I DON'T TRUST EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT.
ACTUALLY THE "GOVERNMENT" IS FINE, IT'S THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE THE PROBLEM.

CLICK THE IMAGE TO VIEW LARGER



Do you know for a fact, or to a certainty what the Department of Motor Vehicles actually regulates? Are you a Common Carrier or Delivery person? The State has the authority to regulate Business and Professions. They KEY to understanding what DRIVING is, is the LICENSE itself.

What is a LICENSE for?
This course is for attorneys who intend to be a judge or commissioner.   This course was prepared by the State government of California.  

Do you think it would be worthwhile to know what a Pre-Judge is taught about how to judge trials correctly?



I've gone through every California Code and selected some sections.

The pdf is 45 pages.


This is a California Government publication prepared by the California Attorney General's office.  

This is a compilation of some sections from the entire publication which consists of a 4 inch thick bindaer on an array of topics.

This would be considered the other football team's play book.   It provides police officers with legal information the Attorney General considers inportant regarding arrests, traffic stops, searches & seizures of car and people.   In fact YOU can buy this because California makes it available for purchase.


It's Oliver Wendell Holmes work and it's free.




The Doctrine of Stare Decisis is a very powerful rule that applies to those government employees who wear black robes.   
You might consider this the Secular Bible, at least as it relates to torts, or civil wrong doing.

This is a brief compilation of sections and information about torts and other civil wrong doing.  Invaluable is an understatement.

The title says it all.
The title says it all.

This is additional information and thoughts about the topic. Everyone calls it that but that's not what the Legislature calls it, and they make the LAW. If, as you believe, it's your car, how did the cop acquire the authority to take it from you without a warrant or paying for it?  

How does the cop get away with Grand Theft Auto?

Impounding = Taking
That paper issued by the law enforcement officer is what gets you into court.  

Do you know what it is?

Do you know what it ACTUALLY is?   How do you know for a fact it's the CORRECT paper so the court is authorized to resolve the officer's allegation.
This is what people’s thinking and beliefs reflect:

• You have no right to use your car for any reason to go anywhere unless
you have your government employee's permission.

• You have no right to own your car absolutely.

• You have to share ownership with the State.

• You have to pay the State before you can legally use your car on the streets and highways.

• You have to include the State in your purchase of a car.

• You have no right to use the car to travel for any reason without your government employee’s permission.

• Before you can legally use your car, you have to ask for your employee’s permission and when they determine you qualify they’ll grant their
permission so you can use your car to legally travel to the store to buy food or your place of worship or to visit family or friends. And you’ll pay them annually to do so.
These 32 court cases conslusively hold there's a difference between the COMMERCIAL and NONCOMMERCIAL use of the streets and highways.  

It's the COMMERCIAL use that requires one to apply for and carry a Driver license to use their car, truck, van, SUV, or motorcycle to drive because DRIVING is a PROFESSION or OCCUPATION or JOB.  

Driving is COMMERCIAL USE of the streets and highways and the State has the power to regulate the commercial use of those who use the street for that PRIVILEGE, These are top notch cases and useable in any traffic case

An INDEX an TABLE OF AUTHORITIES are included.


DONATION  $50
Have you SEEN the authorization for a police officer to make a traffic stop?   Are you aware the police officer can not break the laws they agreed to and swore an oath not to break?

How do you know they're AUTHORIZED to do what they do if you've never SEEN the rules that apply to them?   What if they break one or more, do they have to pay like everyone else?
Of course you have the RIGHT to film or photograph WHEN YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE ON THE JOB.   When municipal employees are on the job they have a DIMINISHED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY because they're a PUBLIC employee.   They work for the People, not the other way around

RULE OF THUMB:

ALWAYS CARRY A CAMERA AND/OR DIGITAL RECORDING DEVICE.
You've been lied to.   The customer is not the party REQUIRED to pay sales tax.   The sales tax is imposed on the RETAILER ONLY!

The customers are being defrauded and subject to extortion if the dare question the cashier or store manager they're required to know the law as it applies to tax.   They have a duty to know the law about sales tax because they are the liable party for it, again, not the customer.  

YES, copies of receipts from natirional retailers  are provided.   YES, the primere California Court case on what the sales tax is, the reason for it, and to whom the obligation to pay it is.

I put this together for my own use and have used it successfully numerous shopping outings.  
IT CONTAINS THE LAW no one knows about but EVERY retailer in California is mandated to comply with, NOT THE CUSTOMER!  

DONATION  $75

Here's some information.


Additional information and observations on the RETAILER'S tax liability.



