[juliusbragg]

Im not sure where to post this, but it involves the use of the term United States, and the application of the 18th Amendment. This amendment ONLY ever actually applied to the FEDERAL UNITED STATES:

http://openjurist.or…ard-co-v-mellon

Quote:

‘Sec. 3. No person (see footnote 2 at bottom for meaning of ‘person’ in the act***FN2) shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this act, and all the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to the end that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented. * * *’

…

As originally enacted the act did not in terms define its territorial field, but a supplemental provision3 afterwards enacted declares that it ‘shall apply not only to the United States but to all territory subject to its jurisdiction,’ which means that its field coincides with that of the Eighteenth Amendment. There is in the act no provision making it applicable to domestic merchant ships when outside the waters of the United States, nor any provision making it inapplicable to merchant ships, either domestic or foreign, when within those waters, save in the Panama Canal.

…

In so saying we do not mean to imply that Congress is without power to regulate the conduct of domestic merchant ships when on the high seas, or to exert such control over them when in foreign waters as may be affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the territorial sovereign; for it long has been settled that Congress does have such power over them. Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541, 26 L. Ed. 224; The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166, 176, 32 Sup. Ct. 310, 56 L. Ed. 390. But we do mean that the National Prohibition Act discloses that it is intended only to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment and limits its field of operation, like that of the amendment, to the territorial limits of the United States.

…

Various meanings are sought to be attributed to the term ‘territory’ in the phrase ‘the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ We are of opinion that it means the regional areas—of land and adjacent waters—over which the United States claims and exercises dominion and control as a sovereign power. The immediate context and the purport of the entire section show that the term is used in a physical and not a metaphorical sense—that it refers to areas or districts having fixity of location and recognized boundaries. See United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 390, 4 L. Ed. 404.

FN2***

The act contains a provision (§ 1 of title 2) showing that it uses the word ‘persons’ as including ‘associations, copartnerships and corporations’ when the context does not indicate otherwise.

[SOURCE: Cunard Co v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100]

[juliusbragg]

Im sure we've agreed to disagree, but Ill respond…by the way good to be back. I actually REALLY enjoy our debates, and I hope you do too.

you quoted:

Quote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This makes PERFECT sense…a quick translation clarifies it:

Quote:

“because a 14th amendment citizen of the United States is Federal property, the States are limited in their enforcement and ability to make laws for Federal citizens; furthermore, since the due process clause of the Constitution does not apply to these Federal citizens, it is hereby declared that the States are forbidden from depriving the Federal citizens of life, liberty, and property without due process (pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2) (the states could still deprive a citizen of the united states the RIGHT to vote, and other RIGHTS because congress hadn't granted those civil rights yet)

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

and lastly, the States must treat the Federal citizens equal to its white citizens (so far as required by this amendment) while the Federal citizen is a Resident, or 'within' (not subject to) the jurisdiction of the State.”

Quote:

“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States

[juliusbragg]

Quote:

who aren't pushing the Fourteenth Amendment conspiracy theories that have no foundation.

No Foundation? Here is the foundation.

Lower case “c” for the first time…accident or deliberate?

14th Amendment has a second “due process” clause

14th Amendment follows the “1866 civil rights act” and uses essentially the same language.

now to the courts;

Quote:

“No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent [13th and 14th] amendments to the Federal Constitution.” VAN VALKENBURG V. BROWN, 43 CAL. 43 (1872)).

Quote:

“The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.”

[Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]

[(1874)]

Quote:

“The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment.”

[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]

Quote:

“We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell.”

[The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)

see:

“[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved.”

[Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) ]

see:

“United States citizenship does not entitle citizens to rights and privileges of state citizenship.”

[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]

To say there is no foundation is preposterous…

The Lincoln administration was NOT prepared to make the newly freed slaves equal to the white landowners, therefore they used Constitutional lawyer, John Bingham to come up with a brilliant solution. The answer was capitalization. The 13th Amendment freed the slaves and the 14th amendment 'unfreed' them, by making the Federal Government their new owner. The slaves, and subsequently anyone that signed on to be a “citizen of the United States”, became “property” of the United States, which is why Congress properly presumes to control them.

Quote:

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia”

[U.S. Supreme Court, COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) 19 U.S. 264 (Wheat.)]

in case you question a person being an 'object'

ob·ject

[n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt]

–noun

1.

anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.

2.

a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:

Quote:

the most natural meaning of 'of the United States' is 'belonging to the United States.'“

[U.S. Supreme Court, ELLIS v. U S, 206 U.S. 246 (1907) 206 U.S. 246]

A citizen OF the UNITED STATES, is a Federal citizen, belonging to the Federal Government.

Quote:

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government…” (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)

So it is no wonder that Congress can make laws regarding drugs and guns for its citizens.

