That's TAX, spelled:  B - O - H - I - C - A  
(Bend Over Here It Comes Again)

            Let's begin with some history to add solid context to the approach of this subject:

        Matthew 17: 24 -   And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

        Matthew 17: 25 -   He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon, of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

        Matthew 17: 26 -   Peter saith unto him, of strangers, Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.




Right on!


        Are you a stranger or one of the children?










           Welcome Suckers, er, uh, potential Customers.   My apologies, I didn't mean to act like a retailer.  

            After 30 years of the study of law, I’ve determined much of our daily lives is based on fraud, misrepresentation and extortion, not to mention hearsay, lots and lots of hearsay.  I don't know about you but I don't like being lied to or ripped off.    That's pretty much what this web site is devoted to, exposing lies and fraud.   And there's plenty to expose.    

            But one example should suffice;  sales tax.  


            If you didn't "have to" pay sales tax, would you?    If there was no law requiring you to pay sales tax would you still pay it just because the retailer says you have to or insists you have to if you want to leave with the merchandise you hauled up to  check out?




- YOU HAVE TO PAY SALES TAX WHEN YOU BUY SOMETHING OTHER THAN FOOD! -

            Everybody believes they have to pay sales tax when they buy something other than food at the grocery store.   This belief is not supported by fact.   The belief is false.   There is NO LAW that requires the customer to pay sales tax.   That may be hard to believe but it's true.

         The customer has to pay sales tax is the  prevailing belief.   People also have a reasonable belief that the cashiers they meet when making purchases are competent and know the rules related to their job.   Why would the thought cross the mind of the customer that the retailer would lie about the debt the retailer agreed to pay as a condition of getting their business license.   Why would it cross the customer’s mind that the retailer would lie about the law?    

        Everyone who buys anything believes they are required to pay sales tax.   However this belief is not based in fact.   The same everyones who believe they “have to” pay sales tax have never seen the rules regarding who “has to” pay it.   If everyone did they wouldn’t believe what they currently believe.

        The prevailing belief is predicated on fraud and deception and the unwary customer is subjected to extortion to ice the cake.  




        If you don't mind being lied to and subjected to extortion then what follows you won't like much.









            How did you become liable (obligation) for sales tax?   How did you come to “have to” pay sales tax?   How would you feel if you learned that the RETAILER and NOT THE CUSTOMER is required by law to pay sales tax?

            If you believe you HAVE TO pay sales tax then how did that “obligation” come into being?   If it’s the LAW then have you read the law?   Have you seen the law?   Or have you “heard” that you “have to” pay sales tax?   Hearsay is less reliable than personal knowledge.   

                Q:   Who’s got motive to lie about sales tax?
                A:   Retailers.

            Why?   Because of the way the LAW is written.   The LAW imposes an obligation to pay sales tax on the retailer, not the consumer.   The retailer is required BY LAW to pay sales tax.   Unless the consumer consents to pay the retailer’s tax obligation the retailer has no authority to FORCE or COMPEL the consumer to pay their tax obligation.   In fact, in California the retailer is NOT REQUIRED to collect sales tax.




            Fortunately for everyone the laws or rules having to do with sales tax are written so people can see them and KNOW about tax instead of GUESSING about tax.   In 2000 I found the rules that apply to sales tax and read them.   Then I went out into the retail world and I applied them correctly and this resulted in my successful presentations of the LAW to the store mangers:



That's correct.  I purchased a lap top computer and DID NOT PAY any sales tax and saved just under $100 by applying the law.
          
            Consider for a moment you never had one minute of contract law nor were you taught ANYTHING about tax, except you "have to pay" it and then your tax "education" was further reinforced by the ye olde adage:   "There's nuthin sure cept death and taxes.".   Well guess what?!   Half that equation isn't true.   I've proven it to myself and you can prove it to your own satisfaction if you want.   So again, if you didn't "have to" pay sales tax, would you?   Again, if so maybe your time would be better spent moseyin along and finding something of greater value or benefit to invest your time cuz what you're gonna see is the TRUTH about sales tax and to whom it applies.   HINT:   If your status when you walk into a place like Office Depot doesn't begin with the letter R, then there's NO OBLIGATION imposed on you to pay the tax.   

            Did you know, there's only TWO types of tax?    There's many names for them but only TWO types:  DIRECT and INDIRECT.   What follows is what you, and everyone else were never taught about...



EXCISE.   An inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity and frequently upon the retail sale.
1 Bl. Comm. 318; Story. Const. § 950.

The words "tax" and "excise," although often used us synonymous, are to be considered as having entirely distinct and separate significations, under Const. Mass. c. I, § I, art, 4.   The former is a charge apportioned either among the whole people of the state or those, residing within certain districts, municipalities, or sections.   It is required to be imposed, so that, if levied for the public charges of government, it shall be shared according to the estate, real and personal, which each person may possess; or, if raised to defray the cost of some local improvement of a public nature, it shall he borne by those who will receive some special and peculiar benefit or advantage which an expenditure of money for a public object may cause to those on whom the tax is assessed.   An excise, on the other hand, is of a different character'.   It is "based on no rule of apportionment or equality whatever.   It is a fixed, absolute, and direct charge laid on merchandise, products, or commodities, without any regard to the amount of property belonging to those on whom it may fall, or to any supposed relation between money expended for a public object and a special benefit occasioned to those by whom the charge is to be paid. 11 Allen, 268.

In English law.   The name given to the duties or taxes laid on certain articles produced and consumed at home, among which spirits have always been the most important; but, exclusive of these, the duties on the licenses of auctioneers, brewers, etc., and on the licenses to keep dogs, kill game, etc., are included in the excise duties.  Wharton.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st Ed, 1891, p. 452, 453

Labor has been held not to be a commodity.  Rohlf v. Kasemeier, 140 Iowa 182, 118 N.W. 276, 23 L.R.A., N.S., 1285.   But it has been held that the supplying of telephone service is the supplying of a commodity of commerce;  McKinley Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone Co., 152 Wis. 359, 140 N.W. 38, 39.


          There is neither a DIRECT nor INDIRECT TAX on one’s labor because your labor (the exertion of your energy), is not a COMMODITY.   Res ipsa loquitur, your labor can not be taxed due to the way the rules of taxation have been written.

            The law, in fact all six of them (they’re actually code sections that reflect the law: statute which is the law), that identify who is REQUIRED to pay sales tax,  provides in all six sections WHO is required to pay the tax and none of them contain the term “customer” or “consumer”.   The sales tax is the obligation of the retailer.   They agreed to pay it as a condition of getting their license to sell merchandise at retail.   In other words, if people wanted to know if they “had to” pay sales tax the rules are there for them to inspect 24 hours a day 7 days a week if they have a computer and internet access because the rules are posted on-line for all to see.  




Unless you're a retailer, paying sales tax is ludicrous!







That's because they agreed to pay it as a condition of getting their business license.





            Ever wonder where this idea of TAX came from?    Was it a discovery or an invention?    Is it like a plant or rock or somethin found in nature?   In fact what in nature represents whatever TAX means?    

            Ever wonder why you "have to" pay sales tax?   Would you pay it if you didn't "have to"?   Have you ever seen the rules (law) regarding SALES TAX?   If not then how do you know for a fact you're required to pay it?   Consider for a moment who has the most to lose, me or the retailer?   Why would I tell you you didn't have to pay sales tax?   What do I get out of it?    The retailer doesn't want you to know because they'll lose customers if it gets out they're cheating.   I'll show you where to look for the rules about sales tax, will the retailer's you give your hard earned dollars to do that for you?  

            If you've never SEEN the rule (law) regarding SALES TAX then all you have to base your belief on is HEARSAY.   Presumptively whomever told you about SALES TAX read the rule (law) about it.   If they didn't then they told you HEARSAY because they only HEARD you "have to" but have never verified that in fact you, or they, actually do.   Well, you don't know me and you don't know the retailer or the cashier but you're going to give the cashier you don't know the benefit of the doubt they're not lying to you or cheating you.   Are they getting your money ETHICALLY?    Are you an INFORMED CONSUMER who knows about the fundamentals of a retail transaction like who is REQUIRED to pay the tax you believe you "have to pay".   So which one of us has the most to lose by me informing you you're NOT REQUIRED to pay sales tax?    I'm not demanding or asking you for money, they are, and they won't let you have what you used your time and fuel to go get unless you capitulate to their deceit.  

            How much would you save every month if you didn't "have to" pay sales tax?   And yearly?
  Permit me to help with a quick analysis.   You more than likely did business with one or more of these retailers in the past year:


                                                 


                                



                           



                       




                                  





                               



               



                                                                                   






WHY BUCK TRADITION?   JUST PAY IT!


             


            
             



                                                         



                    





                   




                       



            Every single one of them ripped you off.    Even though they're different retailers they all have the same thing in common, they SELL stuff.   Remember, we're referring to a SALE tax, it's a tax on GETTING RID OF STUFF, not ACQUIRING STUFF.   It's a tax on the exercise of the PRIVILEGE of getting rid of stuff.    All the ones who advertise they pay the sales tax are acting like they care about you and what's in your wallet.   They're ACTING AS IF they're doing you a big fat  favor by paying the SALES TAX.   THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PAY THE SALES TAX so all they're "advertising" is a REQUIREMENT IMPOSED ON THEM BY LAW.   

