so I created my own bonding company and made the below card.


Defend Yourself and Win Your Case

1. Do not allow an attorney to represent you or take your place. He is a member of the BAR and advocates the overthrow of the Constitution and will not inject your rights nor properly defend you. He is a kissassian owned and controlled by the judge. His job is to get you to plead guilty and take a 'deal' to eliminate court expenses and the cost of a trial. Their objective is to extort money from you to support their scam.

2. Demand that the judge gives you a copy of the Complaint, so you can research the charges. Be sure it is signed by the victim of the crime and not some Assistant D.A. This victim will be your main witness at the trial. PC 988: Cal Con. A1,S15. If you are charged with an infraction the judge will lie to you and say you don't get a Complaint and you must enter a plead based on the Notice to Appear (PC 853.9). However, PC Section 740 clearly states: "all misdemeanors and INFRACTIONS must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant".

3. After you get the Complaint, Demur to the charges under PC 1002 and 1004. Judges and Bargoons will never tell you about this right and it must be done before you enter a plea and a hearing date will be set and the charges may be dropped at this time..

4. In the demur use Sec.1004(5) The offense is justified by the use of Constitutional Rights and the courts lack of jurisdiction over the person. If you are charged with government administrative code violations, such as Health & Safety and the DMV Codes, jurisdiction only applies to those who are currently licensed or perform a function for the state, under the federal commerce clause. Please check out the pretrial motions at the end of "The Bush drug Cartel".

5. If your Demur is not granted, enter a plea of NOT GUILTY and demand a trial by jury. In DMV cases the judge will lie to you and not allow it. You can now file a federal civil action against the judge for the violation of U. S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Which states: "The trial of all crimes... shall be by jury". PC Section 16 also lists Infractions as being crimes and thus affords a trial by jury. If you are denied a jury trial, the judge is admitting that there is no crime, so file or lodge in court a Motion to Dismiss the charges.

6. You may waive time for your trial and if any of your Federal Constitutional Rights have been violated, you may file a collateral Civil action in Federal Court for tort damages. This civil action will be against the police officer, judge and D.A. and his prosecuting attorney. They have no immunity when they violates constitutional rights, USC Title 28, Section 1331 and they are bound to support the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 3.

7. Use the idiot defense, under P.C. Sec. 26: "All persons are capable of committing crimes EXCEPT: 1. children, 2. Idiots, 3. if it was done through ignorance or mistake...". If you; went to public school or registered for the draft or to vote, are politically active or are a 'flag wagger' or filed a tax return, or hate Jesus, you may be an idiot and are qualified to use this defense in court.

[weishaupt1776]

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE REGISTRATION OF AUTOMOBILES MUST BE UPHELD.

The original intent of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1905 allowed the registration of automobiles so that in case of an accident the identity of the citizen involved could be ascertained. In the current applications of the Vehicle Code, there are many other secret attachments to the registering of an automobile and the factor of "procedural unconscionability" is rampant see Shaffer v. Superior Ct. 39 Cal.Rptr2. 506:

1] The registration is used a proof that the applicant is a "resident" of the State of California and a second class citizen of California who hold primary allegiance to Washington, District of Criminals. And as the court is well aware that "resident" means alien to the state such as a U.S. citizen (actually in law a citizen of the District of Columbia).

2] The applicant for registration then gives the state power of attorney over the said item and agrees to hold the State harmless for any type of incident.

3] The applicant for registration also admits by implication that they are involved in a commercial activity, i.e. Interstate Commerce Clause and the so-called 14th Amendment.

4] The applicant for registration then admits that they are under contract for benefits as a ward of the government by having a social security number.

5] The applicant for registration then admits that they are citizens of the Federal government, and eligible to vote under the purview of the 15th Amendment as a voter on the federal voters register, via the Motor Voter Registration Act.

6] The applicant for registration then admits that the item on the request for registration is a vehicle of the type required to be registered as a commercial vehicle.
All these came about as a process of identification, regulation and control under the police powers, for purposes of taxation, adding to the original intent. The Legislature has no authority to modify the original intent by subterfuge.

