a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person for no license

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by moishanb

2) What is driving?

“To drive" is defined as meaning, "to impel the motion and quicken"; whereas "to operate" means "to direct or superintend." (Century Dictionary.)”
Bosse v. Marye (1926), 80 Cal.App. 109, 118.


This is not hard to find. It is in almost every dictionary.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by moishanb

3) When does the authority of a peace officer apply to me?

As for CHP, when you have committed a crime and he is on duty for the purpose of enforcing laws relating to "use and operation" of a vehicle.

So by "driving" your own car you are not using or operating, you are driving.

[Of course all of this while the explanation of motor vehicle declares that it drives itself!]

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Again and again, Lawdog, can you tell me if a license plate and a registration sticker are, in fact, licenses? [Answer = yes]

It appears he is intentionally refusing to answer the question. Now why would that be?

Not too often you can get a lie-yer to shut-up.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

1) It appears he is intentionally refusing to answer the question. Now why would that be?

2) Not too often you can get a lie-yer to shut-up.

1) He won't answer and this is why I think so. Actually I was goading him. He should have said, "yes it is a license but not a license for a driver." I leave intentionally leave him openings to test his actual knowledge, yet he appears to be lacking. The license plate is a license for a car and not for a person. If I had a recording device in my car (which I do) and I get pulled over with no plates (car's license to operate) the cop is not going to mention anything else. I am going to record the conversation for later.

Part of being arrested is the formal announcement of what one is being arrested for. If the cop refuses to say, or mentions that it is for license plates, I now feel that I have cause to resist an unlawful arrest.

The license plate is not a license for a driver but it is a license for the car. The requirement for a license plate to be displayed however is actionable against the "car". It is "in rem".

5202. Every license plate issued by this State or any other
jurisdiction within or without the United States shall remain
attached during the period of its validity to the vehicle for which
it is issued while being operated within this State or during the
time the vehicle is being held for sale in this State, or until such
time as a vehicle with special or identification plates is no longer
entitled to such plates and no person shall operate, nor shall an
owner knowingly permit to be operated, upon any highway any vehicle
unless the license plate is so attached. Special permits issued in
lieu of plates shall be attached and displayed on the vehicle for
which issued during the period of their validity.

5204. (a) Except as provided by subdivisions (b) and (c), a tab
shall indicate the year of expiration and a tab shall indicate the
month of expiration. Current month and year tabs shall be attached
to the rear license plate assigned to the vehicle for the last
preceding registration year in which license plates were issued, and,
when so attached, the license plate with the tabs shall, for the
purposes of this code, be deemed to be the license plate, except that
truck tractors, and commercial motor vehicles having a declared
gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more, shall display the
current month and year tabs upon the front license plate assigned to
the truck tractor or commercial motor vehicle. Vehicles that fail to
display current month and year tabs or display expired tabs are in
violation of this section.
(b) The requirement of subdivision (a) that the tabs indicate the
year and the month of expiration does not apply to fleet vehicles
subject to Article 9.5 (commencing with Section 5300) or vehicles
defined in Section 468.
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply when proper application for
registration has been made pursuant to Section 4602 and the new
indicia of current registration have not been received from the
department.
(d) This section is enforceable against any motor vehicle that is
driven, moved, or left standing upon a highway, or in an offstreet
public parking facility, in the same manner as provided in
subdivision (a) of Section 4000.

So above I see that the rules applying to "driven, moved, or left standing" only apply to the car itself and not persons. And further that the laws applied to "persons" only apply to "operating". Driving and operating are not the same thing and courts have recognized that fact here:

“To drive" is defined as meaning, "to impel the motion and quicken"; whereas "to operate" means "to direct or superintend." (Century Dictionary.)”
Bosse v. Marye (1926), 80 Cal.App. 109, 118.

However if the DMV requires the plates to be surrendered...

5203. This chapter does not apply to plates which the department
pursuant to law has ordered to be surrendered, transferred to another
vehicle, or removed.

2) I do it all the time. It is not hard when your entire argument is built from quotes from the code and your personal statements are merely there to guild the reader from one quote/point to the next.