            Do you have a reasonable expectation the cashier's are competent?    Do you have a reasonable expectation they'll comply with the law?    Do you have a reasonable expectation they won't mislead you?   If the cashiers don't know what you're about to find out then what are they doing working the register?   What are they doing handling money?   And  IF they do know are they just waiting for you to simply speak up and tell em you're not required to pay?   Is it their job to tell you how to spend your money or what the rules are?   Is that what Wal-Mart and TARGET have evolved into, business schools?    

            Here's the deal with every single retailer referred to above:           

YOU DID NOT OWE THEM ONE PENNY IN SALES TAX!   YOU GAVE THEM WHAT YOU WERE UNDER NO
OBLIGATION TO GIVE AND THEY COULD NOT FORCE YOU TO PAY IT!   THEY'RE NOT EVEN ENTITLED TO IT!
AND THEY CAN NOT PROVE YOU HAVE TO PAY IT!


Sales tax is laid solely on retailer and not on consumer, tax relationship is between retailer only and state,
and is direct obligation of retailer.

Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v De Salvo (1955, 2nd Dist) 136 Cal App 2d 156

            And if that's not plain or contemporary enough here's a cite from a California Supreme Court case from 2014:

Plaintiffs are consumers who contend that defendant retailer represented that it properly was charging and in fact charged them sales tax reimbursement on sales of hot coffee sold "to go," when, according to plaintiffs, the tax code rendered such sales exempt from sales tax.   They brought an action against defendant retailer under two consumer protection statutes, seeking a refund of the assertedly unlawful charges, damages, and an injunction forbidding collection of sales tax reimbursement for such sales.   The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs' action was not authorized under the tax code and was barred by article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution.   That provision limits the manner in which taxpayers may seek a refund of taxes from the taxing entity.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, although our analysis differs somewhat from that court's analysis.   We conclude that the tax code provides the exclusive means by which plaintiffs' dispute over the taxability of a retail sale may be resolved and that their current lawsuit is inconsistent with tax code procedures.   As explained, the consumer protection statutes under which plaintiffs brought their action cannot be employed to avoid the limitations and procedures set out by the Revenue and Taxation Code.

The tax code provides that the retailer is the taxpayer and that it is the retailer which is required to pay sales tax to the state;  the retailer is permitted but not required to collect a matching "sales tax reimbursement" from consumers.
Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014), 58 Cal.4th 1081

            This legal maxim is the reason Loeffler's case was doomed from launch:

Volunti Non Fit Injuria
He who consents cannot receive an injury.
2 Bouv.
Inst. n. 2279, 2327;  4 T. R. 657;  Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449

            These people deserve The A+ For Effort trophy.   That's the ONLY redeeming aspect of what they did.   That was one Herculean effort in waste of time and they couldn't have succeeded more gracefully.   They permitted both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of California to adeptly inform the People just exactly what one would need or want to know about that daily occurance:   SALES TAX.   By telling us what the sales tax is all about it provides us with the opportunity to find out who acts according to the law and who doesn't.   It provides us with an opportunity to know who's telling the truth and who's lying or misleading.   Those cheats up there should know better.   And who's lower than a food seller?   They're taking advantage of thee most fundamental human requirements.   Why should we be tolerant of their intolerance demonstrated toward their customers?   Why should we excuse them misleading us while it puts ill-gotten gains in their pockets?    Is it really a good business practice to reward ignorance or bad behavior?   Where's the remorse for misleading the customer, the very people who make it possible for the merchant and their staff to live somewhere and buy food and go on holiday?    Everything else these morons in the Loeffler case did was LOSE from the gate.   This thing was a complete waste of tax dollars and the pin heads who conducted this time and money wasting charade ought to be imprisoned for their criminal tardness.   There has NEVER been any disagreement in ANY court case since the first one regarding the WHO in the equation of "having to" pay sales tax.   From the first to this last successful outing of snatching defeat from a two day old child, it's been the PRIVILEGE HOLDER;  the RETAILER.    

            My God what an abject waste, with a couple exceptions that are actually pretty good.   People NOW have TWO cases on the same topic that affects them EVERY TIME they make a purchase, and that informs them with plain unambiguous language and absolutely stunningly accurate previous court citations on the same topic so they can be better prepared when heading out to the Retail Forrest to bag some game, or get some game bagged if you prefer.   The appellate and Cal Sup Ct ruling are very valuable and beneficial from the stand-point of bona fide, credible, pretty much squeaky clean mind sets on the issue.   Bottom line, the rulings are really good and well worth studying  until the information becomes a part of your Retail Financial Transaction Mode-O-Operandi.

            Anyway, I think the idea is:   Why reward a cheat?!

            They rip you off because you don't know the rules.   They rip you off because they can.   Call em on it and see what happens.   Show em the rules and see if they're honest or not.   See if they'll treat you like you're outta your mind.   They also "double dip".   In addition to them expecting you to pay their sales tax, they also get the PROFIT MARGIN between what they actually pay for the items and what they're offered for.   The MSRP, is merely a "SUGGESTED", price.   The manufacturer is just tryin to be helpful to the retailers by providing a guestimate of what uninformed customers might be willing to pay.   So profit margin and sales tax, is there anything else?   Yup!   You know those convenience card swipe machines with the buttons no one seems to know how to properly push nor the sequence to use to "pay" for the shit they want?   Those things are RENTED by the retailer.   Guess who picks up the tab for the convenience of the card swipers?   The cash users and everyone else.  


            When did merchants become special and not have to pay their way like everyone else?    How come they get to pass on their rent to the customer but the customer can't demand the retailer pay some of theirs?


























Anyone got a bug?




NOT CAL WORTHINGTON TOO?!?!?!?!




Man I'm sure that's worth every penny of the amount the sucker, er, customer pays in sales tax.    One
should pay a little extra for status.


    




"Everybody knows" the customer "has to" pay sales tax.   Just kidding.   But it sure adds up doesn't it?!  

            What evidence would you need to see before you believed that you, as the customer, are NOT required to pay Sales Tax?   The law maybe?:


                   

             The word "customer" is NOWHERE to be found in that section or the other 5 sections that contain the same exact words you see there.   Notice that it's a "privilege" to sell tangible personal property at retail.   The privilege is commercial in nature.   Everybody knows that "driving is a privilege", and that they have to have a license to drive.   The similarity between the two seemingly dissimilar activities is that they're both "commercial privileges", or one might say the license issued to both the retailer and driver permits valid engagement in commercial transactions related to their respective business, one selling the other delivering.  

            The TYPE of tax on the retailer is no different than the tax imposed on someone with a driver license.   Like selling tangible personal property at retail, driving is a business, or job, or occupation, and the driver an employee.   So again, what evidence would you need to see in order to be convinced that you, as customer, are NOT REQUIRED to pay sales tax unless you agree to do so?



            So consider this scenario in relation to the SALES TAX you believe you're required to pay even though you've never seen the rules.   Let’s say I move into the apartment next to you or the house next to yours.   Let’s say rent or mortgage payment day rolls around and you get a knock at your front door.   You check it out and it’s me.    Then you hear this:

Hi, I need you to cut me a check in the amount of $2800.  

            What might your reaction be?

    You what?!
    I need you to cut me a check in the amount of $2800.
    I don’t understand.
    Well I have to pay rent today so I need a check for $2800.
    You signed a rental agreement right?
    Yeah.
    Well what are you doing here?
    Like I said I need you to cut me a check in the amount of $2800 so I can pay rent.
    You do realize that you agreed to pay rent as a condition of getting the apartment right?!
    Yeah. 
    Then paying the rent is your responsibility.
    I know, but you’re gonna pay it.

            Gonna cut me a check?   Didn't think so, so why do you cut the retailer a check, it's the same thing.   They agreed to pay the SALES TAX as a condition of qualifying for the license, then when they sell an item and are required to pay the tax on it, they trick you into paying what they agreed to pay.    Me stopping by asking for a check for my rent payment will result in a door being slammed in my face for being a dumb ass,  however the retailer will be rewarded for their deception.   In fact, it's my experience those retail professionals don't even know any of this.   So if you don't have to then why do you let those people who need you to buy the shit on their shelves or they're gonna starve and not be able to make any payments for anything deceive you into believing something that's patently false?   I don't think it's good business to reward fraud and extortion.











                                                       















































 
Paying

$ale$


TAX

Is

Like



Yeah, I suppose ya can, but why when your nose works perfectly well without the nail in it?









                                                                                                                                     












WHY ARE THEY MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF DOING WHAT THEY AGREED TO DO?

WHY ARE THEY ACTING "AS IF" THEY'RE DOING THEIR PATRONS/CUSTOMERS/CONSUMERS A FAVOR?

We clean the floors
We clean the restrooms
We pay our employees
The store manager opens the store in the morning
We lock the door when we close
The store manager uses a key to unlock the door in the morning
We sell merchandise
Without electricity we can't run our business efficiently
We agreed to pay sales tax as a condition of qualifying for the business license



WHY ARE THEY REPRESENTING BY IMPLICATION THE PATRON/CUSTOMER/CONSUMER IS "OBLIGATED" TO PAY SALES TAX?




They're misleading for MONEY.  
They want to SPEND LESS of it on CUSTOMERS.    
They save money, and now make money, by selling bags.  
They reduced the "cost of doing business" by not buying bags to give away to their customers. 
The MOTIVE is MONEY.

How they get it is by DECEPTION.
Decptive business practices are not only unlawful but are also unethical.

