WHEN YOU DONATE OR GIFT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FRN's, YOU'LL GET A "THANK YOU" GIFT.
MY "BUSINESS MODEL" IS BASED ON THE PBS NETWORK MODEL.
IF YOU WANT A TAX RIGHT OFF THEN THIS IS NOT FOR YOU.
IT'S GIFT FOR GIFT.
I
DON'T TRUST EITHER
THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT.
ACTUALLY THE "GOVERNMENT" IS FINE, IT'S THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE THE
PROBLEM.
TO ENLARGE
CLICK ON A COVER
Do
you know for a fact, or to a certainty what the Department of Motor
Vehicles actually regulates?
Are
you a Common Carrier or Delivery person?
The
State has the authority to regulate Business and Professions.
They
KEY to understanding what DRIVING is, is the LICENSE itself.
What is a LICENSE for?
This
course is for attorneys who intend to be a judge or commissioner.
This course was prepared by the State government of California.
Do you think it would be worthwhile to know what a Pre-Judge is taught
about how to judge trials correctly?
I've gone through every California Code and
selected some sections.
The pdf is 45 pages.
This
is a California Government publication prepared by the California
Attorney General's office.
This
is a compilation of some sections from the entire publication which
consists of a 4 inch thick bindaer on an array of topics.
This
would be considered the other football team's play book. It
provides
police officers with legal information the Attorney General considers
inportant regarding arrests, traffic stops, searches & seizures
of
car and people. In fact YOU can buy this because California
makes it
available for purchase.
It's Oliver Wendell Holmes work and it's free.
The
Doctrine of Stare Decisis is a very powerful rule that applies to those
government employees who wear black robes.
You
might consider this the Secular Bible, at least as it relates to torts,
or civil wrong doing.
This
is a brief compilation of sections and information about torts and
other civil wrong doing. Invaluable is an understatement.
The
title says it all.
The
title says it all.
This
is additional information and thoughts about the topic.
Everyone
calls it that but that's not what the Legislature calls it, and they
make the LAW.
If,
as you believe, it's your car, how did the cop acquire the authority to
take it from you without a warrant or paying for it?
How does the cop get away with Grand Theft Auto?
Impounding
= Taking
That
paper issued by the law enforcement officer is what gets you into
court.
Do you know what it is?
Do you know what it ACTUALLY is?
How do you know for a fact it's the CORRECT paper so the court is
authorized to resolve the officer's allegation.
This
is what people’s thinking and beliefs reflect:
• You have no right to use your car for any reason to go anywhere unless
you have your government employee's permission.
• You have no right to own your car absolutely.
• You have to share ownership with the State.
• You have to pay the State before you can legally use your car on the
streets and highways.
• You have to include the State in your purchase of a car.
• You have no right to use the car to travel for any reason without
your government employee’s permission.
• Before you can legally use your car, you have to ask for your
employee’s permission and when they determine you qualify they’ll grant
their
permission so you can use your car to legally travel to the store to
buy food or your place of worship or to visit family or friends. And
you’ll pay them annually to do so.
These
32 court cases conslusively hold there's a difference between the
COMMERCIAL and NONCOMMERCIAL use of the streets and highways.
It's the COMMERCIAL use that requires one to apply for and carry a
Driver license to use their car, truck, van, SUV, or motorcycle to
drive because DRIVING is a PROFESSION or OCCUPATION or JOB.
Driving is COMMERCIAL USE of the streets and highways and the State has
the power to regulate the commercial use of those who use the street
for that PRIVILEGE, These are top notch cases and useable in any
traffic case
An INDEX an TABLE OF AUTHORITIES are included.
DONATION $50
Have
you SEEN the authorization for a police officer to make a traffic stop?
Are you aware the police officer can not break the laws they
agreed to and swore an oath not to break?
How do you know they're AUTHORIZED to do what they do if you've never
SEEN the rules that apply to them? What if they break one or
more, do they have to pay like everyone else?
