Drivers
License


You Do Not Need To Pay For Traffic
Tickets
You think
you have to fight these tickets, and that is exactly what they want you to
do... These Tickets and Notices are in fact Bills and therefore they come
under the Bills of Exchange Act.
From the Act:
Bill of exchange
16. (1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing,
addressed by one person to another, signed by the person
giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to
pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time,
a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified
person or to bearer.
These tickets or bills are just like a bill you might
get in a restaurant, and just like in a restaurant, they are in
fact offers and you have four basic options.
The first two will cause you to be in dishonor,
and in court, you almost always automatically lose. The
third will not result in dishonor, but will cause you to accept
their offer, which might not be in your best interest.
1. You can refuse to pay it through active rejection.
(You can dispute it and say “I am NOT paying this!”
Do this and you have created dispute without benefit
of discussion, and therefore you lose your Honor.
You lost before going to court.)
2. You can ignore it. (Imagine walking out of a
restaurant with a server tugging at your arm, you
totally ignoring them. Or you do a dine-and-dash.
Again this is a dishonor of an offer and thus creates
a conflict.)
3. You can pay it, but by doing that accept their offer.
(In the case of Violation Tickets this means you also
get a conviction registered against your name!)
The final option is the fourth option.
They have gone to great lengths to hide this option from
you, but they can’t stop you from using it once you know it
is there. So understand this: You do not want to dispute it,
as this will bring in the court. (You want to accept it and
make them be the ones desiring dispute.) You also cannot
simply ignore it, especially Appearance Notices. You want
to embrace the Rule of Law and keep your hands clean.
This means you need to know what the Rule of Law is.
Finally, you obviously do not want to pay it, especially since
as I will prove, the Bill is deception filled. Your fourth option
is this:
1. You can accept it, with conditions attached.
By accepting it and honoring the Bill, you cause them
to lose the ability to drag you into court. There is no dispute;
therefore there is no court, because court is a place for
those with disputes. Plus, the Rule of Law states that
disputes should be avoided and when they arise should be
settled with discussion, negotiation and then adjudication
in a court of competent jurisdiction. You are simply offering
to discuss this Bill and its particulars prior to paying it. You
have no intention of dishonoring it at all. Imagine you are
in the Restaurant again and you get an illegible bill, you
can’t read it so you ask what it says. You have the right to
do that, don’t you? Doing so is not a dishonorable act nor
does it cause dispute. “I’ll pay this Bill, just prove I ordered
and ate a lobster! Wait a minute, you don’t even serve
Lobster! What’s going on here! I want to speak to the
Manager!”
From the Bills of Exchange Act:
37. (1) An acceptance is either general or qualified.
General (2) A general acceptance assents without
qualification to the order of the drawer.
Qualified (3) A qualified acceptance in express terms varies
the effect of the bill as drawn and, in Violation Tickets and Appearance
Notices Deconstructed
Freddy Freepickles’ list of Deceptive Words
·APPLICATION
Means to beg, plead petition, implore, entreat or request. The assumption it
creates in court is that he who begs knows exactly what he is begging for,
what he is giving up for it, he is acknowledging the authority to grant or
he is creating it through transference and he is doing all voluntarily.
·ATTEND
Legally, this means to accept a duty of service or a debt. It does not mean
to show up or be present.
·MUST
This is one of their trickiest. Legally it is synonymous with ‘may’ and can
be used either as a directive or an imperative. The imperative creates an
obligation; the directive merely defines conditions which have to be
fulfilled in order for authority to be claimed. Often used with the word
‘application’.
In particular, an acceptance is qualified that is( a) conditional, that is
to say, that makes payment by the acceptor dependent on the fulfillment of a
condition therein stated;( b) partial, that is to say, an acceptance to pay
part only of the amount for which the bill is drawn;( c) qualified as to
time; or( d) the acceptance of one or more of the drawees, but to of
all.That is exactly how you are going to deal with these Violation Tickets
and other Notices and you have every right to do so. Before we do that, we
need to know what some of the words mean, because we are going to use that
knowledge to formulate our questions later. You should start by realizing
that words in Legalese often do not mean what they do in English.
Moreover, they also often have TWO separate and distinct and often
contradictory definitions or senses.
APPLICATION
Means to beg, plead petition, implore, entreat or request. The assumption it
creates in court is that he who begs knows exactly what he is begging for,
what he is giving up for it, he is acknowledging the authority to grant or
he is creating it through transference and he is doing all voluntarily.