            Bottom Line:  The retailer is REQUIRED BY LAW to pay sales tax.   The customer IS NOT REQUIRED to pay sales tax.   There is NO LAW requiring the customer to pay sales tax.   I've have unassailable evidence the CUSTOMER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY SALES TAX.



            I made the law work.   I didn't "practice" anything, I applied the law properly and the right someone did nothing more than comply with the law.

THE $ALE$ TAX FRAUD

fraud

    : the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person

    : a person who pretends to be what he or she is not in order to trick people

    : a copy of something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people   

Full Definition of fraud

    1    a:  deceit, trickery;  specifically:  intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
b:  an act of deceiving or misrepresenting:  trick

    2    a:  a person who is not what he or she pretends to be:  impostor; also:  one who defrauds:  cheat  b:  one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

fraud

n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.   A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud.   Quite often there are several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all may be liable for the total damages.   Inherent in fraud is an unjust advantage over another which injures that person or entity.   It includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other writing (such as a deed), or not revealing a fact which he/she has a duty to communicate, such as a survey which shows there are only 10 acres of land being purchased and not 20 as originally understood.   Constructive fraud can be proved by a showing of breach of legal duty (like using the trust funds held for another in an investment in one's own business) without direct proof of fraud or fraudulent intent.   Extrinsic fraud occurs when deceit is employed to keep someone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial, by hiding evidence or misleading the opposing party in a lawsuit.   Since fraud is intended to employ dishonesty to deprive another of money, property or a right, it can also be a crime for which the fraudulent person(s) can be charged, tried and convicted.   Borderline overreaching or taking advantage of another's naiveté involving smaller amounts is often overlooked by law enforcement, which suggests the victim seek a "civil remedy" (i.e., sue).   However, increasingly fraud, which has victimized a large segment of the public (even in individually small amounts), has become the target of consumer fraud divisions in the offices of district attorneys and attorneys general.

See also: constructive fraud  exemplary damages  extrinsic fraud  fraud in the inducement  fraudulent conveyance  intrinsic fraud 
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=785

Misrepresentation

An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts.

Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. This means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss. For example, assume that a real estate speculator owns swampland but advertises it as valuable commercially zoned land. This is a misrepresentation. If someone buys the land relying on the speculator's statement that it is commercially valuable, the buyer may sue the speculator for monetary losses resulting from the purchase.

To create liability for the maker of the statement, a misrepresentation must be relied on by the listener or reader. Also, the speaker must know that the listener is relying on the factual correctness of the statement. Finally, the listener's reliance on the statement must have been reasonable and justified, and the misrepresentation must have resulted in a pecuniary loss to the listener.

A misrepresentation need not be intentionally false to create liability. A statement made with conscious ignorance or a reckless disregard for the truth can create liability. Nondisclosure of material or important facts by a fiduciary or an expert, such as a doctor, lawyer, or accountant, can result in liability. If the speaker is engaged in the business of selling products, any statement, no matter how innocent, may create liability if the statement concerns the character or quality of a product and the statement is not true. In such a case, the statement must be one of fact. This does not include so-called puffing, or the glowing opinions of a seller in the course of a sales pitch (such statements as "you'll love this car," or "it's a great deal").

A misrepresentation in a contract can give a party the right to rescind the contract. A Rescission of a contract returns the parties to the positions they held before the contract was made. A party can rescind a contract for misrepresentation only if the statement was material, or critical, to the agreement.

A misrepresentation on the part of the insured in an insurance policy can give the insurer the right to cancel the policy or refuse a claim. An insurer may do this only if the misrepresentation was material to the risk insured against and would have influenced the insurer in determining whether to issue a policy. For example, if a person seeking auto insurance states that she has no major chronic illnesses, the insurer's subsequent discovery that the applicant had an incurable disease at the time she completed the insurance form probably will not give the insurer the right to cancel the auto policy. However, if the person was seeking Health Insurance, such a misrepresentation may justify cancellation of the policy or a denial of coverage. Generally, cancellation or denial of insurance coverage for a misrepresentation can occur only if the insurance applicant was aware of the inaccuracy of the statement.

Further readings

Kionka, Edward J. 1988. Torts. St. Paul, Minn.: West.
Cross-references

Consumer Protection; Product Liability; Sales Law; Tort Law.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Misrepresentation

misrepresentation
 
Fraudulent, negligent, or innocent misstatement, or an incomplete statement, of a material fact. If a specific misrepresentation induces the other party to enter into a contract, that party may have the legal right to rescind the contract or seek compensation for damages. The guilty party avail of the defense that the wronged party could have checked the facts and have discovered what was wrong. A misstatement of an intention or opinion is generally not considered a misrepresentation.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/misrepresentation.html


What is Negligent Misrepresentation?

Misrepresentation in general is a legal term that means "a false statement of fact that has the effect of inducing someone into a contract." For example, telling someone a stereo is "practically new" so that they buy it, when it is in fact 5 years old and heavily used.

Negligent misrepresentation is one of the three recognized varieties of misrepresentations in contract law (along with innocent and fraudulent misrepresentation). Basically, it means that you did not directly lie (say something you KNOW to be false), but you made a representation about something while having no reasonable reasons for believing it to be true, such as when Sygenta claimed that its GMO corn could be sold in all major markets for American-grown corn.

Example: A real estate broker tries to sell a house to a buyer, who stresses his need for peace and quiet. The broker promises that the house is very quiet. In reality, the house next door is undergoing a very noisy reconstruction. Although the broker did not know this, her promise that the house was quiet was made without her having any reason to believe that that was the case. She simply assumed it. This would be a negligent misrepresentation (had she known about the construction and lied about it, however, that would be a much more serious fraudulent misrepresentation).

What Constitutes Negligent Misrepresentation?  

The essential elements of a claim of negligent misrepresentation are:

        Someone made a false representation as to a past or existing fact. Statements about the future do not count, nor do opinions or typical "car-salesman" type phrases ("This is a great car," "This is a real deal," and the like).

        The person making the belief must have no reasonable ground for believing it to be true. So in the real estate broker example, if the broker had lived in the house for 10 years, and always found it to be quiet in the past, then her misrepresentation would not have been negligent (in that case it would have been an innocent misrepresentation).

        The representation must have been made with the intent to induce the other party to rely upon it. Basically, you had to be using your misrepresentation in order to help you make the deal.

        The other party must have believed the misrepresentation and reasonably relied on it. Most courts are hesitant to protect a buyer if he is unreasonable in relying on whatever the seller told him (for example, in trying to sell him a car, the seller assured him it could go "a million miles an hour," and the buyer believes this). The buyer must also rely partly (or in many courts, wholly), on the misrepresentation in deciding to go ahead with the transaction.

        As a result of the reliance on the misrepresentation, the other party suffered damages. This means the buyer must be actually harmed by the final transaction, otherwise there is no liability.

There is an important distinction to be made here, however. The more serious variety of misrepresentation (fraudulent misrepresentation, or fraud), has nearly identical elements, so the line between the two is very fine. The only difference is that fraudulent misrepresentation requires “reckless disregard” as to the truth of something”, while negligent disregard only requires “no reasonable ground” to assume something is true. It is essentially a matter of degree.

So in the real estate broker example, for instance, it was not a reckless disregard for the truth to say the house was quiet, since many homes may be considered so, even if it was negligent of her as a broker to discover this fact before making any claims.

But if the buyer had said “I am deathly allergic to common pine wood, is there any pine wood in this house?” and she had responded “no, not at all” when in fact she has no idea what kind of wood the house is made of, then this would be a reckless disregard for the truth of something, especially considering the possibly consequences.

Remedies for Negligent Misrepresentation

Misrepresentations are civil offenses, meaning you can only sue for them in civil court (the criminal equivalent of these offenses is called "false pretenses"). The general remedy in civil court for all types of misrepresentations is that of rescission. This means the court will act like the transaction or contract never existed, and everyone goes back to the way they were.

Example: You sell someone a stereo for $50 telling them that it is fully functional (which you think is true), and it turns out to be broken. The deal is rescinded; the buyer returns the stereo, and you return the money.

However, negligent misrepresentation is aptly named, as it requires negligence (which is by itself a separate civil offense) on the part of the perpetrator. It is therefore considered a more serious offense than mere innocent misrepresentation, and can have its own separate set of remedies under the tort of negligence. See that article for more details.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/negligent-misrepresentation.html

DEFINITION of 'Misrepresentation'

A false statement of fact made by one party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract. If the misrepresentation is discovered, the contract can be later declared void and the situation remedied if the party who relied on the misrepresented fact files suit. For this reason, it is important to be accurate when disclosing facts relevant to a contract negotiation.

Misrepresentation generally applies only to statements of fact, not to opinions or predictions. In some situations, such as where a fiduciary relationship is involved, misrepresentation can occur by omission. That is, misrepresentation may occur where a fiduciary fails to disclose material facts of which he or she has knowledge. A duty also exists to correct any statements of fact which later become known to be untrue. In this case, failure to correct a previous false statement would be misrepresentation.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/misrepresentation.asp


THE LAW OF TORTS
by
William L. Prosser
Professor of Law
Hastings College of the Law


FOURTH EDITION

HORNBOOK SERIES

WEST PUBLISHING CO.
1971


p. 143

NEGLIGENCE


§30.  ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION

 Negligence, as we shall see, is simply one kind of conduct.   But a cause of action founded upon negligence, from which liability will follow, requires more than conduct.   The traditional formula for the elements necessary to such a cause of action may be stated briefly as follows:

        1.    A duty or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risk.

        2.    A failure on his part to conform to the standard required.   These two elements go to make up what the courts usually have called negligence; but the term quite frequently is applied to the second alone.   Thus it may be said that the defendant was negligent, but is not liable because he was under no duty to the plaintiff not to be.