Of
course you have the RIGHT to film or photograph WHEN YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE
ON THE JOB. When municipal employees are on the job they
have a DIMINISHED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY because they're a PUBLIC
employee. They work for the People, not the other way around
RULE
OF THUMB:
ALWAYS CARRY A CAMERA AND/OR DIGITAL RECORDING DEVICE.
You've
been lied to. The customer is not the party REQUIRED to pay
sales
tax. The sales tax is imposed on the RETAILER ONLY!
The
customers are being defrauded and subject to extortion if the dare
question the cashier or store manager they're required to know the law
as it applies to tax. They have a duty to know the law about
sales
tax because they are the liable party for it, again, not the customer.
YES, copies of receipts from natirional retailers are
provided. YES, the primere California Court case on what the
sales
tax is, the reason for it, and to whom the obligation to pay it is.
I put this together for my own use and have used it successfully
numerous shopping outings.
IT CONTAINS THE LAW no one knows about but EVERY retailer in California
is mandated to comply with, NOT THE CUSTOMER!
Additional
information and observations on the RETAILER'S tax liability.
The
Carry-Out Grocery Bag program implimented in California on November 8,
2016, is a SCAM. The stores NEVER HAD TO PARTICIPATE.
The program is
VOLUNTARY.
The store MUST FORMALLY OPT-IN. The store MUST send
IRREVOCABLE WRITTEN NOTICE of their intent to sell bags BEFORE they can
legally
sell them.
Is a COURTESY COPY of the IRREVOCABLE WRITTEN NOTICE available for
public or customer inspection upon request?
Download this expose and you'll soon learn who KNOWS the law and who
doesn't.
HINT: THE CASHIERS DON'T AND NEITHER DO THEIR
MANAGERS.
Civil
Asset Forfeiture is summary depravation of property before
a hearing or trial where the owner is required to prove their
property's innocense. Civil Asset Forfeiture is THEFT
because no
warrant is served.
Unless
otherwise designated, individual essays are available as a
thank you for your donation of one of these...
...and
one of these...
Unless otherwise
designated, any three
essays are available as a thank you for your
donation of one of these...
...and one each of these...
Additional information about each essay
upon request.
I typically repgainate court cases I
down load. Having read in excess of 10,000 court cases over
the course of 30 years, Times New Roman is the last font I'm interested
in vlooking at. The text of the essays is a Sans Serif font,
CALIBRI. It's a Microsoft font that may have been supplied
with your word processor. If you need/want a FREE font or
fonts, please click here.
A Sans Serif font is clean and much easier on the eyes,
especially for extended reading periods.
8
Gig USB Flash
An
8 Gig USB thumb drive is available that contains 5.7
GIGS of
information about the DMV and Traffic issues.
It's a PRIMER for
anyone doing DMV or Traffic Law studies, or any law study for that
matter.
Download the list of
items on
the Flash Drive.
My Law
folder contains over 450 GIGS of
information. I may have what you're looking for.
If you have a specific interest please let me know and I can build a
flash drive that contains information related to your interest.
These are some of
my accomplishments
resulting from the proper application of the law:
-
THE MONEY $HOT
-
TOW COMPANY RETURNS MY CAR AT NO COST,
WHICH THEY HAD FOR 262 DAYS @ $55 @ day.
I DID NOT PAY EITHER THE TOWING NOR STORAGE FEES.
I DID NOT PAY A DIME!
THE TOW COMPANY SUED THE CITY OF SAN JOSE!
I APPLIED LAW, I DID NOT PRACTICE LAW.
In total, my work has resulted in 5 people
getting their cars and trucks out of impound without having to pay.
I
designed the defense in both of the following speeding cases.
I
designed the questions used by the defendants. Those
questions
yielded the following ADMISSIONS by both judges, and one of the
officers.
This
was the result of a traffic case of mine where I field tested a series
of questions to pose to the officer who made the warrantless arrest.
I
worked on the questions over a period of 7 years. This was
the
FIRST
case where I used those questions. The officer was VERY
cooperative
in answering them and as you see, the result was in my favor.
