Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: To Mr. Frog Farmer, from Officer Wimpy "Just doin' my job" Schlemeel.

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... You could make an inquiry first, and surprise yourself! ... I got it from government publications, but then I can read. ... That s rich! Just the other
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
      On Feb 28, 2005, at 10:09 AM, David-Allin: Sautter wrote:

      > I think it highly unlikely that any court would let you traverse the
      > public highways without a drivers license, registration, or proof of
      > insurance. 

      You could make an inquiry first, and surprise yourself!

      > What would happen if other motorists got hold of this same
      > information and defense. 

      I got it from government publications, but then I can read.

      > You're a dangerous man, Mr. Frog Farmer and it just isn't right that
      > you should be allowed out here when everyone else is obeying the law.

      That's rich! Just the other day it was officially announced that there
      are over 1 MILLION illegal Mexicans driving without your Big Three in
      California alone! That doesn't count the Russians or Chinese or
      Arabs! Tell you what! Ask your leader for a briefing!

      >   Just remember who has the guns, radios, low profile, fast and
      > stealthy Camarro pursuit vehicles, keys to the jail, and the judges on
      > our side. 

      Who is that? Is there an impersonator's union or something?

      > Why, look at all the taxpayers out there who pay me to keep the likes
      > of you from breakin' the law,

      Lots of false conclusions there...too many to bother with.

      >   I mean, well, we just can't have a convoy of whacko renegade cowboys
      > glutting the highways without drivers licenses.

      It's lucky that all those Mexicans aren't following each other!

      >   Who do you think you are anyway?

      I'm vying for Last Free American, but the competiton is stiff in my
      county alone!

      > Now, be a good citizen and go get yourself a proper license like
      > everyone else.

      I once was in line to try to do so, when I was somehow recognized in a
      place I had never been before (a DMV office in another locale). A
      voice shouted out from behind the security partition, "Frog Farmer,
      you have no possible business here! Get out!" How did they know?

      >   You've got thirty days to comply!  And remember to fix those broken
      > tail lights too!  If you don't like it then I suggest you petition
      > your lawmaker, or the governator.  I'm just doin' my job and it don't
      > matter if I don't have no constitutional oath.  I wear the badge
      > around here and this is my watch!  Did you hear me...Sir?

      I'll request a briefing for you, if you won't. Unfortunately, 30 days
      will not permit you to correct your status. Maybe the statute of
      limitations on impersonation will, I don't know. Adios, Muchacho!
    • Frog Farmer
      ... CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
        On Feb 28, 2005, at 12:03 PM, tthor.geo wrote:
        >
        > {There is NO "friendly courtesy stop" when the stopper is armed with
        > lethal force [since the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and 9th Circuit "courts"
        > have determined that California Citizens do NOT have the right of
        > armed self-defense because California has no 2nd Amendment-equivalent
        > in its Constitution

        CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
        ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

        SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent
        on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
        ...
        This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
        others retained by the people.

        > ; it is absurd to believe that STATE OF CALIFORNIA
        > employees magically have a right its Citizens do not {that's called
        > "oppression"}] and believes that he/she has the discretion to use it
        > against ANY Citizen! That is an act of Robbery, Piracy, or WAR.}

        Of course it's absurd, but how many people will accept the absurd
        without objection?!

        > OK, "officer" Obie. Let's assume you're right [ha, ha, ha].
        > I'm not going to play the Huff-and-Puff game. You have already
        > commited a crime by threatening me.
        > So, go ahead and shoot me right now! Make sure you kill me DEAD!
        > Now, every time you look in the mirror, you can say to yourself, "You
        > know, I think I just murdered a man because I did not understand what
        > he said."
        > Unless you are ready to do that RIGHT NOW, go away.... I do not want
        > to talk to you.... Do not EVER approach me again.

        That's unique but perfectly logical proposal, but I think it's a BIG
        mistake to refer to Obie as Officer. He and other witnesses cannot see
        your little quaotation marks around the word "officer". Testimony will
        show you knew you were confronting an officer.