The Carry-Out Grocery Bag program implimented in California on November 8, 2016, is a SCAM. The stores NEVER HAD TO PARTICIPATE.

The program is VOLUNTARY.

The store MUST FORMALLY OPT-IN.   The store MUST send IRREVOCABLE WRITTEN NOTICE of their intent to sell bags BEFORE they can legally sell them.  

Is a COURTESY COPY of the IRREVOCABLE WRITTEN NOTICE available for public or customer inspection upon request?  

Download this expose and you'll soon learn who KNOWS the law and who doesn't.  

HINT
:  THE CASHIERS DON'T AND NEITHER DO THEIR MANAGERS.

I've gone through every California Code and selected some sections.

The pdf is 45 pages.


Civil Asset Forfeiture is summary depravation of property before a hearing or trial where the  owner is required to prove their property's innocense.   Civil Asset Forfeiture is THEFT because no warrant is served.   



            Unless otherwise designated, individual essays are available as a thank you for your donation of one of these...




            ...and one of these...




            ...or one of these if one like that isn't available...



Unless otherwise designated, any three essays are available as a thank you for your donation of one of these...

   

...and one each of these...




            Additional information about each essay upon request.


            I typically repgainate court cases I down load.   Having read in excess of 10,000 court cases over the course of 30 years, Times New Roman is the last font I'm interested in vlooking at.   The text of the essays is a Sans Serif font, CALIBRI.   It's a Microsoft font that may have been supplied with your word processor.   If you need/want a FREE font or fonts, please click here.   A Sans Serif font is clean and much easier on the eyes, especially for extended reading periods.




8 Gig USB Flash

An 8 Gig USB thumb drive is available that contains 5.7 GIGS of information about the DMV and Traffic issues.   

It's a PRIMER for anyone doing DMV or Traffic Law studies, or any law study for that matter.


Download the list of items on the Flash Drive.



My Law folder contains over 300 GIGS of information.   I may have what you're looking for.  

If you have a specific interest please let me know and I can build a flash drive that contains information related to your interest.




          
            Some of my accomplishments resulting from the proper application of the law:



-   THE MONEY $HOT   -


TOW COMPANY RETURNS MY CAR AT NO COST,  WHICH THEY HAD FOR 262 DAYS @ $55 @ day.  

I DID NOT PAY EITHER THE TOWING NOR STORAGE FEES.   I DID NOT PAY A DIME!  

THE TOW COMPANY SUED THE CITY OF SAN JOSE!


I APPLIED LAW, I DID NOT PRACTICE LAW.




            I designed the defense in both of the following speeding cases.   I designed the questions used by the defendants.   Those questions yielded the following ADMISSIONS by both judges, and one of the officers.




  
                                          










            This was the result of a traffic case of mine where I field tested a series of questions to pose to the officer who made the warrantless arrest.   I worked on the questions over a period of 7 years.   This was the FIRST case where I used those questions.   The officer was VERY cooperative in answering them and as you see, the result was in my favor.   In fact, in the two speeding cases referenced above, the same questions were used to gain the admissions from the judges and the arresting officer.  

            If you don't know what that means, then my essays are for you, because you'll LEARN WHY they'll make that admission.   Then it's up to you to figure out HOW TO construct the questions you'd want to ask to get the same admission.    If I can do it, and I have, then you can too, if you want.




            What are the odds of THREE government agencies LOSING an Opening Brief On Appeal?   I first filed it with Traffic Court, then I proceeded to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, after filing it there I proceeded to the DA's office.   I left the DA's office with my FILE STAMPED copy by all three agencies.   It took approximately 2 hours from the time I walked through the front door of the Traffic Court until I left the DA's office to file all the copies.   Again, what are the odds of all three of them "losing" the document?   Nah, I have a pretty good idea why they didn't want me at a hearing on appeal.   I'm confident they didn't want the questions I posed  in the Opening Brief, and they're HAVING to the answer them, on the record.   I believe, but can't prove, they didn't want you to find out what I asked, but again, I can't prove that.   



           
            How much do you suppose you'd save annually if you didn't pay sales tax?





                    








            This is a SETTLEMENT from The Town of Los Gatos due to a couple of their police officers breaking the law and denying the rights they swore an oath not to deny, who subjected me to a warrantless arrest because I refused to COOPERATE and tell the cop my name and where I lived as I was walking home from a buddy's house one Sunday night.   In fact, the incident occurred approximately 300 yards from my elementary school.   I filed a CLAIM FOR DAMAGES with the Town clerk for false imprisonment, this is what I got for my efforts:

( RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS )



            I was RESTORED in the amount of $10,000.   I did not have to go to court to get paid for my troubles.   There's NO TAX on a settlement.   After I got paid I went to The Off-Ramp bicycle store on El Camino Real in Santa Clara and bought a brand new Specialized mountain bike.   I paid NO SALES TAX for it, just like I paid NO SALES TAX on an $1199.88 Compac lap top computer.   

