In California, Vehicle Code INFRACTIONS ARE NOT CRIMES!

[hoseqt1]

IT is also written in a way intended to confuse you. Just from this video alone I would normally think the legislators were either stupid or intentionally trying to make it confusing. But you make the call.

[controlfreakssuckass]

there is only one kind of action... the CIVIL action... federal rules of civil procedure... all traffic violations are NOT crimes, UNLESS you have injured some one or damaged property... there must be "Corpus Delicti" or a sworn testimony of an injured party.... tickets are not valid complaints... ITS A SCAM to take your money period.

[drivingiscommerce]

@controlfreakssuckass No argument from me. Not many people know that. Tickets, by the way, ARE NOT COMPLAINTS at all. No cop can PREFER CHARGES.

[ripperduck]

@ScarLiterature I'm in no way agreeing with the vid's author, but stop this crap about leaving lawyering to lawyers bullshit. Knowing one's rights has nothing to do with lawyers. I have plenty of questions re: the veracity of what is posted, but your crap that only lawyers can understand the law and no one else is garbage.

[drivingiscommerce]

@ripperduck I appreciate your comment. It's honest. PLEASE do due diligence re what's posted. All I did was FIND that stuff, I didn't MAKE ANYTHING UP. I've used what I've found SUCCESSFULLY AND I STILL URGE EVERYONE to do their OWN RESEARCH and VERIFY EVERYTHING. BELIEVE YOUR OWN FINDINGS, THESE ARE MY FINDINGS and MAY NOT be what you you find. THESE are MY SUCCESSES but MAY NOT be your successes. PLEASE VERIFY. That seems to be reasonable.

[ripperduck]

@drivingiscommerce What you're asking is very reasonable. And should be done in all walks of life. It's up to me to do some work and then come to my own conclusions, but you have given me something to think about. Thanks for doing that.....

[ripperduck]

@drivingiscommerce I did look up some of the things that you mentioned, and it's an eye opener. It seems that the licensing is pretty much for commercial driving, not noncommercial driving. So it seems that when the DMV collects info on you it really isn't required. But my understanding is that the FEDs demand that the states collect driver information. How does that work re: drivers license? Does FED law supersede state/county/city law? TIA

[ripperduck]

@drivingiscommerce Sec14607.6 West Annotated CA Codes (c)(1) says that your car will be impounded if you don't have a drivers license. If they can take away your property on the spot, doesn't that tend to invalidate your conclusions? I'm not trying to be a lawyer, just trying to understand our rights. So they can't arrest you but they can your vehicle....

[drivingiscommerce]

@ripperduck Pay attention to the DETAILS: "...who is a registered owner of the vehicle...". You're equating a MOTOR VEHICLE with PERSONAL PROPERTY/CONSUMER GOODS. BIG MISTAKE! MOTOR VEHICLE has a specific legal definition. Cops are REQUIRED TO KNOW THE LAW & if a cop takes my ride he better because he's gonna be in for a boat load of shit because he's gonna HAVE TO explain why he doesn't know the difference between MOTOR VEHICLE and CONSUMER GOODS. GRAND LARCENY IS A CRIME!

[ripperduck]

@drivingiscommerce As you well know, LEO's CANNOT take your ride if you don't have a license! New law states that. But as YOU pointed out with this vid, they never had the right to do that. And when I read Yahoo board comments re: new law, most ppl were outraged, but they didn't no the difference between infractions and crimes. To them if you're only infraction was no DL, then you're the same as a criminal and should be arrested and car impounded. PPl b irrational...

[drivingiscommerce]

@ScarLiterature I may be an idiot but I can read: CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE DIVISION 17. OFFENSES AND PROSECUTION CHAPTER 2. PROCEDURE ON ARRESTS Article 1. Arrests ..............................­............ 40300 - 40313 VEHICLE CODE SECTION 40300-40313 40300. The provisions of this chapter shall govern all peace officers in making arrests for violations of this code without a warrant for offenses committed in their presence... Take a look at VC 40504, yer also IN CUSTODY!

[drivingiscommerce]

@ScarLiterature Walk yer talk asshole: In View of Code Civ. Proc. § 24, declaring actions to be two kinds, civil and

criminal, and § 22, defining actions, there is no such thing as a “quasi-criminal act.”

Ex Parte Clark, 141 P. 831, 24 C.A. 389.

[anewgift4u]

One of the key components here is that "infractions" are not safeguarded under Constitutional protections, spoken of as if a jury trial were the consideration, likewise can you invoke 4th amendment violations for making the stop without "reasonable suspicion" when the 4th doesn't exist? Interesting thing to consider. It's advisable to consult case law for rulings rather than to interpret the statutes.

[drivingiscommerce]

@anewgift4u They sure as hell are. In Cal when an INFRACTION is alleged, you're subject to a CRIMINAL ACTION. I READ COURT CASES EVERYDAY. REASONABLENESS applies to AUTHORIZED CONDUCT. IN ABSENCE OF AUTHORIZATION NO SEIZURE IS REASONABLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND NO COP CAN MAKE UP RULES TO SUIT THE SITUATION. When that RED LIGHT on the cop car is activated for some alleged INFRACTION of the VC, YOU'RE BEING ARRESTED, NOT DETAINED!

[PowerPolitics]

Whether infractions are civil or criminal or quasi, in California under CCP section 417.10 "Proof that a summons was served on a person within this state shall be made:..." Has anyone ever seen or received a summons for a traffic infraction?

If you go to court don't ask for the summons. Ask for the Proof of Service of summons that is required under 417.10. No proof of service means no case.

[drivingiscommerce]

@PowerPolitics

Good point, however "they" process the matter as a CRIME and we need to keep the rules in Penal Code in mind. If they'd play it straight then we could use tools of CIVIL discovery and theoretically we'll never see the inside of a court room because the people's case could be thwarted if they had to respond to interrogatories or admissions, the bottom linebeing the NOTICE TO APPEAR isn't a complaint and the cop can't serve his own paper, let alone before it's even been filed.

[drivingiscommerce]

@PowerPolitics

That's good however it only kicks in AFTER arraignment, not before. We have case law that tells us flat out that the prosecution has a CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to turn over EXCULPATORY evidence discovery motion or not and regardless of any "statutory scheme".

[PowerPolitics]

@drivingiscommerce

I saw in the video that one has to "get up in their face"... Has anyone done that yet?

What about section 16 of the penal code?

16. Crimes and public offenses include: 1. Felonies; 2. Misdemeanors; and 3. Infractions.

[drivingiscommerce]

@PowerPolitics

Yes, I worked on a buddy's case last year and it involved an infraction, it was successful on appeal. The interesting thing is the appellate judge DIDN'T address one of the TWO issues SHE RAISED - the ARREST. If she did the cat would be out of the bag. This is what WE do, I don't know anyone else using our argument but the focus is on the POLICE CONTACT. If it's flawed then they have a problem you can exploit. Provide an email address and I'll go into greater detail.

[PowerPolitics]

@drivingiscommerce Zeke at power politics dot com

[Tactikalguy1]

awesome vid!!!! 5 starz!

[EZrhythm]

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) regulates commerce, banking, contracts, etc. A traffic citation and every other form used to draw one in to court is a commercial instrument regulated by law just as a check is. One signs (endorses), promising to appear. (tender payment) at the location listed on the instrument. Under contract law one may terminate a contract within three business days.

The citation may be sent/turned in to the address listed with, "Refusal For Cause" in red across the face.