Vehicle Code Remedy

[Ownmaster]

STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!!!


DISCUSSIONS ON THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENTS OF DEFINITIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE AND HOW THOSE DEFINITIONS DIRECTLY AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF SAID CODE

AN ESSAY BY Xxxx Xxxxx, Of Xxxxxxx Xxxxx@xxxx.com
Edited by Gabriel Tuft http://www.myspace.com/gabetuft

This essay is based on research by one Thomas Thornhill III. This is how I see the California Vehicle Code and its applicability to the people of the state. So while the construction of the essay is mine, a BIG “thank you” is directed to Mr. Thornhill for compiling the raw research and presenting it in a clean and accurate format. Although I disagree with some of Mr, Thornhill’s construction, his format was so clean, it DEMANDED respect. This is my view on the same raw material, meant only as entertainment. To gain a thorough understanding of the intent of this essay, you must read Thomas’s work. This is not a presentation of his work, and his views are different from those included in this essay.

ANALYSIS OF TERMS INCLUDED IN THE VEHICLE CODE AND THEIR COMMERCIAL CONNOTATION

First we explore the vehicle code from the beginning and examine its growth and its changes. We will see that the vehicle code quickly adopted some law stating “A person driving a motor vehicle must have some license.” At some periods in the vehicle code the term “person” was denoted as a corporate entity. Thus, in those codes the term “person” carried the banner of commercial applicability while the term “motor vehicle” carried no such meaning in its definition.

Later we see the term “person” to include “natural person” (Author’s opinion is that Natural Person includes a live flesh and blood man or woman or child). However at the same time the term “motor vehicle” was changed to include a commercial connotation.

The trick is to realize that they always attach the commerce onto some noun doing some activity. So they attach the commerce to either the person or the object (motor vehicle). Then they say that those objects are commercial in nature. But it is important to realize that home of the commercial connotation changes, and one cannot just say “Hey I am not a person”, always. One can only do that when person means “corporations.”

Right now we are in spot where commerce is housed in “motor vehicle.” It is the intent of this essay to point out the changes in the use of the terms “A” and “All” / “Any” and then to analyze the difference between those terms.

Below we will see the first vehicle code act. The tax is a sales tax and not an annual tax. An annual tax stinks of usury rights being paid for on my own car. So the tax is in my mind, a lawful one. It is a two dollar filing fee. The only people required to obtain a license were “chauffeurs.” We will see that “Motor Vehicle” in this act includes “All vehicles propelled by non-human-musculature systems.” So since...

[Ownmaster]

...person and “Motor Vehicle” are going to apply to me the average non-commercial man, I expect the laws to be just. And they are. Not all “persons” are required yet to obtain licenses to drive their vehicles. Only chauffeurs must. Also when reading the supporting documentation following, one should pay close attention to the use of the words “all” and “a”.


The motor vehicle act of 1905.
(Stats. 1905, Ch. DCXII, p. 816, Approved March 22, 1905.)

An act to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on public highways, and making an appropriation for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this act.

(“Stats.” Is short for statutes.)

Motor Vehicle Act (1905),[/quote]

Section 1(1). "motor vehicle" shall include all vehicles propelled by any power other than muscular power, provided that nothing herein contained shall, except the provisions of subdivisions three, four and five of section three and subdivision one of section four of this act, apply to motor cycles, motor bicycles, traction engines or road rollers;


motor vehicle act (1905),

Section 1(5). "chauffeur" shall mean any person operating a motor vehicle as mechanic, employe [sic] or for hire.



motor vehicle act (1905),

Section 2, Subdivision 1. Every person hereafter acquiring a motor vehicle shall, for every vehicle owned by him, file in the office of the secretary of state a statement of his name and address, with a brief description of the vehicle to be registered including the name of the maker, factory number, style of vehicle and motor power on a blank to be prepared and furnished by such secretary of state for that purpose; the filing fee shall be two dollars.


So above we see that the law only taxes the purchase of the vehicle or rather taxes only at the acquisition of the vehicle. To me this all seems like legitimate state taxation and business to me. There is no surrendering of titles and such. This type of tax is “AD VALOREM”


http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a155.htm

AD VALOREM - Lat. According to the value. This term is used in commerce in reference to certain duties, called ad valorem duties, which are levied on commodities at certain rates per centum on their value.
[b]

http://www.answers.com/topic/license-tax?cat=biz-fin
License Tax - The fee or tax charged by a government to issue the license required for engaging in some regulated activity such as the sale of liquor or the practice of a profession.