Peace to you FreeFromContract.

Peace to you all in your driving.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You're being detained or arrested for ANOTHER offense, like speeding...

No, not like speeding. Infractions are not public offenses in California. [People Vs. Battle 50 Cal App 3rd Supp. 1]

People v. Battle , 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1

By construing section 19c of the Penal Code to relate to noncriminal offenses we can avert a clash with the Constitution and achieve our goal, i.e., the continued viability of the statute.

Thus there is nothing here for making an arrest.

836. (a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2,
without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following
circumstances occur:
(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in
the officer's presence.
(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact,
has been committed.
(b) Any time a peace officer is called out on a domestic violence
call, it shall be mandatory that the officer make a good faith effort
to inform the victim of his or her right to make a citizen's arrest.
This information shall include advising the victim how to safely
execute the arrest.
(c) (1) When a peace officer is responding to a call alleging a
violation of a domestic violence protective or restraining order
issued under Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Family
Code, Section 136.2, 646.91, or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of
Section 1203.097 of this code, Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, or of a domestic violence protective
or restraining order issued by the court of another state, tribe, or
territory and the peace officer has probable cause to believe that
the person against whom the order is issued has notice of the order
and has committed an act in violation of the order, the officer
shall, consistent with subdivision (b) of Section 13701, make a
lawful arrest of the person without a warrant and take that person
into custody whether or not the violation occurred in the presence of
the arresting officer. The officer shall, as soon as possible after
the arrest, confirm with the appropriate authorities or the Domestic
Violence Protection Order Registry maintained pursuant to Section
6380 of the Family Code that a true copy of the protective order has
been registered, unless the victim provides the officer with a copy
of the protective order.
(2) The person against whom a protective order has been issued
shall be deemed to have notice of the order if the victim presents to
the officer proof of service of the order, the officer confirms with
the appropriate authorities that a true copy of the proof of service
is on file, or the person against whom the protective order was
issued was present at the protective order hearing or was informed by
a peace officer of the contents of the protective order.
(3) In situations where mutual protective orders have been issued
under Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code,
liability for arrest under this subdivision applies only to those
persons who are reasonably believed to have been the primary
aggressor. In those situations, prior to making an arrest under this
subdivision, the peace officer shall make reasonable efforts to
identify, and may arrest, the primary aggressor involved in the
incident. The primary aggressor is the person determined to be the
most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying
the primary aggressor, an officer shall consider (A) the intent of
the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing
abuse, (B) the threats creating fear of physical injury, (C) the
history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and (D)
whether either person involved acted in self-defense.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), if a suspect
commits an assault or battery upon a current or former spouse,
fiance, fiancee, a current or former cohabitant as defined in Section
6209 of the Family Code, a person with whom the suspect currently is
having or has previously had an engagement or dating relationship,
as defined in paragraph (10) of subdivision (f) of Section 243, a
person with whom the suspect has parented a child, or is presumed to
have parented a child pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code), a
child of the suspect, a child whose parentage by the suspect is the
subject of an action under the Uniform Parentage Act, a child of a
person in one of the above categories, any other person related to
the suspect by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or
any person who is 65 years of age or older and who is related to the
suspect by blood or legal guardianship, a peace officer may arrest
the suspect without a warrant where both of the following
circumstances apply:
(1) The peace officer has probable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed the assault or battery, whether
or not it has in fact been committed.
(2) The peace officer makes the arrest as soon as probable cause
arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the
assault or battery, whether or not it has in fact been committed.
(e) In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a
warrant pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (a), a
peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for a violation
of Section 12025 when all of the following apply:
(1) The officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed the violation of Section 12025.
(2) The violation of Section 12025 occurred within an airport, as
defined in Section 21013 of the Public Utilities Code, in an area to
which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property.

(3) The peace officer makes the arrest as soon as reasonable cause
arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the
violation of Section 12025.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

838. A magistrate may orally order a peace officer or private
person to arrest any one committing or attempting to commit a public
offense in the presence of such magistrate.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Part of being arrested is the formal announcement of what one is being arrested for. If the cop refuses to say, or mentions that it is for license plates, I now feel that I have cause to resist an unlawful arrest.