In
fact, in the two speeding cases referenced above, the same questions
were used to gain the admissions from the judges and the arresting
officer.
If
you don't know what that means, then my essays are for you, because
you'll LEARN WHY they'll make that admission. Then it's up
to
you to figure out HOW TO construct the questions you'd want to ask to
get the same admission. If I can do it, and I
have, then
you can too, if you want.
What
are the odds of THREE government agencies LOSING an Opening Brief On
Appeal? I first filed it with Traffic Court, then I
proceeded to
the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, after filing it there I
proceeded to the DA's office. I left the DA's office with my
FILE STAMPED copy by all three agencies. It took
approximately 2
hours from the time I walked through the front door of the Traffic
Court until I left the DA's office to file all the copies.
Again, what are the odds of all three of them "losing" the document?
Nah, I have a pretty good idea why they didn't want me at a
hearing on appeal. I'm confident they didn't want the
questions
I posed in the Opening Brief, and they're HAVING
to the answer
them, on the record. I believe, but can't prove, they didn't
want you to find out what I asked, but again, I can't prove that.
How much do you suppose you'd save
annually if you didn't pay sales tax?
This is a
SETTLEMENT from The
Town of Los Gatos due to a couple of their police officers breaking the
law and denying the rights they swore an oath not to deny, who
subjected me to a warrantless arrest because I refused to COOPERATE and
tell the cop my name and where I lived as I was walking home from a
buddy's house one Sunday night. In fact, the incident
occurred
approximately 300 yards from my elementary school. I filed a
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES with the Town clerk for false imprisonment, this is
what I got for my efforts:
(
RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS )
I was
RESTORED in the amount of $10,000. I did not have to go to
court to
get paid for my troubles. There's NO TAX on a settlement.
After I got paid I went to The Off-Ramp bicycle store on El Camino Real
in Santa Clara and bought a brand new Specialized mountain bike.
I paid NO SALES TAX for it, just like I paid NO SALES TAX on an
$1199.88 Compac lap top computer.
One of
the cops involved, Ken
Berry, a 22 YEAR veteran of the force, was FIRED. They DID
NOT
prepare an INCIDENT REPORT of a nearly TWO HOUR stop. They
NEVER
turned the engine off of the patrol vehicle during the entireity of the
FALSE IMPRISONMENT. They WASTED gasoline the People of the
community had to pay for. They DEFRAUDED their
employer by
not accounting for their time!
I barely got out of highskool and if I can figure out THE LAW and USE
IT CORRECTLY so can anyone else who's has marginally functional frontal
lobes, can read, can speak, can write or type. I'm not
an attorney and I don't
want to be one. I do not intend to be a pull-toy for the
BAR. I just want to know what they know and do it
myself.
I can talk, I can type, I can read, and I can hear.
I can do
exactly what an attorney does and the BAR, nor any member of
the
BAR has any authority over me. All they can do is bullshit
because I've read the rule books, the same rule books they read, so
we'll see who interpreted what they read more acurately should any
pushin comes to shovin.
I've been involved in over 100
court cases, my own and others that I've worked on over the past 25
years.
A
former Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara Court system personally
ordered my last case dismissed with prejudice, as you saw above.
In fact we collaborated on the document. In fact the
Presiding
Judge sent unsolicited correspondence to me offering to dismiss my case
that I had on appeal given I wasn't successful at trial.
Apparently it was too "hot" because I was informed by the Presiding
Judge that my opening brief on appeal had gone missing and no one
seemed to be able to locate it. Keep in mind THREE agencies,
Traffic Court, the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, and the
District Attorney all couldn't seem to find it, notwithstanding the
fact I filed the document in all three agencies within a TWO hour
period. What are the odds that THREE government agencies,
TWO
courts and the District Attorney, lost an opening brief on appeal?
I still have my FILE STAMPED copy stamped by all three
agencies.
And I also have the signed order by the then Presiding Judge
dismissing my case with prejudice that I worked on with her.