·ATTEND
Legally, this means to accept a duty of service or a debt. It does not mean
to show up or be present.
·MUST
This is one of their trickiest. Legally it is synonymous with ‘may’ and can
be used either as a directive or an imperative. The imperative creates an
obligation; the directive merely defines conditions which have to be
fulfilled in order for authority to be claimed. Often used with the word
‘application’.
·NAME
Your name is like a label. Saying ‘My Name is John” is not the same thing as
saying “I am John.”. The name designates a ‘person’ and that person is what
the
government can act upon. If you are ever asked for a name for a ticket or
notice, never say ‘My name is…” Say instead “I am…”
·NOTICE
Legally, it is akin to an invitation, although if ignored or rejected you go
into dishonor. It is really nothing more than an offer.
·PERSON
A human being and a ‘person’ are two very different things. A ‘person’ is
‘the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes’.
POBC (or Other Area of Authority)
THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA is not a geographical area. It is a legal
entity or a fiction and human beings simply cannot exist within it. Our
‘persons’ however can.
REQUIRED
The same as ‘must’. This word has two opposite legal senses. One is passive,
the other active. Remember this, unless it says ‘obliged’ you aren’t. They
will often try to use the words ‘must’ and ‘required’ to get you to fulfill
the conditions which grant them power.
SOCIETY
A society is a number of people joined through mutual consent to deliberate,
determine and act for a common goal. Being a member of a society is a choice
and just because you exist within a certain area does not mean you are
obliged to join.
STATUTE
A legislated rule of society which has the force of law. Statutes only have
the force of Law over those who through consent, are members of the society
governed by the statutes. You will know them by the word ‘Act’.
Violation Tickets and Appearance Notices Deconstructed
Now at the
time you get the ticket or notice, there are some things you do not want to
do.
Do not give them a ‘name’. Tell them “People call me” or “I am...” Or
something of that nature.
IF you can avoid signing it, do so. If they threaten you then sign it but
FIRST write in “Non-Assumpsit, Without Prejudice, All Rights Reserved, and
Under Duress”.
Ask them if they are giving you a ticket or notice. When they say ‘Yes”,
reply “The word ‘give’ implies an acceptance on my part and I am not
accepting any
gifts today. Thank You.”
What you want to be able to accomplish is to be able to claim that you did
not accept or assent to the ticket or bill being presented. It’s a matter of
‘joinder’ and you do not want to create it. Go so far as to say “I do not
wish to create joinder.”
Do not be cocky or a smartass; just establish the foundation you will build
upon later. Ensure also that you get a card from the issuer of the bill.
The basic foundation is this: You did not give a ‘name’ and you did not
assent to the presentation.
Now let’s take a look at both sides of a Violation Ticket and see what’s
there.
TICKET
Refers back to ‘tick’, which is a mark placed against a masters account by a
servant. It implies a debt.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher
a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts,
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects.”
Now at the time you get the ticket or notice, there are some things you do
not want to do.
Do not give them a ‘name’. Tell them “People call me”
or “I am...” Or something of that nature.
IF you can avoid signing it, do so. If they threaten you
then sign it but FIRST write in “Non-Assumpsit, Without
Prejudice, All Rights Reserved, and Under Duress”.
Ask them if they are giving you a ticket or notice. When
they say ‘Yes”, reply “The word ‘give’ implies an
acceptance on my part and I am not accepting any
gifts today. Thank You.”
On the
face of the Tickets, you will find your name, usually spelled with all
capitalized letters and with your last name first and then your given names
last. I.e. DOE, JOHN ADAM instead of John Adam Doe. The capitalization
indicates that they are dealing with your ‘strawman’ or nomde-guerre. It is
not you the human being, it is your person, which is the legal subject or
substance of which rights a duties are attributes. Do not worry if you do
not understand this concept; as long as the person who issued the ticket
doesn’t know, you can use this information to ask them questions which they
will be incapable of answering.
You will also find that they will label you as either a ‘passenger’,
‘driver’, ‘pedestrian’, ‘cyclist’, ‘owner’ or ‘other’.
You should know that legally, a ‘passenger is one who has paid a fare to be
on the conveyance. If you did not pay, you are not legally a passenger. Most
Officers do not realize that and think that if you are on the train or in
the vehicle
you are a passenger. Make them prove that.