Support for the above here found here:

841. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be
arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest,
and the authority to make it, except when the person making the
arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested
is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an
offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after
its commission, or after an escape.
The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is
arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being
arrested.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Think again...

"Shall" is a word of command. This means the officer is duty bound to impound the vehicle and may not exercise discretion in the matter.

OK I will think again. You think for yourself for the first time.

If shall means what you say it means then:

5202. Every license plate issued by this State or any other
jurisdiction within or without the United States shall remain
attached during the period of its validity to the vehicle for which
it is issued while being operated within this State or during the
time the vehicle is being held for sale in this State, or until such
time as a vehicle with special or identification plates is no longer
entitled to such plates and no person shall operate, nor shall an
owner knowingly permit to be operated, upon any highway any vehicle
unless the license plate is so attached. Special permits issued in
lieu of plates shall be attached and displayed on the vehicle for
which issued during the period of their validity.

Must mean that no person is commanded to let someone operate with no registration.

[gldskr]

It seems all these travel threads devolve into the meanings of codes, definitions, etc. Taken in context they are surely important, conversely however, they only lead to confusion.

moishanb made the observation back at post 38, that it would be prudent to ask a number of questions before proceeding. Perhaps if that advice were taken this thread would not exist.

freebeme's opening post came directly out of the code. There is one term that gives the statement context and we can dispense with the remaining words. That term is unlicensed driver. This is where we need to ask the who, what, when, where, why and how. As these questions have thoroughly been answered in this forum, freebeme's opening statement is of no consequence.

The right to travel in a conveyance of my choice without restriction is without question. So, in the instant case, the unlicensed driver cannot apply to me. Unless;

I voluntarily apply in the state's motor vehicle revenue scheme by admitting in the application that my automobile is a motor vehicle. By registering into this scheme and attaching my "license plates" I am giving notice to all that care to see of my intentions. Those intentions being; I am operating in commerce. Driving a motor vehicle requires a DL.

The unlicensed driver in freebeme's opening statement can only apply to those who operate registered motor vehicles. Why concern yourself with inapplicable statutes?

gldskr

[ezrhythm]

Then there is rebutting the presumption that one is in commerce if one tenders or leaves in view or is found during a search, evidence of residency. Basically anything with an address.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by gldskr

The unlicensed driver in freebeme's opening statement can only apply to those who operate registered motor vehicles. Why concern yourself with inapplicable statutes?

gldskr

You quote "Only apply to those who operate..." You are flat out wrong and thus show why trite, concise, unsupported, unreferenced, statements with no showing of background logic, as your statement was, are completely worthless.

Here is the proof that you are wrong from the the same codes you pay no attention to, the same court decisions you pay no attention to, and the same dictionaries you pay no attention to.

Cal. Veh. Code
12500. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.

Anyone with any degree of legal linguistic literacy should be able to see that the action being regulated in the above code is the action of "to drive." Gldskr, you however made the trite and concice, brief, and wrong assertion that the statutes only apply to those "operating" "motor vehicles."

If you are thinking that "to drive" and "to operate" are the same thing or that the action "to drive" means something "commercial" then you have missed what was already pointed out earlier in this thread, however I will quote it again for you.

To drive" is defined as meaning, "to impel the motion and quicken"; whereas "to operate" means "to direct or superintend." (Century Dictionary.)
Bosse v. Marye (1926), 80 Cal.App. 109, 118.