[Ownmaster]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/license+tax

license tax - a fee paid to the government for the privilege of being licensed to do something (as selling liquor or practicing medicine)


Let’s keep going and see how these terms morph their sphere of definitions. We will see how the “For hire” in “chauffeur” will get swung into “motor vehicle” and the before that the term “person.” As long as commercial connotation is connected to a term in the statute requiring licensing however, then that statute does not apply to me.

Now I want to introduce the term “use” and “enjoyment” to this essay. For now I will attest that “use” is appropriate for the work one gains from “another’s” property. However when one puts to his benefit his own “property” it called enjoyment. The difference between the dangers of using another’s property and enjoying ones own has been discussed in case law. It is said that people are more careless when with someone else’s property and that people with their own property are more cautious. This is important and I will provide that case law later in this essay. For now pay attention to the underlined “use” in the first part in the above quote from the 1905 act. You will not find it in there. Just “operate” which is not defined in the code.

We now take a look at the vehicle code of 1913. We will look for the commercial connotation and we will note the placement of “All” and “A”, while also looking out for “Use.” Below we will see the inclusion of the word “use” added in there and place right next to operate. The term “Motor vehicle” in the 1905 has become “vehicle.” This act applies to “persons” and not just “chauffeurs.” So we need to look for the commercial connotation and I say the new target of ”person” is a great place to look.


The Motor Vehicle Act of 1913.
(Stats. 1913, Ch. 326, p. 639, Approved May 31, 1913.)

An act to regulate the use and operation of vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; to provide for the registration and identification of motor vehicles and for the payment of registration fees therefor; to provide for the licensing of persons operating motor vehicles; to prohibit certain persons from operating vehicles upon the public highways; to prohibit the possession or use of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof, and to prohibit the offer to or acceptance by certain persons of any bonus or discount or other consideration for the purchase of supplies or parts for motor vehicles, or for work or repair done thereon; to provide penalties for violations of provisions of this act, and to provide for the disposition of fines and forfeitures imposed thereon; to provide for the disposition of registration and license fees, fines and forfeitures collected hereunder; to provide for carrying out the objects of this act and to make an appropriation and to create a revolving fund therefor; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts either in conformity or in conflict with this act.


The motor vehicle act, as amended (1913):

Section 1(2). "automobile" shall include all motor vehicles excepting motorcycles;

...

[Ownmaster]

The motor vehicle act, as amended (1913):

Section 1(1). "motor vehicle" shall include all vehicles propelled otherwise than by muscular power, except such vehicles as run upon rails or tracks;

Above we see that “automobile” includes “all vehicles propelled otherwise than by muscular power.” At this point it does not look like the commercial connotation will be found in the noun, “vehicle” rather than the noun “person”. So now we will look to the law that requires registration and see if the word for whoever is driving the car carries the commercial connotation


The motor vehicle act, as amended (1913), Section 1(17):

"person" shall include any corporation, association, copartnership, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals which owns or controls any motor vehicle as owner, or for the purpose of sale, or for renting as agent, salesman or otherwise.

So here we see that person includes only a group “ownership.” Why is this important? Remember “use.” If it is not “yours” then you are “using” it. This concept is important. Not the actual word “use.” Look at the modern civil code and what it has to say. Now granted the legislature has placed the term “use” in here, but it is sloppy to do so in my opinion.

California Civil Code (As of 2007)

679. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has
the absolute dominion over it, and may use it or dispose of it
according to his pleasure, subject only to general laws.

For now though it is important to see that the term “person” is only meant to include “groups” of people. We see that “person” has the commercial connotation and that is where our remedy will be found in this code. We know that the term “include” means “only” and is meant to “exclude” when the term is used naked. If there is a term such as “also” then the placement of “include” does not mean to “exclude” all else. Here is the evidence that the legislature knows when to use and when not to use the term “also.” Above you will see that the term “also” does not appear next to “include” in the definition of person. However…


The motor vehicle act, as amended (1913), Section 1(11):

"owner" shall also include any person, firm, association, or corporation renting a motor vehicle or having exclusive use thereof under a lease or otherwise;


And here some case law about “including” only meant to apply to the call enumerated and to “exclude” all others. The interesting thing however is that both “person” and “owner” are found in each other’s definitions. How is that? It makes no real sense if you are trying to figure out if you are either of the two.

(50 Am.Jur., (1944) Statutes, sec. 249, pp. 244, 246.)
Market Basket v. Jacobsen (1955), 134 Cal.App.2d 73, 82.]
Citing [50 Am.Jur., (1944) Statutes, sec. 249, pp.244, 246.)

