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
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.