I've both
designed and assisted
with court cases. I appealed my first case to the California
Supreme Court. I worked at a collection agency/process
service/judgement enforcement company for 5 years. I'm 15
for 15
in preventing debt collectors from collecting a debt, including 3
instances that involved the Franchise Tax Board. My work has
resulted in 5 cars and trucks being returned from impound without
having to pay. My work has resulted in the prevention of
cars
being impounded on 4 occasions. I've made numerous purchases
without paying sales tax or the California CRV. I have court
transcripts, my own and others I've worked with, that clearly
demonstrate the fraud Traffic and Small Claims court are. I
study
law and apply it in my daily life. It's one thing to talk
about
law, it's another to apply it, if it's not applicable at the cash
register or when we go to the grocery story or our place of worship,
what good is it?
No
one, including
seasoned attorneys and judges, would believe what people who wear black
robes have said on the record if they didn't see the actual words some
of
these braindead neanderthalls have spewed. My work is
designed
to expose and illuminate the lies that have become part and parcel of
everyone's daily lives. What's happening in
Traffic Court
is a scandal, period Unless people become aware of just how corrupt the
place is and how incompetent the employees there are, things will never
change. Fraud & Extortion form the basis of
the
so-called TRAFFIC STOP.
Additionally, one of my major accomplishments is
PROOF
there's both state and federal
citizens. You can tell people all day long there's
two
classes of citizens and they will NOT believe you. You can
show
them court citations and they will NOT believe you. It's
their
loss.
Citizens of the state are not required
to apply
for and possess a Driver License in order to lawfully use their car to
go from Point A to Point B, state Citizens are exempt. The
PROOF
was provided by the Deparment of Motor Vehicles who acknowledged the
distinction in citizenship status.
“We
have in our political system a Government of the United States and a
government of each of the several states. Each is distinct
from
the other and each has citizens of its own...” U.S. v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542
“There
are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of
citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”. Gardina v.
Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48
So. 788 (1909)
“The
governments of the United States and of each state of the several
states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one
may be quite different from those which he has under the other”. Colgate v.
Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“...rights
of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural
rights inherent in state citizenship”. Madden v.
Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
“It
is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States,
and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and
which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the
individual”. Slaughter-House
Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)
“...he
was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of
the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a
citizen of the United States”. McDonel v.
The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
““Citizenship”
and “residence”, as has often been declared by the courts, are not
convertible terms. ...
“”The
better opinion seems to be that a citizen of the United States is,
under the amendment [14th], prima facie a citizen of the state wherein
he resides , cannot arbitrarily be excluded therefrom by such state,
but that he does not become a citizen of the state against his will,
and contrary to his purpose and intention to retain an already acquired
citizenship elsewhere. The amendment [14th] is a restraint on
the
power of the state, but not on the right of the person to choose and
maintain his citizenship or domicile”“. Sharon v. Hill,
26 F. 337 (1885) [inserts added]
“That
there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a
state,...” Tashiro v.
Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
If
there's no such thing as state
citizenship then why would the US and State Supreme Court refer to
something that didn't exist?
If
there's no such thing as state
citizenship then why would the Department of Motor Vehicles acknowledge
something that didn't exist? Did the Department of
Motor
Vehicles commit mail fraud? Did they use the
federal mail
to mislead, or did they
merely acknowledge? Someone typed that. That was
not
processed by a printer, it was typed, so someone had to think about
that before or while they were typing something they'd never seen
before. Would you be curious about that addressing
information
if you were unaware it existed? Would you think it was odd?
Would you bother to investigate if there was such a thing?
Well I did and I decided that was the BETTER status of the
two,
state or federal. The federal Constitution protects
few
rights with minimal protects, the State Constitution on the other hand
provides even greater protection to all one's unalienable rights.