            One of the cops involved, Ken Berry, a 22 YEAR veteran of the force, was FIRED.   They DID NOT prepare an INCIDENT REPORT of a nearly TWO HOUR stop.   They NEVER turned the engine off of the patrol vehicle during the entireity of the FALSE IMPRISONMENT.   They WASTED gasoline the People of the community had to pay for.   They DEFRAUDED their employer by not accounting for their time!  

            I barely got out of highskool and if I can figure out THE LAW and USE IT CORRECTLY so can anyone else who's has marginally functional frontal lobes, can read, can speak, can write or type.
   I'm not an attorney and I don't want to be one.   I do not intend to be a pull-toy for the BAR.   I just want to know what they know and do it myself.   I can talk, I can type, I can read, and I can hear.   I can do exactly what an attorney does and the BAR, nor any member of the BAR has any authority over me.   All they can do is bullshit because I've read the rule books, the same rule books they read, so we'll see who interpreted what they read more acurately should any pushin comes to shovin.  

            I've been involved in over 100 court cases, my own and others that I've worked on over the past 25 years.  
A former Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara Court system personally ordered my last case dismissed with prejudice, as you saw above.   In fact we collaborated on the document.   In fact the Presiding Judge sent unsolicited correspondence to me offering to dismiss my case that I had on appeal given I wasn't successful at trial.   Apparently it was too "hot" because I was informed by the Presiding Judge that my opening brief on appeal had gone missing and no one seemed to be able to locate it.   Keep in mind THREE agencies, Traffic Court, the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, and the District Attorney all couldn't seem to find it, notwithstanding the fact I filed the document in all three agencies within a TWO hour period.   What are the odds that THREE government agencies, TWO courts and the District Attorney, lost an opening brief on appeal?   I still have my FILE STAMPED copy stamped by all three agencies.   And I also have the signed order by the then Presiding Judge dismissing my case with prejudice that I worked on with her.  

            I've both designed and assisted with court cases.   I appealed my first case to the California Supreme Court.  I worked at a collection agency/process service/judgement enforcement company for 5 years.   I'm 15 for 15 in preventing debt collectors from collecting a debt, including 3 instances that involved the Franchise Tax Board.   My work has resulted in 5 cars and trucks being returned from impound without having to pay.   My work has resulted in the prevention of cars being impounded on 4 occasions.   I've made numerous purchases without paying sales tax or the California CRV.   I have court transcripts, my own and others I've worked with, that clearly demonstrate the fraud Traffic and Small Claims court are.  I study law and apply it in my daily life.   It's one thing to talk about law, it's another to apply it, if it's not applicable at the cash register or when we go to the grocery story or our place of worship, what good is it?

            No one, including seasoned attorneys and judges, would believe what people who wear black robes have said on the record if they didn't see the actual words some of these braindead neanderthalls have spewed.   My work is designed to expose and illuminate the lies that have become part and parcel of everyone's daily lives.    What's happening in Traffic Court is a scandal, period Unless people become aware of just how corrupt the place is and how incompetent the employees there are, things will never change.   Fraud & Extortion form the basis of the so-called TRAFFIC STOP.  



           Additionally, one of my major accomplishments is PROOF there's both state and federal citizens.   You can tell people all day long there's two classes of citizens and they will NOT believe you.   You can show them court citations and they will NOT believe you.   It's their loss.   

            Citizens of the state are not required to apply for and possess a Driver License in order to lawfully use their car to go from Point A to Point B, state Citizens are exempt.   The PROOF was provided by the Deparment of Motor Vehicles who acknowledged the distinction in citizenship status.  

“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several states.  Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own...”
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542

“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual”.
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...”  “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

““Citizenship” and “residence”, as has often been declared by the courts, are not convertible terms. ...

“”The better opinion seems to be that a citizen of the United States is, under the amendment [14th], prima facie a citizen of the state wherein he resides , cannot arbitrarily be excluded therefrom by such state, but that he does not become a citizen of the state against his will, and contrary to his purpose and intention to retain an already acquired citizenship elsewhere.  The amendment [14th] is a restraint on the power of the state, but not on the right of the person to choose and maintain his citizenship or domicile”“.
Sharon v. Hill, 26 F. 337 (1885) [inserts added]

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

            If there's no such thing as state citizenship then why would the US and State Supreme Court refer to something that didn't exist?