        Have you seen Luis Ewing's little flyers to hand to impersonators? I
        like the idea, but dislike automatically making the presumption that
        they are officers. Now, if indeed they are shown to be officers, then
        handing them a flyer calling them officers is okay. I had to quit
        using my Public Servant Questionnaire when I learned that there are no
        longer any such creatures. When I find one though, I'll use it again!
      • Frog Farmer
        ... These questions remind me of an administrative hearing I once had at the DMV. I told the hearing officer that the only reason I wasn t disqualifying him
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
          On Mar 1, 2005, at 6:34 AM, Paul Lowery wrote:

          > Do you aegis9 have the ability to define motor vehicle as it appears
          > in the code? Are you able to define driver in the motor vehicle code
          > or a law dictionary? Have you ever read the motor vehicle code. Do you
          > know the differnce between a motor vehicle and an automobile?

          These questions remind me of an administrative hearing I once had at
          the DMV. I told the hearing officer that the only reason I wasn't
          disqualifying him was that I needed someone to make record of what I
          was going to do. I then questioned the DMV's own "expert witness" (who
          held the top position in the local office) and by her lack of answers I
          got the hearing officer to dismiss her as an incompetent witness,
          leaving the DMV with no one to speak for them. So I won. No one could
          prove that my car was a vehicle subject to regulation!

          > aegis9 there is only one kind of license a commerical motor vehicle
          > license in three catagories, read your code.

          California conveniently "omitted" several key provisions from the
          currently printed code. They are still good, but you have to be
          looking hard for them in old books. The code didn't get so screwed up
          that an ordinary reading would make one believe that private
          non-commercial owners needed licenses or registration until after 1957.
          They really count on the people receiving a poor education and being
          nearly illiterate.
        • hobot
          SNIP} ... Frogfarmer the snake charmer, Enjoying this banter as its not mere academics to me. What sorta of questions did you ask the DMV? hobot
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
            SNIP}
            > > know the differnce between a motor vehicle and an automobile?
            >
            > These questions remind me of an administrative hearing I once
            > had at
            > the DMV. I told the hearing officer that the only reason I
            > wasn't
            > disqualifying him was that I needed someone to make record of
            > what I
            > was going to do. I then questioned the DMV's own "expert
            > witness" (who
            > held the top position in the local office) and by her lack of
            > answers I
            > got the hearing officer to dismiss her as an incompetent
            > witness,
            > leaving the DMV with no one to speak for them. So I won. No
            > one could
            > prove that my car was a vehicle subject to regulation!

            Frogfarmer the snake charmer,

            Enjoying this banter as its not mere academics to me.
            What sorta of questions did you ask the DMV?

            hobot
          • Frog Farmer
            ... I don t have my notes handy as it was many years ago, but they were questions pertinent to registration since that was the issue. The one which booted her
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 2, 2005
              On Mar 1, 2005, at 6:27 PM, hobot wrote:

              > What sorta of questions did you ask the DMV?
              >

              I don't have my notes handy as it was many years ago, but they were
              questions pertinent to registration since that was the issue.

              The one which booted her was, "what evidence does the DMV have that my
              car is a vehicle of the type subject to registration?"

              Note I had at that time won 3 cases on the driver's license,
              registration and proof of insurance.

              I remember having a witness testify to something but what it was I
              cannot remember. Maybe it was whether or not I chrged him a fee for
              giving him a ride. Something like that.

              After the hearing was over, the man portraying a hearing officer sat
              for another hour as I diagrammed how the law worked between him and me
              on a blackboard. It was a gas. Never heard from them again.
            • Michael Pf
              PAUL WROTE: Do you have the ability to define motor vehicle as it appears in the code? Are you able to define driver in the motor vehicle code or a law
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 3, 2005
                PAUL WROTE:
                 
                Do you have the ability to define motor vehicle as it appears in the code? Are you able to define driver in the motor vehicle  code or a law dictionary? Have you ever read the motor vehicle code. Do you know the differnce between a motor vehicle and an automobile?
                 
                Paul,
                 
                No, I don't know, and can't find anywhere in the California Vehicle Code or the chaptered bill Statutes, exactly what the difference is between a "motor vehicle" and an "automobile".  PLEASE - show me the reference or at least paint some footprints on the path.  I can quote the code definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle", neither of which are defined as having anything to do with commerce, but I can't find a legal definition of "automobile" anywhere in the California Vehicle Code.  So, how does it differ?  By the way, the term "operator" is no longer defined or used in the current code in reference to "driving".