        3.    A reasonable close casual connection between the conduct and the resulting injury.   This is what is commonly known as “legal cause” or “proximate cause”.

        4.    The actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another.   Since the action for negligence developed chiefly out of the old form of action on the case, it retained the rule of that action, that proof of damage was an essential part of the plaintiff’s case.   Nominal damages, to vindicate a technical right, cannot be recovered in a negligence action, where no actual loss has occurred.   The threat of future harm, not yet realized, is not enough.   Negligent conduct in itself is not such an interference with the interests of the world at large that there is any right to complain of it, or to be free from it, except in the case of some individual whose interests have suffered.  

    Such a statement must, however, be qualified to the extent that, as in the case of other torts, where irreparable injury is threatened, a court of equity may act by injunction to prevent the harm before it occurs.   Even here the damage, even though only potential, is the basis for granting relief.

Chapter 18 

REMEDIES FOR MISREPRESENTATION

§105, p. 691

Estoppel

        Still another form in which misrepresentation may play an important part in the law of torts is that of estoppel.   An estoppel is a rule which precludes a party from taking a particular legal position because of some impediment or bar recognized by the law.82   It was applied originally to prevent a party from challenging the validity of a legal record, or his own deed;  but the equity courts developed it later as a general principle, used as a means of preventing him from taking an inequitable advantage of a predicament in which his own conduct had placed his adversary.   It was taken over in turn by common law judges, as a device to lengthen their arm, and afford a relief which equity had always offered.83   Such equitable estoppel, or as it is often called, estoppel in pais, has been defined as “an impediment or bar, by which a man is precluded from alleging, or denying, a fact, in consequence of his own previous act, allegation or denial to the contrary.84

82.   “‘Estoppel’ cometh from the French word estoupe, from whence the English word stopped; and it is called estoppel, or conclusion, because a man’s own act, or acceptance, stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.”  Co.Litt. 352a.   It was one time regarded as a rule of pleading, or of evidence; but since it goes to the position taken upon the merits, it is clearly a rule of substantive law.  Williston, Liability for Honest Misrepresentation, 1911, 24 Harv.L.Rev. 415,  425.

83.  Bacon, V. C., in Keate v. Phillips, 1881, 18 Ch. Div. 560, 577.   The leading case in which the principle of estoppel is fully recognized at law is Pickard v. Sears, 1837, 6 Ad. & El. 469, 112 Eng.Rep. 179.

84.  2 Jacob, Law Dictionary, 1811, 439; Ewart, Principles of Estoppel, 1900, 4.

    Negligence

        A representation made with an honest belief in its truth may still be negligent, because of lack of reasonable care in ascertaining facts, or in the manner of expression, or absence of the skill and competence required by a particular business or profession.
Id. §107, Negligence, p. 704



            Fraud comes in TWO flavors:  ACTUAL & CONSTRUCTIVE.   The former means INTENTIONAL and the latter means NOT ON PURPOSE.   Either way, if you wind up on the short end of the stick by the REPRESENTATION MADE then you're DAMAGED and the other party OWES YOU.   Even if they "didn't mean to" to misrepresent or lie,  you're still DAMAGED.   Your "interest" in hearing TRUTH or ACCURATE REPRESENTATIONS upon which your purchasing decision is based is adversely affected when what you hear is flat out wrong.  And again, either way, you wind up on the suffer end of the bargain.

        These are the rules provided by the Legislature regarding who is REQUIRED to pay sales tax:

    CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE

        6051.  For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers...

        6051.1. (a)  Notwithstanding Section 6051, for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers ...   

        6051.2. (a)  In addition to the taxes imposed by Section 6051 and any other provision of this part, for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers at the rate of 1/2 percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at  retail in this state on and after July 15, 1991.

        6051.3.  In addition to the taxes imposed by Sections 6051, 6051.2, 6051.5, and any other provision of this part, for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers...

        6051.5. (a)  In addition to the taxes imposed by Section 6051 and any other provision of this part, for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers at the rate of one-quarter of 1 percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in this state.

        6051.7. (a)  In addition to the taxes imposed by Section 6051 and any other provision of this part, for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers...

Excise tax

        Federal or state tax placed on the sale or manufacture of a commodity, typically a luxury item e.g., alcohol.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Excise+Duties

EXCISE.   An inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently
upon the retail sale. 1 Bl.Comm. 318; Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608, 22 S.Ct. 493, 46 L. Ed. 713; Portland Bank v. Apthorp, 12 Mass. 256.

An excise has been defined as meaning tribute, custom, tax, tollage, or assessment, a fixed absolute and direct
charge laid on merchandise, products, or commodities without any regard to amount of property belonging to
those on whom it may fall, or to any supposed relation between money expended for a public object and a special benefit occasioned to those by whom the charge is to be paid. In re Opinion of the Justices, 282 Mass. 619, 186 N. E. 490, 491.

An excise is an impost for a license to pursue certain callings or to deal in special commodities or to exercise
particular franchises. East Ohio Gas Co. v. Tax Commission of Ohio, D.C.Ohio, 43 F.2d 170, 172

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th Ed., 1951, p. 672
[color and italics supplied]



            CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

531.  Every person who is a party to any fraudulent conveyance of any, goods or chattels, or any right or interest issuing out of the same, or to any, contract or conveyance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.



The Retailer's



We knew the Carry-Out Bag program was voluntary and our employer had to affirmitively Opt-In.   We didn't care because we'd improve the value of the stock by being able to accurately project profit for the coming period.   Then we elected not to inform the individiual store managers or cashiers, so we made them a party to the fraud.   They don't care about the law anyway.   They'll just say they're "doin their job" and "following orders" and "there's nothing they can do about it".   We read the Senate Bill, knew the masses wouldn't figure it out, convinced the Board is was profit city, and we killed at the end of the year with a massive bonus.   We call that win/win.   Don't forget your resusable bag.                    

            CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

532.  (a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.




I deliver flowers for a living.  
I work for FTD Florist.  
I qualified by having a clean driving record and a valid California Class C driver license.


               

PASSENGER (customer) DELIVERY SERVICE
QUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT:  Clean Driving Record & a valid Class C driver license.





YOO HOO!   I'd like to engage in a commercial transaction with you Mr. Transportation Business Service Provider Employee.



We're doin some business here see?!   Yeah, we flagged down this here ice cream truck.   It's just business see?!   What's it to ya anyhow?!   You got the wrong buncha guys.   We was just wantin an ice cream bar mister, honest.    We didn't mean nuthin by it.   No foolin.



Nice doin business with you Mr. Ice Cream Retailer Man with a license to legally move your retail establishment around town while legally operating your retail frozen milk product distribution business.   Our dentist said to keep up the good work.   Seeya tomorrow.   Brusha brusha brusha, with the new Ipana.

            Presumptively people are aware the Legislature makes the rules that apply through out the state.   Well the rules they provided regarding the sales tax impose it on the retailer, not the customer.   So the customer will have to determine whether they’re being defrauded or deceived or mislead or not and whether they’re being subjected to extortion (If you don’t pay the tax we won’t sell you the merchandise!).   In other words the retailer will refuse to complete the transaction if you don’t consent to do what you aren’t required to do.   In other words, unless you agree to do what you aren’t required or want to do, they will refuse to complete the sale.   

            Again, people have a reasonable belief that the cashiers they meet when making purchases are competent and know the rules related to their job.   Refuse to pay the sales tax and watch what happens in spite of the foregoing laws and court rulings.    



"At Orchard Supply Hardware, we like to help people make the most of what they have," reads the ad.   "One of the ways is, We Pay the Sales Tax Weekend, which happens to be this weekend! Just in time to finish your Burning Man project."
http://sfist.com/2010/08/18/burners_upset_over_orchad_supply_co.php 

 “... YOUR SALES TAX...”









“...your sales tax...”

            Those are EXPRESS representations.   There is nothing vague or ambiguous.   There is nothing implied.   Those two retailers have clearly and expressly asserted the sales tax is the customer’s obligation.   Those two representations are TRUE or FALSE, there’s no middle ground.   That’s FALSE ADVERTISING or it’s not. 

...sales tax is imposed on retailer for privilege of selling tangible personal property,...
Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Asso. v State Board of Equalization (1962, 1st Dist) 209 Cal. App.2d 780

It is well established – indeed, appellant concedes – that the tax is imposed on the retailer and not the consumer.
Pac. Coast Eng. Co. v. State of California (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 31

The sale tax provisions create a relation of sovereign power and taxpayer between the state and retailer and not between the state and the consumer.
Western Lithograph Co. v State Board of Equalization (1938) 11 Cal. 2d 156



                                               















What people used to do to The Excise Man.