I am guessing that if you went to court and told the judge, "Hey, these statutes only apply to those "operating" "motor vehicles" on the highways." That the judge would have said in response, "No they apply to those that are driving, you are overruled." The judge would be correct, you would be wrong, and then you will go on-line and whine about h0ow the judge was so unfair to not read complete garbage in to a construction of a statute that you conjured up and supported with no showing of legislative intent or any meaningful nature of the charge, nor trace the authority for such a charge so as to be able to recognize a poor and inadequate pleading by the prosecution of the assertion of the sates jurisdiction over you.

next on to the "Not applicable statutes" you claim they are. These statutes become applicable as soon as you are pulled over. The cop is going to cite authority for what he did and the court is going to look to you to respond to his assertion of authority. If you cannot show that the code needs to be read in light of the legislative intent, that the rules and regulations promulgated have affirmatively lead you to a certain belief, that the code is vague, that the code as read in the light of the original intent is to regulate the employees/creatures formed of the state, a denial of a proper sworn statement on a complaint, a false arrest leading to a tainted attainment of in personam jurisdiction, or some other method of showing an administrative agency that they are about to find themselves in judicial court soon...
... you will lose.


Next point to make is that the law I made reference to did not mention "motor vehicles" at all.

The next point is that the code I referenced to can be cited under judicial notice to prove the nature of the license and the action being licensed.

The next point is that while you can you rattle off the standard party line of the patriot movement and state the conclusions you have not shown any reason or rhyme for why a jury should believe you. You will lose without finding the linguistic literacy needed to read the codes and place them all in the proper context. As soon as you start to say how the law is the judge right away is going to start telling you what the law says. One had best be prepared to understand the nature and operation of the administrative nature and procedure of the state in such a situation.

The next point is that if what you suggest is as simple as you suggest then where is your successful civil suit for a violation of your rights. Seems if you have it all figured out to where further research and citations to actual law/code/regulation/and decision is pointless then you should have made a fortune off of 1983 suits. You have not and your concise statements that all this is unnecessary is not only wrong it is ignorant of the importance of legal understanding of the entire scheme.


You next seem puzzled in the following

Originally Posted by Gldskr

It seems all these travel threads devolve into the meanings of codes

Of course it alway does. That is because we do not arrest ourselves and charge ourselves with violations of the code. The state officer does. When charge is made and charge is a violation of a code, then one must start there. To do anything else would be silly. You start at the charge and trace it back to the right being relied upon to bring the suit. If the trace back to authority cannot be accomplished then the jurisdictional nexus is not found to exist. To just make the assertion that the code does not apply to you and use false statements like the code only applies to "operators" is great way to get your car impounded and your butt thrown in jail for a "public offense."

Ultimately all of the questions that Moisha asked are completely irrelevant when one understands what a public offense is and the difference from a crime. If one understands that a crime can never be licensed he is has already made more progress then most people in the movement. If one can understand and be able to show the revenue law as operating unlawfully on natural persons one would be even better off.

I see endless posts on this forum with paragraph by paragraph bickering, however I see very few actual full length comprehensive postings. have you ever written a comprehensive view of the law Gldskr? If so can you please direct me to it so I can read your piece and understand why one would think that making such trite and concise remarks would ever be beneficial. Your remarks make it sound like everything is gong to be as simple as reciting a few magic words and the prosecution and magistrate are just going to lay down and go home.

You obviously show that you have no real desire to learn about the true nature of the residency, administrative jurisdiction, and the issues arising under prerogative to raise revenue and how to make key constitutionally correct arguments attacking the core of jurisdiction.

The right to travel in a conveyance of my choice without restriction is without question.

That statement is just as plain wrong as the others. You have no right to operate a tank on the road for travel. It tears up and injures the road. You have no right to do that to other peoples road. You have to right to use the road so long as it is restricted to what is same and normal use of the road. You have the right to the conveyance of the day, not what ever you may choose. Your complete reliance on unsupported claims has made nearly every line of your post nothing more than legal flim-flam meant to make people think erroneously that the road ahead is an easy one. You are exactly the type of person that spreads the the seeds of brainwashing I have to deal with so often in victims of the patriot movement.

Good day to you gldskr and I hope your one liners work out for you in court someday. Please do not feel like you need to read these posts if they can offer no edification to man of your understanding.

However if anyone would like my full paper on administrative take over since the post civil war reconstruction era and its inapplicability to the natural person who is a member of the republic and has unalienable rights, please Email me at Freebeme@live.com

I am always eager to learn more and by having people give me feedback is the best way I know how to learn.