You will also find the statement:
“THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAYS THAT HE OR SHE HAS REASONABLE AND PROBABLE
GROUNDS TO BELIEVE AND DOES
BELIEVE THAT THE ABOVE NAMED, AS, [ here they mention
and label you as one of the things mentiond above] on or about [then they
give details of time and location] DID COMMIT THE OFFENCE(S)
INDICATED, UNDER THE FOLLOWING ACT OR ITS
REGULATIONS: [Then they list various Acts]
If when the ticket was issued to you, you did not show Identification, they
have no claim that there even is a ’person’ for them to act upon. They also
act upon the assumption that you will not realize that all Acts only have
the force of
law over those who hav consented to being governed. When you respond to
them, you will raise this issue. It scares them. Unless the person who
issued the Ticket knows what every word on there means, they are the ones
who will end up ‘dishonouring’ the bill.
The most important words you will find on the Tickets are the smallest ones
there. In super small type it states ‘IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA’.
(or THE STATE OF, or THE COUNTY OF, THE MUNICIPALITY OF, etc.)
You will be asking them to provide proof that they even know what THE
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA is. If they cannot do that, they have no
‘reasonable and probable grounds’ to believe anything happened within it, do
they?
These are the two biggest secrets you will be expressing to them with your
questions.
1- THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (DESIGNATED ENFORCED AREA) is not a
geographical area, it is a legal entity or fiction and no human being can
possibly exist within it.
2-The ‘person’ named on a ticket can and does exist within TPOBC and
therefore is not a human being. It exists in an association with you and you
can end that association whenever you want. If you do... NO STATUTE OR ACT
WILL HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW OVER YOU.
By asking them these questions, you put them in a position where they have
to acknowledge the truth and thus abandon much of their authority, or they
will have to acknowledge that they are ignorant of the law. Either way, you
put them between a rock and a hard place. Remind them that ignorance of the
law is no excuse for breaking the law.
Chances are, they will not get back to you. Imagine once again you are in a
restaurant, the server presents a bill, you ask some questions concerning
the bill, they take it back and never return. Do you owe anyone anything? NO
you do not. The Bill was presented, honoured and never re-presented. There
is no Bill.
Read the example on the next page and use it as a template to create your
own Conditional Acceptance. The system they use is simply not designed to
deal with you exercising your right to Conditionally Accept.
Back of the Tickets:
On the back of the Tickets they tell you that you have three choices;
ignore, pay or dispute. If you choose to pay, you are agreeing with them
that you are guilty and a conviction is entered against your name. If you
ignore, its the same thing, you are deemed to have accepted the bill and you
have to pay. The third option is to choose to dispute and this is where they
really trick you. If you accept this option, you are willfully stepping into
dishonour. You have not exercised your right to discuss or negotiate and are
jumping right into the dispute. Bear in
mind, that if you engage in that option, there will be two parties before
the court, with only one wishing to dispute.
You have lost honour merely by WISHING FOR DISPUTE.
You have abandoned the rule of Law and there really is no sense going to
court, for you have essentially already lost. What you want to do is extend
an offer to discuss and have them reject that offer. They are then the ones
‘wishing for
dispute’ and thus are in dishonour. Realize that they are trying to create
an adversarial relationship. They are your foe and antagonist. Lets say
someone tried to get you to consent to fight and then said “You have to
fight me and and the first thing you have to do is either bang your head
against the wall or kick the
curb.” Why let your adversary dictate the way you will fight them? Clearly
they will try to get you to do something that is in their interest and not
yours.
Wishing dispute is one of the stupiest things anyone can do. Make them state
that they wish dispute or force them to discuss it with you. The Officer who
issued the ticket will not like that. Defending in court he or she will get
paid overtime; dealing with a Conditional Acceptance they will not. Plus, if
they do not deal with it, they ends up DISHONOURING THEIR OWN BILL and thus
ends up having to pay it themselves.
Next time you get a ticket, try these actions:
1. Take the original and tell him you intend to honour it within 3 days.
2. If he demands you return the original, consider the bill not properly
and duly presented.
3. Ask before he gives it to you if he is giving you a ticket. When he
says yes, you have an agreement to take the original, not a copy.
They do not say they are giving you a copy of the ticket, they say
they are giving you a ticket. BIG difference.
4. To accept the ticket, lay your hands out flat and make him put the
ticket book in your hands. Do not touch the ticket until he is no
longer in contact with it. Anything less and the presentation is not
complete and he likely knows it.
5. Ask “You don’t mind if I conditionally accept this do you?”
6. Quote section 16 (1) of the Bills of Exchange Act. It defines a bill of
exchange and a violation ticket matches it exactly.