...the rule of ejusdem generis which has been defined as follows:

...where, in a statute, general words follow a designation of particular subjects or classes of persons, the meaning of the general words will ordinarily be presumed to be, and construed as restricted by the particular designation and as including only things or...

[Ownmaster]

...persons of the same kind, class, character or nature as those specifically enumerated. The general words are deemed to have been used not to the wide extent which they might bear if standing alone, but as related to words of more definite and particular meaning with which they are associated.

We are now ready to look at the placement of the word person in the 1913 code.

The motor vehicle act, as amended (1913):

Section 1(8). "chauffeur" shall mean any person who operates a motor vehicle, and who directly or indirectly receives pay or any compensation whatsoever for such operation, or for any work or service in connection with motor vehicles, excepting only manufacturers, agents, proprietors of garages, and dealers who do not operate for hire; provided however, that an employee of a manufacturer or of a dealer whose principal occupation is that of a salesman shall be exempted from this definition and shall be designated an operator; provided, further, that a person operating a motorcycle shall not be considered a chauffeur unless such motorcycle is of greater weight than four hundred pounds unladen;


I do not have all of the statutes of 1913, so I have no real way of exhausting my research yet. I cannot therefore determine that there is no statute that requires a license for those who are not chauffeurs. At this time I can only claim that I have not found it.

Beamon v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1960), 180 Cal.App.2d 200, 4 Cal.Rptr. 396.

...The latter case [In the Matter of Application of Stork (1914), 167 Cal. 294, 295], upholding the validity of a statute requiring chauffeurs to pay a license fee but exempting all other drivers from payment, states in respect to the differences between the two classes of drivers (p. 296): ...
(emphasis added.)

At this point I have to take the court’s word that the statute applies to none else than chauffeurs. However based on Mr. Thornhill’s research I have to assume that there is no other statute applying to “drivers” alone. That is an assumption and I will have to go down to the library to see. That will be an all day event. However if there is one I am sure it will be to all “persons” that drive. Not to “all those” driving. Because remember… even “owner” means “a person.” Even the term “operator” is only applicable to “persons”, defined as corporation types. (Look for “any”)

The motor vehicle act, as amended (1913), Section 1(16):

"operator" shall mean any person other than a chauffeur, who operates a motor vehicle;

Again here is more proof that at this point the term “motor vehicle” had NOTHING to do with a “commercial connotation” worthy of regulation in 1926:

In Re Schmolke (1926), 199 Cal. 42, 47.

It is not the type of vehicle, but the peculiar nature of the business conducted upon and over the public highways, that justifies the classification of the statute for licensing purposes.

[Ownmaster]

Before I move on I want to present the evidence about the case law distinguishing between the responsibility of “Owners” and “Users of other’s property”.

In the Matter of Application of Stork (1914), 167 Cal. 294, 295-296, 139 P. 684.

“That the occupation of a chauffeur is of this character may not be questioned and has been decided. (State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. 517, [120 Am. St. Rep. 671, 11 Ann. Cas. 725, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 601, 102 S. W. 483]; Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, [108 Am. St. Rep. 196, 3 Ann. Cas. 487, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 215, 74 N. E. 1035].) There are unquestionable elements of similarity, even of identity, between the driving of an automobile by a professional chauffeur and the driving of a like vehicle by a private owner, designated in this act as an "operator." ... All these matters may be conceded, and yet there are others of equal significance where the differences between the two classes of drivers are radical. Of first importance in this is the fact that the chauffeur offers his services to the public and is frequently a carrier of the general public. These circumstances put professional chauffeurs in a class by themselves and entitle the public to receive the protection which the legislature may accord in making provision for the competency and carefulness of such drivers. The chauffeur, generally speaking, is not driving his own car. He is intrusted with the property of others. In the nature of things a different amount of care will be exercised by such a driver than will be exercised by the man driving his own car and risking his own property. ... The argument of the peril attending the public at the hands of the unlicensed operator driving his own car is not without force, but it can only successfully be presented to the legislative department and not to the courts.”


Notice at this point that the commercial connotation rests in only the nouns. “person”, Chauffeur”, and “Operator”. Not once has the connotation been placed in the verb “drive”. This is, for some strange reason, a big derailment for most. Some people just seem to insist that the scheme is based on the difference between “drive” and “travel” however that is just not the case in California. The difference is between which of the two nouns “person” or “motor vehicle” is carrying the commercial connotation.

Moving on now to the next vehicle code amendment and tracking its progression, let’s see if it has substantially changed:

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT OF 1915


The Motor Vehicle Act of 1915.
(Stats. 1915, Ch. 187, p. 397, Approved May 10, 1915.)