                 


                Michael
                Laguna Niguel, CA
              • Frog Farmer
                ... But now that you know there are no officers to deal with, because of the superior law of the state s own constitution over mere statutes, you can go home
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 7, 2005
                  On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Michael Pf wrote:
                  > No, I don't know, and can't find anywhere in the California Vehicle
                  > Code or the chaptered bill Statutes, exactly what the difference is
                  > between a "motor vehicle" and an "automobile". 

                  But now that you know there are no officers to deal with, because of
                  the superior law of the state's own constitution over mere statutes,
                  you can go home and forget about it, right? Isn't life too short to go
                  around wondering what the difference is between "motor vehicle" and
                  "automobile" ? Who cares about it? Do you? I did until I discovered
                  how to make the bogey man disappear...you have to stop giving
                  impersonators credence. You only have to deal with officers as per
                  Art. XX sec. 3 therein.

                  > PLEASE - show me the reference or at least paint some footprints on
                  > the path.

                  Have you really read the code? And going back to say around 1935? Try
                  it - it's fascinating. Back then people still read, so they understood
                  the plain language of the code, which mad eit abundantly clear that
                  only commercial traffic was being regulated. So, you might at least
                  use the normal "street definition" as a starting place, and then let
                  your adversary articulate, using his code that he says he obeys, how
                  you err in doing so.

                  I see a difference in the terms right on their face.

                  I don't have time to take anyone through the code anymore now that I
                  don't have to. Life is too short. Especially because few if any have
                  commented upon the lack of oaths here and there. Here a more
                  foundational defense is being ignored. I find it fascinating, don't
                  you?

                  > I can quote the code definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle",
                  > neither of which are defined as having anything to do with commerce

                  That's because the code is and was only for the regulation of commerce
                  from Day One. If the shoes don't fit, why wear them?

                  I loved it when I first saw the old code sections that recognized the
                  concept of non-commercial uses. There were only two licenses then, the
                  "operator's" and the "chauffuer's" licenses, and those were all the
                  "code" EVER regulated, as you could read it if you were inclined to do
                  so. But then a stroke of brilliance caused them to blend the two
                  licenses, without changing who or what was being regulated, and they
                  named this combination license, "the drivers license" (because it
                  combined the two commercial drivers classes). And then they set out to
                  make teenagers want them! Hahahaha! What an easy to obtain status
                  symbol, eh?! Trapped like monkeys with their fists in coconuts.

                  > , but I can't find a legal definition of "automobile" anywhere in the
                  > California Vehicle Code.

                  Must mean they aren't regulated then, doesn't it? I can't find
                  "interplanetary magnetocraft" anywhere in there either! Some people
                  think there must be a statute that says when it rains on you, you get
                  wet. I personally don't think the politicians in the capitol have had
                  time to thoroughly legislate to permit all the possible actions that
                  man might conceive of as the universe expands.

                  If I was paid enough in advance I'd take the few hours or days
                  necessary to find the word "automobile" in the old code for you. It'd
                  be at least a couple of hundred bux in silver, and I'd bet you could do
                  it yourself with a few days or less of looking. Isn't it great how
                  this stuff works? Should we really be spending all our time looking
                  this stuff up just to be able to live as a free American? I don't
                  think so, so I like to cut to the chase ASAP, and the oath thingie is
                  hard for these people, officious-acting neighbors of mine, to get over,
                  especially when I remind them of the two additional concepts of the
                  crime of impersonation of an officer and the ages-old "citizens
                  arrest". I'm wondering if it's easy for impersonators to pull the wool
                  over the eyes of the folks out in the hinterlands, away from this land
                  of fruits and nuts where bumperstickers say, "F%*! YOU! This is
                  Mexico!"

                  >   So, how does it differ?

                  Well, a "motor" has "windings". "Vehicles" move "entities". Auto
                  means "self" and mobile means "to move".

                  If you're stuck in the code, you'd best ask, "how'd I get here?" What
                  is the name of the officious-acting neighbor whose impersonation was so
                  successful that it forced you there, OR did you enter voluntarily?