7. Ask him if he has the right to impose a copy of a bill when the original
of the bill has never been duly presented.
8. Quote this section: 55 (2) In particular, the title of a person who
negotiates a bill is defective within the meaning of this Act when he
obtained the bill, or the
acceptance thereof, by fraud, duress or force and fear, or other unlawful
means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach
of faith, or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud. Tell him he is
engaged in a type of fraud by failing to understand the nature of the
instrument he is presenting. If he does not give you the ticket and then
claims in court that you rejected the ticket, he is guilty of perjury and it
can cost him his job! Remember, he has not completed the presentation of the
bill until it is in your control and possession and he is no longer touching
it.
FACT:
A violation Ticket is a bill of exchange according to the Bills of Exchange
Act. (Section 16(1) BEA)
FACT:
A bill returned to the issuer by you with merely a signature on it is
evidence of a dishonoured bill. (Sec 98 BEA)
FACT:
A copy of a dishonoured bill is evidence that the bill was presented, served
and dishonoured. (Section 10 BEA)
FACT:
The reason they impose the copy on you is because you failed to take the
original! You can take the original, not a mere copy.
FACT:
If the officer tries to stop you from taking the original, HE IS DISCHARGING
THE BILL FOR YOU AND ENDS UP BEING LIABLE! (Sec 84 BEA.)
FACT:
You have three days grace to honour the bill (original) once presented to
you. (Sec 41 BEA)
FACT:
If you sign a bill, it is assumed that you are a party to that bill and are
liable for it. (Sec 35 (2) BEA)
FACT:
You can accept the bill up to two days after it has been duly presented.
(Sec 79(1) BEA)
FACT:
You do not have to sign the ticket unless you intend to give it back to the
officer dishonoured.
FACT:
If the officer presenting the bill is incapable of accepting payment when
offered, the bill is considered invalid.

United States v. Herrera , __
F.3d __ 05-3057 (10th
Cir. (Kan.) Apr. 19, 2006).
Search and Seizure (Administrative Automobile
Inventory
Search -Mistake of Fact - Exclusionary Rule - Good Faith
Exception Inapplicable) .
A Kansas state trooper pulled over defendant's
pickup truck
to conduct a random commercial vehicle safety
inspection
pursuant to a state regulatory statute.
Defendant's pickup,
however, was not a commercial vehicle subject to
such random
inspections, about which the trooper was mistaken.
The
defendant was unable to produce proof of insurance,
and
the trooper arrested him. The trooper then
conducted an
inventory search, and discovered 23 kilograms of
cocaine. The
defendant was charged federally with possession of
cocaine
with intent to distribute. He filed a motion
to suppress,
that was denied. He was convicted, and appealed.
Held:
Conviction reversed and case dismissed. Ruled: The
traffic
stop was not based on probable cause, or reasonable
suspicion, and was not a valid administrative stop
because
defendant's pickup was not a commercial vehicle subject
to
random safety inspections . Hence, the
warrantless stop
was unconstitutional. Moreover, the trooper's
mistaken
belief concerning the statutory regulatory scheme
did not
save the stop, search, and seizure because the
trooper
had no lawful authority to make the random
inspection and
there was no reasonable suspicion or probable
cause. Thus,
the good-faith exception did not apply.

There are reportedly
some 86 million Americans who are not paying income taxes. Now just think if a
good portion of those Americans woke up to the facts of the DMV non-disclosure
regarding what is a motor vehicle and what is not a motor vehicle. As an example of the power of the people,
let's take the case of the CB radio issue back in the 70's. The FCC was trying
to get all truckers to get a license for using CB's. The truckers flat out
refused and simple did not volunteer to get the license that they were trying
to enforce. United together the truckers won! Read this short article below.
In 1977 the FCC
introduced an addition 17 channels to make the current 40 channels that are
available today. Also, in 1977 the FCC discontinued the license that was needed
to operate a CB station. A license is not needed as long as you operate and
follow the rules and regulations of the FCC. Here is a good story I found:
Tales of CB woe at the hands of the FCC
Once people wake up to
the fact that all acts are truly voluntary, then people will truly realize
their power. As it stand right now, when someone goes down to the DMV and
registers their car to get a title and plates, the unknowingly convert the car
into a motor vehicle and in doing so, a commercial carrier. Here is the proof.
This is taken right from the WISCONSIN TITLE & LICENSE PLATE APPLICATION.