[6]
In addressing this issue, we begin by reaffirming the now settled
principle that the California courts, in interpreting the Constitution
of this state, are not bound by federal precedent construing the
parallel federal text; as we recently stated in Committee to Defend
Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981) 29 Cal.3d 252 [172 Cal.Rptr. 866,
625 P.2d 779], the "state courts, in interpreting constitutional
guarantees [30 Cal.3d 836] contained in state constitutions, are
'independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their
citizens.'" (P. 261, quoting People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528,
551 [119 Cal.Rptr. 315, 531 P.2d 1099].) fn. 10 Decisions of
the
United States Supreme Court, nevertheless, are entitled to respectful
consideration (People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88, 97 [177
Cal.Rptr. 576, 634 P.2d 927]; People v. Longwill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 943,
951, fn. 4 [123 Cal.Rptr. 297, 538 P.2d 753]) and ought to be followed
unless persuasive reasons are presented for taking a different course People
v. Teresinski, 30 Cal.3d 822
[Crim. No. 20497. Supreme Court of California. February 18, 1982.]
Defendant
was charged with possession of marijuana (former Health & Saf.
Code, § 11530, now § 11357) and possession of a restricted dangerous
drug (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11910, now § 11377). His
motion
to suppress the evidence on the ground of illegal search and seizure
(Pen. Code, § 1538.5) was denied.
...we hold that the
officers' subsequent intrusion into the opaque bottle and envelopes
inside the knapsack cannot be justified by the limited purpose which
validated the search in its inception. Accordingly, we hold
these items were obtained by means of an unreasonable search and
seizure in violation of article I, section 13, of the California
Constitution.
Officer Denney explained, "Primarily because of
the terrain, we could not secure them. We had at that time
arrested them, taken their freedom away from them.
[6] Defendant
was arrested for one of the most minor of nontraffic violations -- a
mere citation offense. In such a case the fact of
the
arrest does not justify a search of the belongings of the person
cited: there can be no instrumentalities and there can be no
fruits,...
Our holding today is based exclusively on article I,
section 13, of the California Constitution, which requires a more
exacting standard for cases arising within this state.
This
court has always assumed the independent vitality of our state
Constitution. In the search and seizure area our decisions have often
comported with federal law, yet there has never been any question that
this similarity was a matter of choice and not compulsion.
As
Chief Justice Wright stated in People v. Triggs (1973) 8 Cal.3d 884,
892, footnote 5 [106 Cal.Rptr. 408, 506 P.2d 232]: "At least since the
advent of Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 338 U.S. 25 [93 L.Ed. 1782, 69 S.Ct.
1359], we have treated the law under article I, section 19 [now § 13],
of our state Constitution as 'substantially equivalent' to the Supreme
Court's construction [13 Cal.3d 549] of the Fourth Amendment. (See
Blair v. Pitchess (1971) 5 Cal.3d 258, 270-271, fn. 6 [96 Cal.Rptr. 42,
486 P.2d 1242, 47 A.L.R.3d 1206].) On at least one occasion,
however, we have expressly departed from the federal rule to afford
defendants a broader security against unreasonable searches and
seizures than that required by the Supreme Court. (See People v. Martin
(1955) 45 Cal.2d 755, 759-761 [290 P.2d 855] [vicarious exclusionary
rule].) [12] In interpreting our state Constitution, we of
course retain the 'power to impose higher standards on searches and
seizures than required by the Federal Constitution.' (Cooper v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 58, 62 [17 L.Ed.2d 730, 734, 87 S.Ct.
788].)" (See generally Falk, The State Constitution: A More Than
"Adequate" Nonfederal Ground (1973) 61 Cal.L.Rev. 273.) People
v. Brisendine, 13 Cal.3d 528
[Crim. No. 16520. Supreme Court of California. February 20, 1975.]
The State
Constitution provides
maximum protection for unalienable rights unlike the federal
constitution with its limited protections.
This
begs a question, am I required to know my status? Who
identifies
me? Do government employees know the difference in status?
Are they applying the rules to the correct party?