The Hills Of Connemara


Gather up the pots and the old tin can

And the mash, and the corn, the barley, and the bran

And then run like the devil from the excise man

Keep the smoke from rising, Barney

Now keep your eyes well peeled today

The tall, tall men, they're on their way

They're searching for the mountain tea

In the hills of Connemara

Gather up the pots and the old tin can

And the mash, and the corn, the barley, and the bran

And then run like the devil from the excise man

Keep the smoke from rising, Barney

A gallon for the butcher and a quart for Tom

And a bottle for the poor old Father Tom

To help the poor old dear along

In the hills of Connemara

Gather up the pots and the old tin can

And the mash, and the corn, the barley, and the bran

And then run like the devil from the excise man

Keep the smoke from rising, Barney

Now swing to the left, now swing to the right

Sure, the excise man can dance all night

He's drinkin 'up the tea 'til the broad daylight

In the hills of Connemara

Gather up the pots and the old tin can

And the mash, and the corn, the barley, and the bran

And then run like the devil from the excise man

Keep the smoke from rising, Barney

Now, stand your ground, and don't you fall

The excise men, they're at the wall

Jesus Christ, they're drinkin' it all

In the hills of Connemara

Gather up the pots and the old tin can

And the mash, and the corn, the barley, and the bran

And then run like the devil from the excise man

Keep the smoke from rising, Barney


(2x)

Songwriters
PATRICK MURPHY, STEPHEN TWIGGER, SAMANTHA HUNT, STEPHEN WEHMEYER, SHEP LONSDALE

Published by
Lyrics © BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT US, LLC





Excises & Snake Oil used to get one a new suit and a free ride outta town.


Don'tcha long for the goode olde days every now and again?



     



One of the other automotive mysteries concerns the original logo adopted by the Dodge Brothers.  It resembled the traditional six-sided Jewish star, or Mogen David.  One of the more popular – though not necessarily accurate – explanations is that it honored the Jewish bankers who were the only ones to lend money to the new Dodge car company.  They allegedly wanted to spite the virulently anti-Semetic Henry Ford.
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2013/07/familiar-chevrolet-bowtie-badge-turns-100/
          
                There's one helluva lotta tax on a car and tires and washers and refrigerators.    Why on earth would people who knew better agree to pay the retailer's bill when they were under absolutely no obligation to do so  unless they were independently wealthy and just didn't care?    

           So how much would it be worth to you to begin your study of this common everyday occurance to see if you can trim an unnecessary and wasteful expense from your already overloaded budget?   How much would it be worth to have copies of actual receipts from national retailers to show family and friends so everyone can begin learning how to save?    How much would it be worth to have the law and lots and lots of unassailable evidence of the claim being made?   How many more receipts would you need to see in order to be convinced it's not a fluke?   There's copies of at least 7 more.    You'll know the retailers, again, they're national, or they were.   One went out of business but they were a major player for a time re their merchandise, audio and video, home entertainment.   You'll be provided with sections of municipal codes from different municipalities throughout California all saying the same thing.   All the information is unequivocal and unassailable.   The pathetic part about this is that as many people I've told since 2000 when I first pieced ti together, I'm only aware of TWO who've actually managed to get themselves a receipt based on the information I provided.   Uh, a point of clarification, one didn't get a receipt but I have absolutely no reason not to believe them because I asked for nothing.   They paid nothing.   We had no relationship.   They'd stumbled across something of mine and contacted me and let me know they made a purchase without paying sales tax but lost the receipt or some such thing.   The other actually was successful at Whole Foods.   I say more power to him.   Yes, he got a receipt.   Yes a copy is supplied.  

            Hopefully that makes for a reasonable introduction to the topic and hopefully further investigation will be conducted to further verify the truth of the matter:  


THE CUSTOMER IS NOT REQUIRED
TO PAY SALES TAX
AS A CONDITION
OF A VALID
COMMERCIAL RETAIL TRANSACTION  





And for those folks living in California who are bein ripped off on the CRV bottle tax, you're not re quired to pay that either:


CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
DIVISION 12.1.  CALIFORNIA BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING AND LITTER REDUCTION ACT
CHAPTER 5.  MINIMUM REDEMPTION VALUE .......................... 14560 - 14562

SECTION 14560 - 14562
                                       
14560.  (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a beverage distributor shall pay the department, for deposit into the fund, a redemption payment of four cents ($0.04) for a beverage container sold or offered for sale in this state by the distributor.
                  (2) A beverage container with a capacity of 24 fluid ounces or more shall be considered as two beverage containers for purposes of redemption payments and refund values.
                  (3) On and after July 1, 2007, the amount of the redemption payment and refund value for a beverage container with a capacity of less than 24 fluid ounces sold or offered for sale in this state by a dealer shall equal five cents ($0.05) and the amount of redemption payment and refund value for a beverage container with a capacity of 24 fluid ounces or more shall be ten cents ($0.10), if the aggregate recycling rate reported pursuant to Section 14551 for all beverage containers subject to this division is less than 75 percent for the 12-month reporting period from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006, or for any calendar year thereafter.
       (b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), all beverage containers sold or offered for sale in this state have a minimum refund value of eight cents ($0.08) for every two beverage containers redeemed and four cents ($0.04) for a single or unpaired beverage container redeemed in a single transaction.
       (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a single or unpaired beverage container of 24 fluid ounces or larger shall have a minimum refund value of eight cents  ($0.08).
       (d) (1) The department shall periodically review the fund to ensure that there are adequate funds in the fund to pay refund values and other disbursements required by this division.
             (2) If the department determines, pursuant to a review made pursuant to paragraph (1), that there may be inadequate funds to pay the refund values and necessary disbursements required by this division, the department shall immediately notify the Legislature of the need for urgent legislative action.
             (3) On or before 180 days after the notice is sent pursuant to paragraph (2), the department may reduce or eliminate expenditures, or both, from the fund as necessary, according to the procedure set forth in Section 14581, to ensure that there are adequate funds in the fund to pay the refund values and other disbursements required by this division.
       (e) This section does not apply to a refillable beverage container.
       (f) The repeal and reenactment of this section by Chapter 815 of the Statutes of 1999 does not affect any obligations or penalties imposed by this section, as it read on January 1, 1999.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prc&group=14001-15000&file=14560-14562

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DOR/dmr/retailers/images/CRVComputation104.pdf


            The Legislature did not impose any payment obligation on customers or consumers to pay the CRV, they're rippin us off on that too.   And for those of you who live in a "YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR A SHOPPING BAG" county, it's just an ordinance, it's not GENERAL LAW!   And it too does not REQUIRE the customer or consumer to pay for a bag.   The RETAILER "MAY" make a bag available and charge for the bag or not, but they don't have to and the customer or consumer isn't required to buy one.





SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

San Jose, California - Code of Ordinances
Title 9 - HEALTH AND SAFETY
Chapter 9.10 - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Part 13 - SINGLE-USE CARRY-OUT BAG

Editor's note— Part 13, adopted by Ordinance 28877, adopted December 14, 2010, is effective January 1, 2012.

9.10.2010 - Definitions.

The definitions set forth in this section shall govern the application and interpretation of this Part 13.

A.   "Customer" means any person obtaining goods from a retail establishment.

B.   "Nonprofit charitable reuser" means a charitable organization, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distinct operating unit or division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycles donated goods or materials and receives more than fifty percent of its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials.

C.   "Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization or group however organized.

D.   "Prepared food" means food or beverage which is prepared on the premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, or squeezing, and which require no further preparation to be consumed. "Prepared food" does not include any produce, bulk food or meat from a produce, bulk food or meat department within a retail establishment.

E.   "Public eating establishment" means a:

    1.   Restaurant, take-out food establishment, or any other business, that receives ninety percent or more of its revenue from the sale of prepared food to be eaten on or off its premises; or
   
    2.   Department, unit or section located within and operated by a retail establishment that generates ninety percent or more of its revenue from the sale of prepared food to be eaten on or off its premises, and the department, unit or section does not engage in the sale of perishable or nonperishable goods from another department, unit or section within the same retail establishment.

F.   "Recycled paper bag" means a paper bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment that contains no old growth fiber and a minimum of forty percent post-consumer recycled content; is one hundred percent recyclable; and has printed in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag the words "reusable" and "recyclable," the name and location of the manufacturer, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled content.


G.   "Retail establishment" means any commercial establishment that sells perishable or nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, food, and personal items directly to the customer; and is located within or doing business within the geographical limits of the City of San José. "Retail establishment" does not include public eating establishments or nonprofit charitable reusers.

H.   "Reusable bag" means either a bag made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles, or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least two and one-quarter mil thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse.

I.   "Single-use carry-out bag" means a bag other than a reusable bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment. "Single-use carry-out bags" do not include bags without handles provided to the customer: (1) to transport produce, prepared food, bulk food or meat from a produce, deli, bulk food or meat department within a store to the point of sale; (2) to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy; or (3) to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together in a reusable bag or recycled paper bag.

(Ords. 28877, 29314.)

9.10.2020 - Single-use carry-out bag.

A.   No retail establishment shall provide a single-use carry-out bag to a customer, at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this section.

B.   On or before December 31, 2013, a retail establishment may make available for sale to a customer a recycled paper bag for a minimum charge of ten cents.

C.   Notwithstanding this section, no retail establishment may make available for sale a recycled paper bag unless the amount of the sale of the recycled paper bag is separately itemized on the sale receipt.

D.   A retail establishment may provide a customer participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code; and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, with one or more recycled paper bags at no cost through December 31, 2013.

(Ords. 28877, 29314.)

9.10.2030 - Recordkeeping and Inspection.

        Every retail establishment shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase and sale of any recycled paper bag by the retail establishment, for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase and sale, which record shall be available for inspection at no cost to the city during regular business hours by any city employee authorized to enforce this part. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the retail establishment address. The provision of false information including incomplete records or documents to the city shall be a violation of this section.

(Ord. 28877.).