                  I entered voluntarily in ignorance and had to fight my way out over
                  three years. I didn't have to change them - I had to change my own
                  perspective.

                  >   By the way, the term "operator" is no longer defined or used in the
                  > current code in reference to "driving".

                  I haven't looked at the code in years because the last time I beat
                  them, they made it a condition of my win that the DMV would notify me
                  if there ever were anything done to diminish my rights as they existed
                  then and presumably still exist now since I never received any such
                  notification. But as I recall, they had quit using "operator" even
                  then, because the word only covered half of the regulated pair of
                  classes of persons. They found higher revenue enhancement occurred
                  when they permitted people to apply for licenses they really didn't
                  need for their own private purposes, but which were important status
                  symbols in each other's eyes. Today people ask for your driver's
                  license when you go to buy food and do many other things that have
                  nothing to do with driving. Does anyone think to present a fishing
                  license instead?

                  Some people still know that they have the right to fish too, and they
                  do not get fishing licenses either.
                  >
                  > Michael
                  > Laguna Niguel, CA

                  Mike, people aren't capable of living in "CA". That's an imaginary
                  jurisdiction for other entities.
                  For rights, move into California! (Warning: Avoid the STATE OF
                  CALIFORNIA).

                  Hope this helps.
                • tthor.geo
                  We are all, to some extent, either ignorant or grossly ignorant about various facets of law . [Admittedly, some of the following is speculation, but it is
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 8, 2005
                    We are all, to some extent, either ignorant or grossly ignorant about
                    various facets of "law". [Admittedly, some of the following is
                    speculation, but it is INFORMED and KNOWLEDGABLE speculation.]

                    If one wishes to become less ignorant about Official Oaths of Office
                    [at least in California] read this:

                    http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/oathofoffice.html

                    If one wishes to become less ignorant about driver's licenses [at
                    least in California] read this:

                    http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/driverlicense.html

                    If one wishes to become less ignorant about the vehicle registration
                    process [at least in California], read this:

                    http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/vehiclereg.html

                    If one doesn't live in California and wants to duplicate this process
                    in one's own state, get off your butt, find your state's Statutes and
                    Codes [going as far back as is necessary], and DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

                    If one wishes to STAY ignorant, there is nothing I can do to stop you;
                    enjoy your"bliss".

                    Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@f...> wrote:

                    > On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Michael Pf wrote:
                    > > No, I don't know, and can't find anywhere in the California Vehicle
                    > > Code or the chaptered bill Statutes, exactly what the difference is
                    > > between a "motor vehicle" and an "automobile".
                    >
                    > But now that you know there are no officers to deal with, because of
                    > the superior law of the state's own constitution over mere statutes,
                  • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
                    For those of you still looking for PROOF, go to your local law library and read the California statutes for yourself : pgs 833-839 (1925), pgs. 1918-1931
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 8, 2005
                      For those of you still looking for PROOF, go to your local law library and
                      read the California statutes for yourself : pgs 833-839 (1925), pgs.
                      1918-1931 (1937), pgs 590-605 (1941) and pgs. 116-117, 1514-1515
                      (1956-1957))

                      Do yourself a favor and read them for yourself and you will see that they
                      ALL related to the COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.

                      P.S.. Make a copy of them while your there, they will be invaluable if you
                      are ever pulled over.



                      --
                      No virus found in this outgoing message.
                      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                      Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.0 - Release Date: 3/8/2005
                    • Frog Farmer
                      ... Note that proof of commercial use is when more than one party share equitible interests in the conveyance. This is the case for everyone who has a
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 9, 2005
                        On Mar 8, 2005, at 6:32 PM, <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:

                        > For those of you still looking for PROOF, go to your local law library
                        > and
                        > read the California statutes for yourself : pgs 833-839 (1925), pgs.
                        > 1918-1931 (1937), pgs 590-605 (1941) and pgs. 116-117, 1514-1515
                        > (1956-1957))
                        >
                        > Do yourself a favor and read them for yourself and you will see that
                        > they
                        > ALL related to the COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.

                        Note that proof of commercial use is when more than one party share
                        equitible interests in the conveyance.

                        This is the case for everyone who has a "certificate of title" because
                        getting such a certificate involves giving an equitible interest to the
                        state.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.