Certification. All
parties certify with their signature that to the best of their knowledge the
information and statements on this application are true and correct. The prior
owner's odometer statement has been shown to the applicant and a copy of this
completed application including odometer statement has been furnished the
applicant. COMMERICIAL CARRIERS - I further certify knowledge of applicable
federal and state motor carrier safety rules, regulations, standards and
orders, and declare that all operations will be conducted in compliance with
such requirements.Then there is a big X and a place to sign.
Now, I know people
will say, well I am not a commercial carrier and that doesn't apply to me.
Guess again folks, There wasn't a check off place for an exclusion to that
certification and it was that way on purpose. The STATE could have one
application for people with cars and another for commercial carriers, but they
DO NOT.
Here is why: JUST FOR
FUN, can anyone magically find the definition of just the word
"passenger" in any State Motor Vehicle Code? Hint: you won't find it!
That is because this would expose the trickery the DMVs have played on people's
ignorance to get them to voluntarily register their non-passenger private autos
as "motor vehicles".
"driving"
and "operating" are commercial terms and are being used to designate
such activity on unknowing people via the statutes (not laws) whom then are
only recognized as a "person" (legal entity) so that the government
entities (corporations) can tax, regulate and control.
Definition of
"driver" from Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed., Pg. 940
One employed in
conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle
Definition of
"passenger" from Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Pg. 1280.
One carried for hire or reward, as distinguished from a "guest" who
is one carried gratuitously...
Definition of
"motor vehicle" in the U.S.Codes is: The term "motor
vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance
propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the
highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property
or cargo. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 2 > § 31(6)
Definition of (10)
Used for commercial purposes. The term "used for commercial
purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee,
rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection
with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. Link: Definitions
in U.S.C.
Do you charge anyone
for sitting in the car while you take them to school, to the shopping mall or
travel in the car anywhere for that matter? So what are WE going to do about
it?
You can begin by
simply pulling out the copy of the Title and License Plate Application that you
signed and reading it. It surely will be different in "your" State,
but the premise is the same. Then you can NOTIFY the STATE DMV that there has
been a mistake, and you wish to correct it. They will probably ignore your
request so then you need to send the next notification using a notary or two
witnesses. This is just one more step in taking back our freedoms and right to
travel. ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN DILIGENCE !

-------- Original
Message --------
Subject: Lic for jop list
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:21:46 -0700
From: Cory Palmerton <ucc1-207@budget.net>
To: Charles Bruce, Stewart <charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>
Texas Driver's License
Here is how the Appelate Criminal Courts
of Texas have answered
this request:
"The court has held that there is no
such license known to
Texas Law as a driver's license." (Frank John Callas v. State, 167
Tex. Crim. 375; 320 S.W. 2d 360.)
And."We have held that there is no such license as a driver's
license known to our law." (Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex.
Crim. 627;
274 S.W. 2d 401.)
And.An information charging the driving of
a motor vehicle
upon
a public highway without a driver's license charges no offense, as
there is no such license as a driver's license known to the law."
(Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex. Crim. 546; 258 S.W. 2d 317)
And.
"There being no such license as a
"driver's" license known to
the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of
a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no
offense." ( W. Lee Hassell v. The State, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; 194 S.W.
2d 400)

Rick
Stanley
Constitutional
Activist
Phone:
303-329-0481
E-mail:
rick@stanley2002.org
We
the People Scoop 04/02/05 ** Special Edition **
=========================================================
WE
THE PEOPLE SCOOP - TO EXPOSE! **
**
Visit the website: http://www.stanley2002.org **
**
Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know! **
=========================================================
MEDIA
RELEASE: The origin of the driver's license.
STANLEY
NOTE: All of the state driver's license statutes are similar. The Supreme Court
long ago declared the right to travel is a basic Constitutional right, not a
"privelage" to be "given by government". The driver's
license is for commercial and hired vehicles only. Americans continue to be
conned. The IRS Income Tax. The Federal Reserve CORPORATION. The courts. The
9-11 cover-up by government. The list goes on and on, into every aspect of our
lives. America suffers.
Live
FREE or Die!
Rick
Stanley
Subject:
The Origin of the Driver's License
The
Origin of the Driver's License
Remember
there were several before this, 1905 and 1909, Read the Stork case
A
1925 Act Creating Driver's Licenses for those Engaged in Transportation for
Hire.