            That ordinance is DISCRIMINATORY.    Poor people, or people on welfare or EBT or some other assistance program, don't have to pay.



ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

ORDINANCE 2012-2

 

AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE USE OF CARRYOUT BAGS AND PROMOTE THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS

 

The Board of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (“Authority”) ordains as follows:

SECTION 1 (Enactment)

The Board of the Authority does hereby enact this Ordinance in full consisting of Section 1 through Section 11.

SECTION 2 (Findings)

(a)             The purpose of this Ordinance is to reduce the use of single use carryout bags and promote the use of reusable bags at the point of sale in Alameda County.

(b)            The Authority has the power to enact this Ordinance pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Waste Management (“JPA”). The JPA grants the Authority the power, duty, and responsibility to prepare, adopt, revise, amend, administer, enforce and implement the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (“CoIWMP”), and pursuant to Section 5.m of the CoIWMP, the power to adopt ordinances necessary to carry out the purposes of the JPA.

(c)             Reducing single use bag use is reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of the JPA and implement the CoIWMP, including the following goals and policies.

(d)            Goal 1 of the CoIWMP is to promote environmental quality, ensure protection of public health and safety, and to minimize environmental impacts in all aspects of solid waste management. Policy 1.4.1 includes reduction of hard to recycle materials.

(e)             Goal 2 of the CoIWMP calls on the Authority and its member agencies to “achieve maximum feasible waste reduction” and to “reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills through improved management and conservation of resources.”

(f)             Policy 2.1.1 adopts a waste management hierarchy that ranks management of waste through source reduction and then recycling and composting above landfill disposal.

(g)            Goal 7 of the CoIMWP is to "Promote Inter-jurisdictional Cooperation.” Policy

7.1.3 states that the Authority shall coordinate with other organizations as needed to fulfill its countywide role including coordinating on related issues such as water and litter. Objective 7.8 states that the Authority will coordinate and facilitate program implementation by individual or subregional groupings of member agencies.

(h)            Numerous studies have documented the prevalence of plastic carry-out bags littering the environment, blocking storm drains and fouling beaches.

(i)              Plastic bags are a substantial source of marine debris.

(j)              Plastic bags cause operational problems at County landfills and transfer stations and contribute to litter countywide.

(k)            The Authority has participated in a campaign with The Bay Area Recycling Outreach Coalition to promote reusable bags countywide for several years. Despite these efforts, plastic bags comprise 9.6% of litter collected during coastal cleanup days (based on 2008 data) in Alameda County. Additionally, plastic bags continue to cause processing equipment problems at County transfer stations.
(l)              There are several alternatives to single-use carry-out bags readily available.
(m)          Studies document that banning single use plastic bags and charging for single use paper bags will dramatically reduce the single use of both types of bags.
(n)         The Authority prepared the Mandatory Recycling and Single Use Bag Reduction Ordinances Environmental Impact Report, which considered two separate projects and included the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act for this Ordinance. The Authority certified those portions of the EIR relevant to this Ordinance.

SECTION 3 (Definitions)

The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this ordinance.

 

(a)             “Alameda County” means all of the territory located within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Alameda County.

 

(b)            “Authority” means the Alameda County Waste Management Authority created by the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Waste Management (JPA).

 

(c)             “Authority Representative” means any agent of the Authority designated by the Enforcement Official to implement this Ordinance, including Member Agency employees, or private contractors hired for purposes of monitoring and enforcement.

 

(d)            "Covered Jurisdiction" means a Member Agency of the JPA that has not opted out of coverage under this Ordinance pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance.

 

(e)             “Customer” means any Person obtaining goods from a Store.

 

(f)             “Enforcement Official” means the Executive Director of the Authority or his or her authorized designee.


(g)            “Executive Director” means the individual appointed by the Authority Board to act as head of staff and perform those duties specified by the Authority Rules of Procedure and by the Board.

 

(h)            "Member Agency" means a party to the JPA.  Current member agencies are the County of Alameda, the Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, and the Castro Valley and Oro Loma Sanitary Districts.  The service areas for the purpose of Section 9 of this Ordinance are:

 

(1)            The legal boundaries of each of the 14 incorporated municipalities within Alameda County.

 

          (2)                       The unincorporated sections of the County.

 

(i)              “Nonprofit Charitable Reuse Organization" means a charitable organization recognized as having Section 501 (c)(3) status by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distinct operating unit or division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycles donated goods or materials and receives more than fifty percent (50%) of  its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials.

 

(j)              “Person” means an individual, firm, public or private corporation, limited liability company, partnership, industry or any other entity whatsoever.

 

(k)            “Postconsumer recycled material” means a material that would otherwise be destined for solid waste disposal, having completed its intended end use and product life cycle. Postconsumer recycled material does not include materials and byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing and fabrication process.

 

(l)              “Primary Enforcement Representative” is the chief executive of a Covered Jurisdiction or a qualified designee who will coordinate with the Authority regarding implementation of the Ordinance. A qualified designee shall have at least two years of municipal code enforcement experience or have undergone at least the level one municipal code compliance training program of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, or equivalent training program approved by the Enforcement Official.

 

(m)          “Public Eating Establishment” means a restaurant, take-out food establishment or other business that receives 90% or more of its revenue from the sale of foods and/or drinks prepared on the premises.

 

(n)            "Recycled Paper Bag” means a paper bag provided by a Store to a Customer at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other location for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the Store and that contains no old growth fiber and a minimum of forty percent (40%) postconsumer recycled material; is one hundred percent (100%) recyclable and compostable, consistent with the timeline and specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D6400; and has printed in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag the words “Recyclable,” the name and location of the manufacturer, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled content.

(o)            "Reusable Bag” means a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: 1) has a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, which for purposes of this subsection, means the capability of carrying a minimum of 22 pounds 125 times over a distance of at least 175 feet; 2) has a minimum volume of 15 liters; 3) is machine washable or is made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected; 4) does not contain lead, cadmium or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, as defined by applicable state and federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags; 5) has printed on the bag, or on a tag that is permanently affixed to the bag, the name of the manufacturer, the location (country) where the bag was manufactured, a statement that the bag does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, and the percentage of postconsumer recycled material used, if any; and 6) if made of plastic, is a minimum of at least 2.25 mils thick.

(p)            “Single-Use Carryout Bag” means a bag other than a Reusable Bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other location for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the Store. Single-Use Carryout Bags do not include bags that are integral to the packaging of the product, or bags without handles provided to the Customer (i) to transport produce, bulk food or meat from a produce, bulk food or meat department within a Store to the point of sale, (ii) to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy, or (iii) to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together in a Reusable Bag or Recycled Paper Bag.

(q)                  "Store" means any of the following stores located within Covered Jurisdictions:

(1)            A full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, that sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items;

(2)            A store of at least 10,000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) and that has a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code; or

(3)            A drug store, pharmacy, supermarket, grocery store, convenience food store, foodmart, or other entity engaged in the retail sale of goods that include milk, bread, soda, and snack foods, including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

 

SECTION 4 (Carryout Bag Restrictions)

 (a)             No Store shall provide a Single-Use Carryout Bag or Reusable Bag to a Customer at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other location for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the Store after January 1, 2013 except as provided in this Section.

(b)            On or before January 1, 2015, a Store may make available for sale to a Customer a Recycled Paper Bag or a Reusable Bag for a minimum price of ten cents ($0.10).

(c)             On or after January 1, 2015, a Store may make available for sale to a Customer a Recycled Paper Bag or a Reusable Bag for a minimum price of twenty-five cents ($0.25).  This restriction, however, shall not apply if the Authority finds, after January 1, 2014, that the Ordinance has achieved its goal to substantially reduce the environmental impacts of the use of Single Use Carryout Bags, in which case the minimum ten cents ($0.10) per bag price provided in Section 4(b) shall apply.

(d)            No Store may make available for sale a Recycled Paper Bag or Reusable Bag unless the amount of the sale of the Recycled Paper Bag and Reusable Bag is separately itemized on the sales receipt.

(e)             A Store may provide a Reusable Bag at no charge if it is distributed as part of an infrequent and limited time promotion. An infrequent and limited time promotion shall not exceed a total of 90 days in any consecutive 12 month period.

(f)             A Store may provide free Reusable Bags or free Recycled Paper Bags at the point of sale to a Customer participating in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safety Code and a Customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, as necessary to carry the items purchased at the Store by each such Customer.

SECTION 5 (Permitted Bags)

 

Nothing in this Ordinance prohibits Customers from using bags of any type that they bring to the Store themselves or from carrying away goods that are not placed in a bag.

 

SECTION 6 (Exemptions)

 

This Ordinance does not apply to:

(a)             Single-Use Carryout Bags or Reusable Bags distributed to Customers by food providers for the purpose of safeguarding public health and safety during the transportation of take-out foods and drinks prepared on the food provider's premises but intended for consumption at or away from the food provider's premises.

(b)            Single-Use Carryout Bags or Reusable Bags used by Public Eating Establishments or Nonprofit Charitable Reuse Organizations

SECTION 7 (Recordkeeping and Inspection)

(a)             Every Store shall keep complete and accurate records of the number of Recycled Paper Bags and the number of Reusable Bags purchased and sold each month at the Store during the period commencing July 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2013. The store shall also keep complete and accurate records of the days on which free Reusable Bags are distributed pursuant to section 4(e) of this Ordinance.  All records required by this Ordinance shall be available for inspection within 7 days of the Authority's request at no cost to the Authority during regular business hours by any Authority Representative authorized to enforce this Ordinance. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the Store address.