"The requirements for registration were enacted in the interest of public welfare, and one of the purposes for the legislation is to afford identification of vehicles and persons responsible in cases of accident and injury."
Dorsey v Barba, 38 Cal.2d 350, 354; 240 P.2d 604 (Judicial Notice is requested)
It is not difficult to see that registration and numbering of automobiles is intimately connected with their safe operation in the streets. In a state like California many automobiles are precisely alike in external appearance. They are sometimes operated by persons whose faces are partially concealed and whose identity is uncertain. Those operators who are most reckless and indifferent - and those are the ones who endanger the safety of others - may violate this ordinance with impunity unless some method is adopted by which they or their automobile may be identified, and a identification process must be maintained. The state must establish two sets of registration (one) for the citizens who are not "residents" and hold primary allegiance to California as California Citizens; (two) for the U.S. citizens who are "resident" in the State of California under the Interstate Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment, and thus, subject to all federal and State laws.

The terms recording, registration, and filing are used interchangeably, the purpose and effect of each being to give notice and prevent fraud and deception.

Register means to record formally and exactly; to enroll; too enter precisely in a list or the like. Los Angeles County v Craig, 100 P.2d 818, 820, 38 Cal.App.2d 58 (Judicial Notice is requested) If the provision for registration and numbering - which involved no discrimination, and requires the payment of nothing more than is necessary to pay for the number which the municipality furnishes - can be regarded as a license, it is not a license for the purpose of raising revenue. If it were, it might well be contended that it did not pass an incident to the power to regulate. It is a license as a mere means of regulation.

II

THE REGISTRATION TAX IS IMPOSED UNDER REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE 10751 AS AN EXCISE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE ROADS.

It is plain that the levy is an excise for the privilege of using the highways. It is denominated a privilege tax. The commercial carrier cannot use the highways unless it is paid.
It is well settled that an excise tax is often used as synonymous with privilege or license tax, and privilege tax is an excise tax and is authorized as a license tax.

"We are of the opinion that if a tax in its nature is a privilege tax, it does not become a property tax simply because it is proportioned in amount to the value of the property used in connection with the privilege which is taxed." Ingels v Riley, 5 Cal.2d 154, 160 (Judicial Notice is requested)
An excise tax is one laid on licenses to pursue certain occupations, corporate privileges, or sales or consumption and use of certain of commodities, and an excise tax partakes of the nature of a license tax. In this case Revenue and Taxation Code §10751 (Judicial Notice is requested) is an excise tax for the use of the highways for any type of business or commercial activity.

A license fee or as it is otherwise called 'license tax" is the sum exacted for the privilege of carrying on a particular occupation or business. State ex rel. Arn v Consumers Co-op Ass'n, 183 P.2d 423, 449; 163 Kan. 324. (Judicial Notice is requested)

The fundamental idea of a highway is not only that it is public, but that it is public for free and unmolested passage thereon by all persons desiring to use it. The use of the highways is not a privilege, but a right. But this right does not extend to those who are under the Interstate Commerce Clause or using the highways for profit or gain.

" . .. If renting or leasing is what makes the vehicle a commercial vehicle, there is no need to use the word 'commercial'. It would be sufficient to use the word 'vehicle' or 'automobile used for transporting persons'.". . We conclude that the lower court's construction of Vehicle Code section 260 more reasonably conforms to the legislative intent and that the term "for hire" modifies the term "transportation," so that a commercial vehicle is one in which persons or property are transported for hire. Thus, "commercial vehicles" are of two types: (1) those put to the use of transporting persons for hire, and (2) those designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. In other words, vehicles used for the traditional purposes of public livery or conveyance, such as buses, taxicabs or other vehicles functioning as common carriers or otherwise, operate for profit."

Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 223, 228.(emp. added) (Judicial Notice is requested)
The preceding judicial clarification of CMVC § 260a establishes that the type of USE, not the type of vehicle determines whether the vehicle is required to be registered and it's driver licensed.

III

THE POLICE POWER CANNOT BE USED TO RAISE REVENUE

The police power cannot be used to raise revenue unless it be incident in the accomplishment of a proper end of promoting order, safety, health, morals or general welfare, to which end the fees have a reasonable relation. The object must always be regulation.