            If there's no such thing as state citizenship then why would the Department of Motor Vehicles acknowledge something that didn't exist?   Did the Department of Motor Vehicles commit mail fraud?   Did they use the federal mail to mislead, or did they merely acknowledge?   Someone typed that.   That was not processed by a printer, it was typed, so someone had to think about that before or while they were typing something they'd never seen before.   Would you be curious about that addressing information if you were unaware it existed?   Would you think it was odd?   Would you bother to investigate if there was such a thing?   Well I did and I decided that was the BETTER status of the two, state or federal.   The federal Constitution protects few rights with minimal protects, the State Constitution on the other hand provides even greater protection to all one's unalienable rights.

[6] In addressing this issue, we begin by reaffirming the now settled principle that the California courts, in interpreting the Constitution of this state, are not bound by federal precedent construing the parallel federal text; as we recently stated in Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981) 29 Cal.3d 252 [172 Cal.Rptr. 866, 625 P.2d 779], the "state courts, in interpreting constitutional guarantees [30 Cal.3d 836] contained in state constitutions, are 'independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their citizens.'" (P. 261, quoting People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528, 551 [119 Cal.Rptr. 315, 531 P.2d 1099].) fn. 10   Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, nevertheless, are entitled to respectful consideration (People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88, 97 [177 Cal.Rptr. 576, 634 P.2d 927]; People v. Longwill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 943, 951, fn. 4 [123 Cal.Rptr. 297, 538 P.2d 753]) and ought to be followed unless persuasive reasons are presented for taking a different course
People v. Teresinski, 30 Cal.3d 822
[Crim. No. 20497. Supreme Court of California. February 18, 1982.]

Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana (former Health & Saf. Code, 11530, now 11357) and possession of a restricted dangerous drug (former Health & Saf. Code, 11910, now 11377). His motion to suppress the evidence on the ground of illegal search and seizure (Pen. Code, 1538.5) was denied.

...we hold that the officers' subsequent intrusion into the opaque bottle and envelopes inside the knapsack cannot be justified by the limited purpose which validated the search in its inception.   Accordingly, we hold these items were obtained by means of an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of article I, section 13, of the California Constitution.

Officer Denney explained, "Primarily because of the terrain, we could not secure them.   We had at that time arrested them, taken their freedom away from them.

[6] Defendant was arrested for one of the most minor of nontraffic violations -- a mere citation offense.   In such a case the fact of the arrest does not justify a search of the belongings of the person cited:  there can be no instrumentalities and there can be no fruits,...

Our holding today is based exclusively on article I, section 13, of the California Constitution, which requires a more exacting standard for cases arising within this state.

This court has always assumed the independent vitality of our state Constitution. In the search and seizure area our decisions have often comported with federal law, yet there has never been any question that this similarity was a matter of choice and not compulsion.   As Chief Justice Wright stated in People v. Triggs (1973) 8 Cal.3d 884, 892, footnote 5 [106 Cal.Rptr. 408, 506 P.2d 232]: "At least since the advent of Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 338 U.S. 25 [93 L.Ed. 1782, 69 S.Ct. 1359], we have treated the law under article I, section 19 [now 13], of our state Constitution as 'substantially equivalent' to the Supreme Court's construction [13 Cal.3d 549] of the Fourth Amendment. (See Blair v. Pitchess (1971) 5 Cal.3d 258, 270-271, fn. 6 [96 Cal.Rptr. 42, 486 P.2d 1242, 47 A.L.R.3d 1206].)   On at least one occasion, however, we have expressly departed from the federal rule to afford defendants a broader security against unreasonable searches and seizures than that required by the Supreme Court. (See People v. Martin (1955) 45 Cal.2d 755, 759-761 [290 P.2d 855] [vicarious exclusionary rule].)   [12] In interpreting our state Constitution, we of course retain the 'power to impose higher standards on searches and seizures than required by the Federal Constitution.' (Cooper v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 58, 62 [17 L.Ed.2d 730, 734, 87 S.Ct. 788].)" (See generally Falk, The State Constitution: A More Than "Adequate" Nonfederal Ground (1973) 61 Cal.L.Rev. 273.)
People v. Brisendine, 13 Cal.3d 528
[Crim. No. 16520. Supreme Court of California. February 20, 1975.]



            The State Constitution provides maximum protection for unalienable rights unlike the federal constitution with its limited protections.  
           
            This begs a question, am I required to know my status?   Who identifies me?   Do government employees know the difference in status?   Are they applying the rules to the correct party?