An act to regulate the use and operation of vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; to provide for the registration and identification of motor vehicles and for the payment of registration fees therefor; to provide for the licensing of persons operating motor vehicles; to prohibit certain persons from operating motor vehicles upon the public highways; to prohibit the possession or use of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof, and to prohibit the offer to or acceptance by certain persons of any bonus or discount or other consideration for the purchase of supplies or parts for motor vehicles, or for work or repair done thereon; to provide penalties for violations of provisions of this act, and to provide for the disposition of fines and forfeitures imposed thereon; to limit the power of local authorities to enact or enforce ordinances, rules or regulations in regard to matters embraced within the provisions of this act; to provide for the disposition of registration and license fees, fines and forfeitures collected hereunder; to create a motor vehicle department and to provide for the organization and conduct thereof; to provide for carrying out the objects of this act, and to...

[Ownmaster]

...make appropriation therefor; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts in conflict with this act.


FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Above we see again the placement of the word “Use.” Again we see it placed with the word “operation.” What is an operation? Does an “operator” “operate”? In law the there is a historic term called “operative.” Think about the term “use” and compare it to “operative.” Here it is:


http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_o.htm

OPERATIVE. A workman; one employed to perform labor for another.


Here is the second hit I get when I Google “Operate definition law”… Enjoy from answers.com


http://www.answers.com/topic/license...te?cat=biz-fin

License to Operate - Grant of permission to undertake a trade or carry out a business activity, subject to regulation or supervision by the licensing authority. Licenses are granted by state or federal agencies, and also by private concerns, as when a business authorizes another to use its name as a franchise operator. Licenses granted by government authority imply professional competence and ability to meet certain standards set by law or regulation.

Below we will see that the term “motor vehicle” again includes all vehicles propelled otherwise than by muscular power. So again it looks like this is not where the commercial connotation is found. We still see the placement of the word “ALL.”

The Motor Vehicle Act (1915),

Section 1(1). "motor vehicle" shall include all vehicles propelled otherwise than by muscular power, except such vehicles as run along rails or tracks;


The Motor Vehicle Act (1915), Section 1(2):

"automobile" shall include all motor vehicles excepting motorcycles;


The Motor Vehicle Act (1915), Section 1(18):

"vehicle" shall include every wagon, hack, coach, carriage, omnibus, push cart, bicycle, tricycle, automobile, cycle-car, motorcycle, sleigh, traction engine, tractor, or other conveyance, in whatever manner and by whatever force or power the same may be ridden, driven, or propelled, which is or may be operated, ridden, driven or propelled upon the highway, and implements of husbandry temporarily drawn or driven or otherwise propelled on the highway, excepting only conveyances designed to be propelled by pedestrians, and railroad, street, and interurban railway cars;


Below we see the commercial connotation attached yet again to the word “person” and to “Chauffeur.” It is not evident that it is attached to “Motor vehicle” or to “Driving” at this time.

[Ownmaster]

The Motor Vehicle Act (1915), Section 1(16):

"person" shall include any corporation, association, co-partnership, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals; and where the term "person" is used in connection with the registration of a vehicle, it shall include any corporation, association, co-partnership, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals which owns or controls such vehicle as actual owner, or for the purpose of sale, or for renting, whether as agent, salesman, or otherwise;


The Motor Vehicle Act (1915), Section 1(8):

"chauffeur" shall mean any person who operates an automobile in the transportation of persons and who receives any compensation for such service in wages, commission or otherwise, paid directly or indirectly, or who as owner or employee operates an automobile carrying passengers for hire; provided, however, that this definition shall not include manufacturers' agents, proprietors of garages and dealers, salesmen, mechanics, or demonstrators of automobiles in the ordinary course of their business;



The Motor Vehicle Act (1915), Section 1(15):

"operator" shall mean any person other than a chauffeur who operates a motor vehicle and any person who operates, rides, drives or propels any vehicle other that a motor vehicle;


In the above definition of “operator” it appears that the term “operates” and the term “drives” are different terms. On top of that the term person is still used to denote only corporations. So any “operator’s license” would only be for “a person.”

VEHICLE CODE OF 1935

In 1933 the governments of America did something very akin to a reorganization-bankruptcy. At this point the state reorganized its working so as to obtain your money and labor to pay off its debts to the federal government which was paying off its debts to the federal reserve bank.

The commercial connotation up to this point has clearly been shown. It has been shown that the term person used in all the sections of the laws was a corporation. Here is a reason why the commercial connotation might still exist under the 1935 vehicle code:

The Vehicle Code of 1935.