(b)            The provision of false information including incomplete records or documents to the Authority shall be a violation of this Ordinance.

(c)             Authority Representatives are authorized to conduct any other inspections reasonably necessary to further the goals of this Ordinance, subject to applicable laws.

SECTION 8 (Enforcement and Phasing)

 

(a)           An enforcement action shall not be taken in any Covered Jurisdiction without written approval from the Primary Enforcement Representative of that Covered Jurisdiction. The Primary Enforcement Representative shall provide approval or disapproval of a proposed enforcement action in a timely manner.

 

(b)          Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute grounds for assessment of a notice of violation and fine by an Authority Representative in accordance with Government Code § 53069.4 or as the code shall subsequently be amended or reorganized. Where an enforcement action is necessary to enforce this Ordinance, the Enforcement Official will typically issue a notice of violation as authorized in this subsection prior to taking the actions authorized pursuant to sections 8(c) or 8(d) of this Ordinance. A separate notice of violation and fine may be imposed for each day on which a violation occurs. The fine shall not exceed the amounts detailed for misdemeanors in Section 8(d) of this Ordinance. The notice of violation shall list the specific violation and fine amount and describe how to pay the fine and how to request an administrative hearing to contest the notice of violation. The fine must be paid within 30 days of the notice of violation and must be deposited prior to any requested hearing. A hearing, by a hearing officer, will be held only if it is requested within 30 days of the notice of violation. Evidence may be presented at the hearing. If it is determined that no violation occurred, the amount of the fine shall be refunded within 30 days. The Authority shall serve the final order on the Person subject to the notice of violation by first class, overnight or certified mail.

 

(c)           Violation of any provision of this Ordinance may be enforced by a civil action including an action for injunctive relief.


(d)          Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 for the first violation, a fine not to exceed $750 for the second violation within one year and a fine not to exceed $1000 for each additional violation within one year. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance may also be enforced as an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 for the first violation, a fine not to exceed $200 for the second violation within one year and a fine not to exceed $500 for each additional violation within one year.  There shall be a separate offense for each day on which a violation occurs.

 

(e)           Enforcement pursuant to this Ordinance may be undertaken by the Authority through its Executive Director, counsel, or any Authority Representative. In any enforcement action, the Authority shall be entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs from any Person who violates this Ordinance.

 

(f)           Enforcement of this ordinance shall be phased on the following schedule. Prior to January 1, 2013, Stores will be notified and public education and outreach activities will take place. Warnings and enforcement actions will be taken as needed after January 1, 2013.

 

SECTION 9 (Local Regulation and Opt-Out and Opt-In Provisions)

 

(a)             Local Regulation. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prohibit any Member Agency from enacting and enforcing ordinances and regulations regarding the distribution of Single-Use Carryout Bags and Reusable Bags, including more stringent requirements than those in this Ordinance.

(b)            Opt-Out Provision. Any Member Agency by a resolution of its governing body prior to March 2, 2012 may choose to exclude its service area from this Ordinance.

(c)             Opt-In Provision.  Any Member Agency that chooses to exclude its service area may request of the Authority by a resolution of its governing board to be re- included in coverage of the Ordinance at any subsequent time. Such coverage under the Ordinance, however, shall not occur unless it is accepted in writing by the Enforcement Official or the Authority Board, and shall become effective only on the date specified in such written acceptance. Such acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

(d)            Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute between the Authority and a Covered Jurisdiction regarding the implementation of this Ordinance, either party may request a meeting, in which case the Enforcement Official and the Primary Enforcement Representative for the Covered Jurisdiction (or other designee of the chief executive of the Covered Jurisdiction) shall meet to discuss implementation of the Ordinance. After such meeting, the parties may agree to enter into mediation to resolve any disputes between the parties related to implementation of the Ordinance. In addition, after meeting to seek to resolve any disputes between the parties and possible mediation, the Authority Board or the governing body of the Covered Jurisdiction, with at least 30 days public notice, may by resolution choose to exclude the service area of the Covered Jurisdiction from this Ordinance.

SECTION 10 (Severability)

 

If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any situation is held to be invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.

 

SECTION 11 (Notice and Verification)

 

This Ordinance shall be posted at the Authority Office after its second reading by the Board for at least thirty (30) days and shall become effective thirty (30) days after the second reading.

Passed and adopted this 25th day of January, 2012 by the following vote:

AYES: Biddle, Carson, Cutter, Freitas, Green, Henson, Kaplan, Keating, Landis, Natarajan, Sadoff, Sullivan, Tam, Turner, West, Wile, Wozniak

 

NOES: ABSTAINING: ABSENT:

I certify that under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the ORDINANCE NO. 2012-2.

272512.1

                                        GARY WOLFF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR




BOULDER, COLORADO

TITLE 6 - HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SANITATION
Chapter 15 - Disposable Bag Fee

6-15-1. - Legislative Intent and Purpose.

(a)  Purpose.  It is the purpose of this chapter to protect the public health and safety and implement the city's Climate Action Plan, Zero Waste Master Plan, and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

(b)  Findings. The city council finds as follows:

    (1)  The city, through its policies, programs, and laws, supports efforts to reduce the amount of waste that must be land-filled and pursues "zero waste" as a long-term goal by emphasizing waste prevention efforts;
   
    (2)  The use of single-use disposable bags has severe impacts on the environment on a local and global scale, including greenhouse gas emissions, litter, harm to wildlife, atmospheric acidification, water consumption, and solid waste generation;
   
    (3)  Despite recycling and voluntary solutions to control pollution from disposable carryout bags, many disposable single-use bags ultimately are disposed of in landfills, litter the environment, block storm drains, and endanger wildlife;
   
    (4)  Boulder consumers use approximately 14.3 million disposable bags from food stores each year; and
   
    (5)  The city's taxpayers bear the costs associated with the effects of disposable bags on the solid waste stream, drainage, litter, and wildlife.

(c)  Intent. The disposable bag fee is necessary to address the environmental problems associated with disposable bags and to relieve city taxpayers of the costs imposed upon the city associated with the use of disposable bags. The city council intends that the requirements of this chapter will assist in offsetting the costs associated with using disposable bags to pay for the mitigation, educational, replacement, and administrative efforts of the city.

6-15-2. - Definitions.

The following terms used in this chapter have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

Disposable bag means a bag that is not a reusable bag.

Disposable bag does not include:

(a)  Bags used by consumers inside stores to:

    (1)  Package bulk items, such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, candy or small hardware items;
   
    (2)  Contain or wrap frozen foods, meat or fish;
   
    (3)  Contain or wrap flowers, potted plants or other items where dampness may be a problem;
   
    (4)  Contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods; or
   
    (5)  A non-handled bag used to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating other purchased items when placed in a recyclable paper bag or reusable bag.

(b)  Bags provided by pharmacists to contain prescription drugs.

(c)  Newspaper bags, door-hanger bags, laundry-dry cleaning bags or bags sold in packages containing multiple bags for uses such as food storage, garbage, pet waste or yard waste.

Disposable bag fee means a city fee imposed and required to be paid by each consumer making a purchase from a food store for each disposable bag used during the purchase assessed for the purpose of mitigating the impacts of disposable bags.

Food store means a retail establishment or business located within Boulder city limits in a permanent building, operating year round, that is a full-line, self-service market and which sells a line of staple foodstuffs, meats, produce or dairy products or other perishable items.

Food store does not include:

(a)  Temporary vending establishment for fruits, vegetables, packaged meats and dairy.

(b)  Vendors at farmer's markets or other temporary events.

(c)  Businesses at which foodstuffs are an incidental part of the business. Food sales will be considered to be incidental if such sales comprise no more than two percent of the business's gross sales in the City as measured by the dollar value of food sales as a percentage of the dollar value of total sales at any single location.

Recycled paper bag means a paper bag that is one hundred percent recyclable and contains at least forty percent post-consumer recycled content.

Reusable bag means a bag that is:

(a)  Designed and manufactured to withstand repeated uses over a period of time;

(b)  Is made from a material that can be cleaned and disinfected regularly;

(c)  That is at least 2.25 mil thick if made from plastic;

(d)  Has a minimum lifetime of seventy-five uses; and

(e)  Has the capability of carrying a minimum of eighteen pounds.

6-15-3. - Disposable Bag Fee Requirements.

(a)  For each disposable bag provided to a customer, food stores shall collect from customers and customers shall pay, at the time of purchase, a disposable bag fee of $0.10.

(b)  Food stores shall record the number of disposable bags provided and the total amount of disposable bag fees charged on the customer transaction receipt.

( c )  A food store shall not refund to the customer any part of the disposable bag fee, nor shall the food store advertise or state to customers that any part of the disposable bag fee will be refunded to the customer.

(d)  A food store shall not exempt any customer from any part of the disposable bag fee for any reason except as stated in section 6-15-7, "Exemptions," B.R.C. 1981.

6-15-4. - Retention, Remittance and Transfer of Disposable Bag Fee.

(a)  A food store may retain forty percent of each disposable bag fee collected, which is the retained percent.

