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
    ... CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 14 , Mar 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 14 , Mar 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 14 , Mar 7, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 14 , Mar 8, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 14 , Mar 8, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 14 , Mar 9, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.