            The Vehicle Code regulates persons who drive.   How many people know there's both state and federal citizens?   Regardless, it means something when it comes to jurisdiction and who can tell who what to do and who has to do what all that kinda thing.   The Vehicle Code regulates "persons".   The "persons" are also identified by the word "driver".   Interestingly enough, the word driver is defined by the Legislature, but the Legislature failed to provided the definition of "drive" or "driving".   The two words everyone uses to identify their conduct when they use a car isn't even defined in any of the codes.   Don't believe me, check the codes for yourself, they're available 24/7 on-line.   If people don't know what they are in the eyes of the law it will be a crap shoot when it comes to a defense.   Frankly it would be a bad bet.   It's better to know than guess.   

The Constitution is a LIMITATION and RESTRICTION on Government
   
B.  Constitution of California

    2.  ['51]  Restrictive and Enabling Provisions

        (a) Restrictions on State Powers.  The California Constitution, like other state constitutions, is generally a restriction upon the powers of the state.
        Summary of California Law, vol 7, Constitutional Law, p. 9
                               
            I don't get ANYTHING from the Constitution, I have NO 5th Amendment privilege.  The Constitutions RESTRICT what government employees do.  I can APPLY the Constitution to government employees when they act BEYOND the scope of their employment.

 ...the state Constitution, as distinguished from the federal Constitution, does not constitute a grant of power, or an enabling act, to the legislature, but rather constitutes a limitation upon the powers of that body....we do not look to the Constitution to determine whether the legislature is authorized to do an act, but only to see if it is prohibited.   In other words, unless restrained by constitutional provision, the legislature is vested with the whole of the legislative power of the state. (Macmillan Co. v. Clarke, 184 Cal. 491 [194 P. 1030, 17 A.L.R. 288]; Mitchell v. Winnek, 117 Cal. 520, 525 [49 P. 579]; Jensen v. McCullough, 94 Cal.App. 382, 394 [271 P. 568]; People v. Rinner, 52 Cal.App. 747, 749 [199 P. 1066].)
Fitts v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.2d 230
[L. A. No. 15256. In Bank. April 30, 1936.]   

            Read what's printed in the California Constitution of 1849 at Article 1, Sections 1 & 21.   Here's some publications from a District Attorney, I doubt they'd intentionally lie so presumptively their publications will provide some truth about the issues covered:


ALAMEDA DA POINT OF VIEW
ARREST
DETENTION
CITIZENS ARREST
ENTRAPMENT
SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST
VEHICLE SEARCHES
TRAFFIC STOPS
MIRANDA
PROBABLE CAUSE PRINCIPLES
CONTACTS
SEARCH WARRANTS


            Thank you and remember:






IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!

We thus require citizens to apprise themselves not only of statutory language but also of legislative history, subsequent judicial construction, and underlying legislative purposes (People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal.2d 614, 620 [47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 408 P.2d 100]). (See generally Amsterdam, The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court (1960) 109 U. Pa. L.Rev. 67.)
Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112

Even if the officer is not expected to know the law of all 50 states, surely he is expected to know the California Vehicle Code...
CLEMENT  v.  J & E SERVICE INC., No. 05-56692, March 11, 2008, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Even if the officer is not expected to know the law of all 50 states, surely he is expected to know the California Vehicle Code,...
THE PEOPLE v. JESUS SANTOS SANCHEZ REYES (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 856



 

Get Smart!

            At this page are a series of talks about my studies and findings, click the image:





THESE ARE UNCOMPENSATED REFERRALS

CLICK THE IMAGE TO VISIT



                                                   



                                   




                                              









                                              



 



           For those of you who may be interested in how an IMPEACHMENT TRIAL looks, then head over to C-SPAN and look for all the videos of the trial of federal Judge Thomas Porteous.   Jonathan Turrley and his team represented the judge.

            Here's part of it:  https://www.c-span.org/video/?296943-7/judge-porteous-senate-impeachment-trial-part-1

            The tax payers paid for this trial and if you're a tax payer you've got A LOT of very valuable information to go get.   If you're interested in bankruptcy, bail bonds, or how to qualify an "expert witness" and then "tender" them as an expert witness, then this is the trial for you.   This trial provides ANYONE with an interest in law boat loads of great HOW TO DO IT from the Pros From Dover.   What you'll learn here can be used in ANY COURT in the country.  

            Check it out, you won't be disappointed.   And again, if you pay taxes then you paid for this trial.


            It's my hope some of what I've discovered comes in handy for whatever purpose one deems proper.    Education is a good thing.    If you can see your way clear to financially support my efforts I'd appreciate it.


N
EITHER LEGAL ADVICE OFFERED NOR IMPLIED!

NEITHER WARRANTY OFFERED NOR IMPLIED!