(b)  The retained percent may only be used by the food store to:

    (1)  Provide educational information about the disposable bag fee to customers;
   
    (2)  Provide the signage required by section 6-15-5, "Required Signage for Food Stores," B.R.C. 1981;
   
    (3)  Train staff in the implementation and administration of the fee;
   
    (4)  Improve or alter infrastructure to allow for the implementation, collection and administration of the fee;
   
    (5)  Collect, account for and remit the fee to the City;
   
    (6)  Develop and display informational signage to inform consumers about the fee, encourage the use of reusable bags or promote recycling of plastic bags; and
   
    (7)  Improve infrastructure to increase plastic bag recycling.

(c) The retained percent shall not be classified as revenue for the purposes of calculating sales tax.

(d)  The amount of the disposable bag fee collected by a food store in excess of the retained percent shall be paid to the City and shall be used only as set forth in subsection (g) of this section to mitigate the effects of disposable bags in the City.

(e)  A food store shall pay and the City shall collect all disposable bag fees. The City shall provide the necessary forms for food stores to file with the City to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

If payment of any amount to the City is not received on or before the applicable due date, penalty and interest charges shall be added to the amount due as described in section 6-15-8, "Audits and Violations," B.R.C. 1981.

(f)  The disposable bag fee shall be administered by the city manager. The city manager is authorized to adopt interpretive rules pursuant to chapter 1-4, "Rulemaking," B.R.C. 1981, to implement this chapter, prescribe forms and provide methods of payment and collection and otherwise implement requirements of this chapter.

(g)  Funds from the disposable bag fee shall be used only for the expenditures that are intended to mitigate the effects of disposable bags, including, without limitation, the following:

    (1)  Administrative costs associated with developing and implementing the disposable bag fee.
   
    (2)  Activities of the City to:
   
        (A)  Provide reusable carryout bags to residents and visitors;
       
        (B)  Educate residents, businesses and visitors about the impact of disposable bags on the City's environmental health, the importance of reducing the number of single-use carryout bags entering the waste stream and the expenses associated with mitigating the affects of single-use bags on the City's drainage system, transportation system, wildlife and environment;
   
        ( c )  Fund programs and infrastructure that allow the Boulder community to reduce waste associated with disposable bags;
       
        (D)  Purchase and install equipment designed to minimize bag pollution, including recycling containers and waste receptacles associated with disposable bags;
       
        (E)  Fund community cleanup events and other activities that reduce trash associated with disposable bags;
       
        (F)  Mitigate the effects of disposable bags on the City's drainage system, transportation system, wildlife and environment;
       
        (G)  Maintain a public website that educates residents on the progress of waste reduction efforts associated with disposable bags; and
       
        (H)  Fund the administration of the disposable bag fee program.

(h)  No disposable bag fees collected in accordance with this chapter shall be used only for general government purposes.

(i)  Disposable bag fees collected in accordance with this chapter shall be continually available for the uses and purposes set forth in subsection (g) of this section without regard to fiscal year limitation. No disposable bag fee funds shall be used for any purpose not authorized in this chapter.

6-15-5. - Required Signage for Food Stores.

Every food store subject to the collection of the disposable bag fee shall display a sign in a location outside or inside of the business, viewable by customers, alerting customers to the City's disposable bag fee.

6-15-6. - Requirement for Disposable Paper Bags.

No food store shall provide any paper bag that is not a recycled paper bag.

6-15-7. - Exemptions.

A food store may provide a disposable bag to a customer at no charge if the customer provides evidence that he or she is a participant in a federal or state food assistance program.

6-15-8. - Audits and Violations.

(a)  Each food store licensed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall maintain accurate and complete records of the disposable bag fees collected, the number of disposable bags provided to customers, the form and recipients of any notice required pursuant to this chapter and any underlying records, including any books, accounts, invoices or other records necessary to verify the accuracy and completeness of such records. It shall be the duty of each food store to keep and preserve all such documents and records, including any electronic information, for a period of three years from the end of the calendar year of such records.

(b)  If requested, each food store shall make its records available for audit by the city manager during regular business hours for the City to verify compliance with the provisions of this chapter. All such information shall be treated as confidential commercial documents.

(c)  If any person fails, neglects or refuses to collect the disposable bag fee or underpays the disposable bag fee, the city manager shall make an estimate of the fees due, based on available information, and shall add thereto penalties, interest and any additions to the fees. The manager shall serve upon the delinquent food store personally, by electronic mail or by first class mail directed to the last address of the food store on file with the City, written notice of such estimated fees, penalties and interest, constituting a Notice of Final Determination, Assessment and Demand for Payment, (also referred to as "Notice of Final Determination") due and payable within twenty calendar days after the date of the notice. The food store may request a hearing on the assessment as provided in section 6-15-9, "Hearings," B.R.C. 1981.

(d)  If payment of any amount of the disposable bag fee to the City is not received on or before the applicable due date, penalty and interest charges shall be added to the amount due in the amount of:

(1)  A penalty of ten percent of total due;

(2)  Interest charge of one percent of the total penalty per month.

6-15-9. - Hearings.

(a)  A food store may request a hearing on any proposed fee imposed under this title after receiving a Notice of Final Determination by filing a written request for hearing within twenty calendar days of the date of mailing of the Notice of Final Determination. The request for hearing shall set forth the reasons for and amount of changes in the Notice of Final Determination that the food store seeks and such other information as the manager may prescribe.

(b)  The city manager shall conduct the hearing under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981, except that the manager shall notify the food store in writing of the time and place of the hearing at least ten days before it is scheduled, unless the food store agrees to a shorter time. The hearing shall be held within sixty days of the date of receipt of the request for a hearing, unless the food store agrees to a later date.

6-15-10. - Criminal Sanctions.

(a)  The city attorney, acting on behalf of the people of the City, may prosecute any violation of this title in municipal court in the same manner that other municipal offenses are prosecuted.

(b)  The maximum penalty for a first or second conviction within two years, based on date of violation of this section, is a fine of $500.00.  For a third and each subsequent conviction within two years, based upon the date of the first violation, the general penalty provisions of section 5-2-4, "General Penalties," B.R.C. 1981, shall apply.

            Did you see anything in those ordinances that REQUIRE YOU to pay for a bag?    Did you see "customer shall" anywhere?   Did you see anything in those ordinances that REQUIRE the merchant to SELL a bag?  

        As for the "Criminal Sanctions" in Colorado, there are none.   Note that the penalty is a fine.   Any action the City Attorney would bring would be a CIVIL ACTION.   If the matter were criminal then the District Attorney would prosecute because ALL the People of Colorado would be affected and not just the people in Boulder.   It's obfuscation and misdirection.   They're banking on the People not knowing how to read the rules that are printed in plain English nor even caring.    Relying on hearsay can be a very expensive proposition.      


            If you have an interest  in my essay (that includes lots of evidence):



            Take it from American Extraordinare Wally George:






Paying sales tax is ludicrous.   Tell em Wally sent you.  




 



                   





THEY HAVE TO, YOU DON'T


THE EVIDENCE IS IN THE $ALE$ TAX $ECRET

THE ONLY CARD YOU NEED IS THE "NO CARD REQUIRED" CARD!   YOU HAVE THE LAW!  

R & T  6051 etc.





That's right you have won!  

No more pesky Sales Tax for you because as our Grand Prize winner you're now EXEMPT!




YOUR GOLD CARD TO FORTUNE

Start spending to save!   Everybody knows that's how it's done!  So hurry now before time runs out!



Arent't cheap sales "techniques" just the best?!  

All kidding aside, THIS IS WHERE "We the people..." can begin asserting their POWER and tack back CONTROL OF THEIR OWN LIVES!:





THAT CASHIER IS REQUIRED TO KNOW THE LAW!


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.) These principles express the strong presumption that legislative enactments "must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. [Citations.] A statute should be sufficiently certain so that a person may know what is prohibited thereby and what may be done without violating its provisions, but it cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language." (Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481, 484 [171 P.2d 21, 166 A.L.R. 701], citations omitted.)
Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112
[S.F. No. 24996. Supreme Court of California. November 10, 1988.]
  
 

            That's the California Supreme Court talkin and THAT'S THE LAW!   You have a MANDATORY DUTY TO KNOW THE LAW AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LAW!    If you don't like it then leave or lobby to have the LAW changed!   So until the LAW is changed suck it up and LEARN THE RULES, after all, it's YOUR government and the people who are employed there are YOUR employees.   Run them or they're gonna run you!

            That "law" is also applicable to that cashier!   She, and every other cashier in California has a MANDATORY DUTY to know the law.   And, one would think, the LAW as it pertains to her damn job that the people on the right side of the counter make possible by their continued patronage to the place of her employ.  

            Again, that store is shitting on their customers in three demonstrably provable ways:  1.  Sales tax; they're OLBIGATED to pay it,  2.  The CRV (California Return Value - Bottle Tax), it's the responsibility of the DISTRIBUTOR of the beverages, NOT THE CUSTOMER, so the store is rippin off the customers to benefit the DISTRIBUTOR, 3.  The customer is now responsible for determining how much space each bag they require consists of.   They have to determine the structural integrity of the plastic and paper bags.   They have to determine the size of each item they intend to purchase so they can be reasonably accurate in determining how many bags they'll need.   They'll have to also account for "impulse buying decisions" where the unexpected purchase was required.  

            The patrons have a lot of power at the register, they just don't know it.  


               
















Make a donation for the Sales Tax Secret to learn how to save some money!  



Donation $75.






Donation $20



       


Please Respect My Privacy.   I'll Reciprocate.   gMail is Google = Anti-Privacy.   Thanks for understanding.







DOWNLOAD A FREE LIST OF SECURE EMAIL PROVIDERS