The police power cannot be exercised for purposes of exacting revenue. If the purpose of a license is regulation only, it is beyond the authority of the Legislature or a city government to impose it for the purpose of revenue. Viquesney v Kansas City (Mo. - 1924) 266 S.W. 700, 702 (Judicial Notice is requested)
The Judicial Branch acting in concert with the Executive Branch, utilizing Judicial powers to raise revenue violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine, as the court is merely an Executive Administrative agency operating under color of law to raise revenue.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

[b]
The state must establish two sets of registration (one) for the citizens who are not "residents" and hold primary allegiance to California as California Citizens; (two) for the U.S. citizens who are "resident" in the State of California under the Interstate Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment, and thus, subject to all federal and State laws.[/font]

Nice article. though,
The authors most always seemed to leave out or mention the most important ones of us IMO that are WE the people that are not of the other two mentioned above.

What was the venue or aplication for this article?

Cheers,
Craig.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Gmail

The Commonlaw Travel Permit was based on the California First Appellate Court ruling in 'People v. Monroe' (1993), cited at 12 Cal App 4th 1172 which stated: "We conclude that the proper interpretation of the phrase 'satisfactory evidence of identity' requires an officer to accept as presumptively satisfactory any reliable documentary evidence of identity which bears the minimum amount of data required by Vehicle Code licensing and citation statutes. The form of identification must bear a photograph and description of the person, their signature and a current mailing address, and must be serially or otherwise numbered. Such documentary evidence is the functional equivalent of a drivers's license, because it is of equivalent reliability, and because it bears the information necessary for the citation process. When presented with such proof, an officer must accept it as 'satisfactory'."

This is not entirely accurate. In the Monrow case Monroe was cited for an open container in a vehicle. He was not driving. The officer was not going to arrest Monroe for driving without a license but for an open container. The cop then asked Monroe for ID so that Monroe would not have to be booked. Had Monroe been driving the officer would have asked him for a license and if Monroe did not have it he would have been cited for not having a license while driving. All the credible ID does is allow you to use a ticket in liue of a booking. Although the rest of this article goes on to explain that it really is not the permit that works as a driver's license but instead that your ID works to get you out of a tough spot. In california you do not even need the dumb permit for this because you can just use your thumbprint on the ticket for driving without a license. Or you can give a noterized home-made permit so that the officer can cite you for driving without a license and send the process to what ever your ID says. I preffer the thumbprint because it has a built in statutory method for objecting to being the person cited.
All in all this entire case was taken grossly out of context.

Originally Posted by Gmail

2. Demand that the judge gives you a copy of the Complaint, so you can research the charges. Be sure it is signed by the victim of the crime and not some Assistant D.A. This victim will be your main witness at the trial. PC 988: Cal Con. A1,S15. If you are charged with an infraction the judge will lie to you and say you don't get a Complaint and you must enter a plead based on the Notice to Appear (PC 853.9). However, PC Section 740 clearly states: "all misdemeanors and INFRACTIONS must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant".

This is also wrong. The judge willnot tell you this in California. He will tell you that a ticket is a complaint that you can plead "guilty" to. If you do not plead "guilty" then the court loses jurisdiction until a formal complaint can be made. This has rich case law to support it so I wonder why this was not mentioned more clearly.

Where defendant charged in a police court with violation of § 505(b) pleaded not guilty and did not waive the filing of a complaint, such filing was mandatory.
Ralph v Police Court of El Cerrito (1948) 84 Cal App.2d 257, 190 P2d 632.

Jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Los Angeles to try a defendant for a traffic: violation and enter judgment depends upon the existence of a formal complaint.
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 4 10.

On a plea other than guilty to traffic violations and in the absence of a waiver, a complaint must be filed before the court has jurisdiction.
Rupley v Johnson (1953) 120 Cal App 2d 548, 261 P2d 318.

Furhter the quote below quote is at best mis-leading

Originally Posted by Gmail

However, PC Section 740 clearly states: "all misdemeanors and INFRACTIONS must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant".

Here is the full text of PC 740 with the ultra important opening words NOT ommitted. I have put these words in bold.

PC 740. "Except as otherwise provided by law, all misdemeanors and
infractions must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath
subscribed by the complainant. Such complaint may be verified on
information and belief."

This means that the DA only has to subscribe under oath that he has information or belief. Like hearsay. You might counter this at a Probable cause hearing but only if you use complete codes and not disected ones so that they fit your model.