Re: [tips_and_tricks] To Mr. Frog Farmer, from Officer Wimpy "Just doin' my job" Schlemeel.
- On Mar 1, 2005, at 6:34 AM, Paul Lowery wrote:
> Do you aegis9 have the ability to define motor vehicle as it appearsThese questions remind me of an administrative hearing I once had at
> 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?
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 vehicleCalifornia conveniently "omitted" several key provisions from the
> license in three catagories, read your code.
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
> > know the differnce between a motor vehicle and an automobile?Frogfarmer the snake charmer,
> These questions remind me of an administrative hearing I once
> had at
> the DMV. I told the hearing officer that the only reason I
> 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
> 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!
Enjoying this banter as its not mere academics to me.
What sorta of questions did you ask the DMV?
- 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.
- 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".
Laguna Niguel, CA
- On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Michael Pf wrote:
> No, I don't know, and can't find anywhere in the California VehicleBut now that you know there are no officers to deal with, because of
> Code or the chaptered bill Statutes, exactly what the difference is
> between a "motor vehicle" and an "automobile".
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 onHave you really read the code? And going back to say around 1935? Try
> the path.
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
> I can quote the code definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle",That's because the code is and was only for the regulation of commerce
> neither of which are defined as having anything to do with 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 theMust mean they aren't regulated then, doesn't it? I can't find
> California Vehicle Code.
"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
> 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
> By the way, the term "operator" is no longer defined or used in theI haven't looked at the code in years because the last time I beat
> current code in reference to "driving".
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
Some people still know that they have the right to fish too, and they
do not get fishing licenses either.
>Mike, people aren't capable of living in "CA". That's an imaginary
> Laguna Niguel, CA
jurisdiction for other entities.
For rights, move into California! (Warning: Avoid the STATE OF
Hope this helps.
- 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:
If one wishes to become less ignorant about driver's licenses [at
least in California] read this:
If one wishes to become less ignorant about the vehicle registration
process [at least in California], read this:
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;
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,
- 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
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
- On Mar 8, 2005, at 6:32 PM, <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:
> For those of you still looking for PROOF, go to your local law libraryNote that proof of commercial use is when more than one party share
> read the California statutes for yourself : pgs 833-839 (1925), pgs.
> 1918-1931 (1937), pgs 590-605 (1941) and pgs. 116-117, 1514-1515
> Do yourself a favor and read them for yourself and you will see that
> ALL related to the COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.
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