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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.