The Vehicle
Code regulates persons who drive. How many people
know
there's both state and federal citizens? Regardless, it
means
something when it comes to jurisdiction and who can tell who what to do
and who has to do what all that kinda thing. The
Vehicle
Code regulates "persons". The "persons" are also identified
by
the word "driver". Interestingly enough, the word driver is
defined by the Legislature, but the Legislature failed to provided the
definition of "drive" or "driving". The two words everyone
uses
to identify their conduct when they use a car isn't even defined in any
of the codes. Don't believe me, check the codes for
yourself,
they're available 24/7 on-line. If people don't know what
they
are in the eyes of the law it will be a crap shoot when it comes to a
defense. Frankly it would be a bad bet. It's
better to
know than guess.
The Constitution is a
LIMITATION and RESTRICTION on Government
B. Constitution of
California
2. ['51] Restrictive and Enabling Provisions
(a) Restrictions on State
Powers. The
California Constitution, like other state constitutions, is generally a
restriction upon the powers of the state. Summary
of California Law, vol 7, Constitutional Law, p. 9
I don't get ANYTHING from the
Constitution, I have
NO 5th Amendment privilege. The Constitutions RESTRICT what
government employees do. I can APPLY the Constitution to
government employees when they act BEYOND the scope of their employment.
...the
state Constitution, as distinguished from the federal Constitution,
does not constitute a grant of power, or an enabling act, to the
legislature, but rather constitutes a limitation upon the powers of
that body....we do not look to the Constitution to determine whether
the legislature is authorized to do an act, but only to see if it is
prohibited. In other words, unless restrained by
constitutional provision, the legislature is vested with the whole of
the legislative power of the state. (Macmillan Co. v. Clarke, 184 Cal.
491 [194 P. 1030, 17 A.L.R. 288]; Mitchell v. Winnek, 117 Cal. 520, 525
[49 P. 579]; Jensen v. McCullough, 94 Cal.App. 382, 394 [271 P. 568];
People v. Rinner, 52 Cal.App. 747, 749 [199 P. 1066].) Fitts v.
Superior Court, 6 Cal.2d 230 [L.
A. No. 15256. In Bank. April 30, 1936.]
Read
what's printed in the
California Constitution of 1849 at Article 1, Sections 1 & 21.
Here's some publications from a District Attorney, I doubt
they'd intentionally lie so presumptively their publications will
provide some truth about the issues covered:
We
thus require citizens to apprise themselves not only of statutory
language but also of legislative history, subsequent judicial
construction, and underlying legislative purposes (People v. Grubb
(1965) 63 Cal.2d 614, 620 [47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 408 P.2d 100]). (See
generally Amsterdam, The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme
Court (1960) 109 U. Pa. L.Rev. 67.) Walker
v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112
Even
if the officer is not expected to know the law of all 50 states, surely
he is expected to know the California Vehicle Code... CLEMENT
v. J & E SERVICE INC., No. 05-56692,
March 11, 2008, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Even
if the officer is not expected to know the law of all 50 states, surely
he is expected to know the California Vehicle Code,... THE
PEOPLE v. JESUS SANTOS SANCHEZ REYES (2011) 196
Cal.App.4th 856
For those of you who may be
interested in how an IMPEACHMENT TRIAL looks, then head over to C-SPAN and look for all the videos
of the trial of federal Judge Thomas Porteous. Jonathan
Turrley and his team represented the judge.
The tax
payers paid for this trial and if you're a tax payer you've got A LOT
of very valuable information to go get. If you're interested
in bankruptcy, bail bonds, or how to qualify an "expert witness" and
then "tender" them as an expert witness, then this is the trial for
you. This trial provides ANYONE with an interest in law boat
loads of great HOW TO DO IT from the Pros From Dover. What
you'll learn here can be used in ANY COURT in the country.
Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
And again, if you pay taxes then you paid for this trial.
It's my
hope some of what I've
discovered comes in
handy for whatever purpose one deems proper.
Education is a good
thing. If you can see your way clear to
financially support my efforts I'd appreciate it.
NEITHER
LEGAL ADVICE
OFFERED NOR IMPLIED!
NEITHER WARRANTY
OFFERED
NOR IMPLIED!