(Stats. 1935, Ch.27, p. 93, in effect September 15, 1935.)
An act to establish a Vehicle Code, thereby consolidating and revising the law relating to vehicles and vehicular traffic, and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts specified herein.

Vehicle Code (1935), Section 4:

Pending Proceedings and Accrued Rights. No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect, and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code,

[Ownmaster]

but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the provisions of this code so far as possible.

“Section 4” means that the “revising” of the laws were to not to change the fundamentals of pre-existing rights. It was just to change and modify procedure. So now we know what to look for. We know that there must be a residence for the commercial connotation. At this point you really do not need to look into the code to find it because if it is there or not the code until this point protects a pre-existing right for a man to drive to his car or truck.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/accrued

ac•crue (-kr)
v. ac•crued, ac•cru•ing, ac•crues

3. To come into existence as a claim that is legally enforceable.

In the Vehicle Code of 1935 we see the introduction of the term “driver.” The term “driver” takes with it from the term “operator” many characteristics. The term “person” is expanded to include “A natural person”. It is here that we see the definition of “motor vehicle” change from including the term “All” to including the term “A.” I believe this is the start of the switch over in the residency of commercial connotation.

The commercial connotation went into the actual vehicle because the state was no longer interested in the licensing of activities engaged in by corporations. Instead they wanted to trick people into surrendering their cars’ tiles to the state, then letting the state charge a use tax on the operation of those cars on the highways. So instead of taxing me for driving which would be unlawful, the state instead charges me license tax on the right to use/operate/drive a “motor vehicle” on the roads. Now that the state had the vehicles and the vehicle was presumed to be a motor vehicle because it was registered under the laws for it, the state went about licensing the use of those vehicles. What if motor vehicles only include state owned vehicles?


California Vehicle Code 1935

32. "Motor vehicle." A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle which is self-propelled.

California Vehicle Code 1935

65. "Person." "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association or corporation.
Stats. 1935, ch. 27, p. 98.

California Vehicle Code 1935

70. "Operator." "Operator" is a person, other than a chauffeur, who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.
Stats. 1935, ch. 27, p. 98.



So what is different about this definition of “operator” from the last? First it uses the term “a” instead of “any”. It leaves out all the stuff about “vehicles” and only mentions the stuff about “Motor vehicles”. So where did all of that stuff go to? Should we look for a new term? What if there was a new word for someone functioning something called simply “a vehicle”?

[Ownmaster]

Second is the fact that there is changed verbs of “operates” to “drives or is in actual physical control” as to what is done in relation to the noun of motor vehicle. Before in law it was “operate” now it is anything pretty much. Is this because the commercial connotation has made its way into “motor vehicle”. If so then if the motor vehicle (noun) was considered the commercial instrument then any action with it could be regulated. “To drive” is the simple act we all do in our cars everyday. However when done to a “motor vehicle” the act of driving becomes commercial if “motor vehicle” carries commercial connotation.

California Vehicle Code 1935

69. "Driver." "Driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
Stats. 1935, ch. 27, p. 98.


Kiss the operation thing out the window. The commercial connotation has left the verb and the occupation area and is now. It now the vehicle that is commercial in nature and the action of “operating” that it has been reduced to “driving”:

Vehicle Code (1935), Section 141:

What Vehicles Shall Be Registered.
Subject to the exemptions stated in section 142 hereof, registration of the following vehicles is required when driven or moved upon a highway: Any motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly.


At this point if the commercial connotation is in the thing “motor vehicle” then that would lead to the code no longer needing to differentiate between Operators, Drivers, and Chauffeurs. The code would simply apply to any person using a “motor vehicle”. And this is exactly what has been done. The code now swings in 1935 entirely reliant upon the term motor vehicle which for some reason no longer includes “all” self-propelled vehicles.

The last vestiges of the separation are hereunder. After this the code just reads of drivers who need different licensees for different vehicles. Not for different occupations anymore. The regulations are now all about the type of vehicle in use and not at all about the nature of the business at hand.

Vehicle Code (1935), Section 250:

Unlawful to Drive Unless Licensed.
(a) It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway unless he then holds a valid operator's or chauffeur's license issued hereunder, except such persons as are expressly exempted under this code.
(b) It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway as a chauffeur unless he then holds a chauffeur's license duly issued hereunder, except such persons as are expressly exempted under this code


SIDEBAR TO “ARTICLES” AND “A”

So motor vehicle is essentially “defined” by an “indefinite” article. I start by examining the meaning of the term “a” and also the meaning of articles in general.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)