STATUTES
OF CALIFORNIA
Passed
At The
REGULAR
SESSION OF THE
FORTY-SIXTH
LEGISLATURE
1925
CHAPTER
412
An
act to impose a license fee for the transportation of persons or
property
for hire or compensation upon public streets, roadways and
highways
in the State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for
certain
exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions
hereof
and for the disposition of the amounts collected on account
of
such licenses; to make an appropriation for the purpose of this
act; and
to repeal all acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith.
[
Approved by the Governor May 28, 1925. ]
The
people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section
1. The words and phrases used in this act
shall
for the purposes of this act, unless the same be
contrary
to or inconsistent with the context, be
construed
as follows:
(a)
The phrase "railroad commission certificate" shall
be
construed to mean a certificate of public convenience
and
necessity granted or issued by the railroad
commission
of the State of California, authorizing a
common
carrier by motor vehicle to operate under the
conditions
prescribed by said commission, and shall
include
all amendments to or changes in such certificate
which
may be made by said commission.
(b)
The word "operator" shall include all persons,
firms,
associations and corporations who operate motor
vehicles
upon any public highway in this state and
thereby
engage in the transportation of persons or
property
for hire or compensation, but shall not include
any
person, firm, association or corporation who solely
transports
by motor vehicle persons to and from or to or
from
attendance upon any public school or who solely
transports
his or its own property, or employees, or
both,
and who transports no persons or property for hire
or
compensation, but all persons operating freight
carrying
so exempted shall be required to obtain from the
state
board of equalization and to display exempt emblems
in
the manner herein provided.
(c)
The term "registration certificate" shall include
any
and all certificates of registration of a motor
vehicle
issued by the division of motor vehicles of the
department
of finance of the State of California, or by
any
governmental body within said state under which the
laws
of the said state may have power or authority to
register
and certify to the registration of a motor
vehicle
for operation within said state.
Sec.
10. All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith
are
hereby repealed; provided, however, that nothing herein
shall
be construed as affecting or repealing the
provisions
of an act entitled " An Act providing for the
supervision
and regulation of the transportation of
persons
and property for compensation over any public
highway
by automobiles, jitney, busses, auto trucks,
stages
and auto stages; defining transportation
companies
and providing for the supervision and
regulations
thereof by the railroad commission;
providing
for the enforcement of the provisions of this
act
and for the punishment of violations thereof; and,
repealing
all acts inconsistent with the provisions of
this
act, " approved May 10, 1917, as amended.
À
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA
Fifty-Second
Session
CHAPTER
679
An
act to amend sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of an act entitled "An
Act imposing
a license fee or tax for the transportation of persons
or
property for hire or compensation upon the public streets, roads
and
highways on the State of California by motor vehicle and
providing
that this act shall take effect immediately," approved May
15,
1933; to add sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 112, 15, and 21 to said act;
to
renumber and amend sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17
of
said act; to repeal sections 10 and 15 of said act; relating to the
taxing
of operators engaged in the transportation of persons or
property
upon the public highways by motor vehicle and providing
that
this act shall take effect immediately.
[Approved
by the Governor June 30, 1937. In effect immediately]
The
people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section
1. Section 1 of the act cited in the title
hereof
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section
1. The words and phrases used in this act
shall
be construed for the purposes of said act, unless
such
construction be contrary to or inconsistent with the
context
thereof, as follows: ( in part )
(a)
The term "operator" shall include all persons ingaging
in
the transportation of persons or property for hire or
compensation
by or upon motor vehicles upon any
public
highway in this State, either directly or
indirectly,
but shall not mean or include the following:
(1)
Any person transporting his own property in
his
own motor vehicle; provided however, that any
such
person making a specific charge for such
transportation
shall be deemed to be an "operator"
hereunder;
(b)
The term "person" shall include any individual,
firm,
copartnership, joint adventure, association,
corporation,
estate trust, business trust, receiver,
syndicate,
or any other group or combination acting as a
unit and
the plural as well as the singular number.
(c)
the term "motor vehicle" shall include all
automobiles,
trucks, tractors, or other self-propelled
vehicles
used for the transportation of person or
property
upon the public highways, otherwise than upon
fixed
rails or tracks, and any trailer, semitrailer,
dolly
or other vehicle drawn thereby, not exempt from
registration
fees under the laws of this State.
Have
a great day --
He
has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices,
and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He
has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harass our People, and eat out their substance
"The
rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been
voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
Richard
James, McDonald
http://www.state-citizen.org
Join
our Citizenship Educational program
(818)
703-5037 voice