Quote:

Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.

This is crystal clear, you want to be a citizen OF the United States, then Congress can attach ANY precondition, including but not limited to, diminished constitutional protection.

I think admin is very intelligent, but I strongly think he is missing the boat on this one. If the 14th Amendment citizen was the same as an Art 2 sec 1 cl 5 “natural born Citizen”, then the 15th Amendment was unnecessary, However, If the 14th Amendment citizen was a second and lesser Class of citizen, then the 15th Amendment was necessary to give that class of citizen the “CIVIL RIGHT” to vote.

Quote:

“A 'civil right' is a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it.”

[Nickell v. Rosenfield (1927), 255 P. 760]

and

“A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it.”

82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

http://www.dailypaul.com/159860/what-rights-do-you-have

[juliusbragg]

Georgia, like every other state, lacks the authority to license a right. Georgia, like every other state, declares “driving” to be a privilege and not a right. The Courts have held that traveling by automobile is a Right.

What does this tell us? This tells us that “driving” means something different than “traveling by automobile”.

“

Quote:

The common definition of “driver” denotes anyone who is driving a vehicle. The technical meaning applies only to those who drive a vehicle used for transporting persons or property for hire. The common understanding of “driver” is not the technical one, so the common man may call himself a driver when in law he is not.

[Davis v. Petrinovich, 21 So. 344.]“

The states know this…all they have to do is call it driving, tell you that a license is required to “drive” and voila, you become a 'person' subject to the code.

It is my contention thought, that EVERYONE that claims to be a 14th Amendment citizen, is an “alien” with regard to the state, and thereby subject to the state code. In California there is this:

Quote:

“Cal Govt. Code 242

Persons in the State not its citizens are either:

(a) Citizens of other States; or

(b) Aliens.“

Since we know that lawyers wrote the 14th Amendment, since we know that lawyers are wordsmiths, since we know that Lincolns administration was not prepared to have the newly freed slaves be Article 2, sec 1, cl. 5 natural born Citizens, they had to create a new class of citizen, a Federal citizen called a “citizen of the United States”. If you look at the 14th closely, you will see that it does NOT make the freed slaves State citizens…it only makes them “of the State wherein they RESIDE.” Reside means WHERE THEY WILL TEMPORARILY BE.

Example of this type of language:

Quote:

Section 102.04 (A) and (:cool: of the Revised Code state:

“(A) No person elected or appointed to an office of or employed by the general assembly or any department, division, institution, instrumentality, board, commission, or bureau of the state, excluding the courts, shall receive or agree to receive directly or indirectly compensation other than from the agency with which he serves for any service rendered or to be rendered by him personally in any case, proceeding, application or other matter which is before the general assembly or any department, division, institution, instrumentality, board, commission, or bureau of the state, excluding the courts.

(:cool:No person who is elected or appointed to an office of or employed by a county, township, municipal corporation, or any other governmental entity, excluding the courts, shall receive or agree to receive directly or indirectly compensation other than from the agency with which he serves for any service rendered or to be rendered by him personally in any case, proceeding, application, or other matter which is before any agency, department, board, bureau, commission, or other instrumentality, excluding the courts of the entity of which he is an officer or employee.”

A cursory reading of Section 102.04 of the Revised Code reveals that Division (A) is directed to the state level and Division (:cool: to the local level. Section 102.04 (A) of the Revised Code clearly uses the phrase “of the state” to describe the governmental level of the position held by the person elected or appointed. “[O]f the state” also describes the level at which the statute is aimed regarding the receiving of compensation for the rendering of services personally.

Im simply pointing out that the phrase “of this state” is one that is questioned by the courts.

Im certain that Congress knew how to write:

“…is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State wherein they reside”. But they didnt. I think this is simply ANOTHER trick, in addition to using a lower case “c” for citizen for the FIRST time in the Constitution or the Amendments.

ANYWAY back to Aliens vs State Citizens:

Quote:

An alien has no right to raise the question whether a statute is violative of Const. U.S. art. 4. Sec 2. declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.

In re Johnson's Estate, 73 P 424 (1903).

If a Federal citizen IS called a “citizen of the United States”, AS I SUGGEST, then they would be an “alien” to the State, and would not be a party to the Constitution of the United States OR the Constitution of the States, and this case, as usual would be spot on!

[juliusbragg]

Well, the trick is this:

The Courts and the Police pretend that an “Infraction” is a “public offense”…however, if we look to case law and the code itself, we see that it cannot be. For example, the Cal Penal code is in conflict (or appears to be) where it states:

Quote:

Cal Penal Code:

16

Crimes and public offenses include:

1. Felonies;

2. Misdemeanors; and

3. Infractions.

689

No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty.

19.6

An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to have the public defender or other counsel appointed at public expense to represent him or her unless he or she is arrested and not released on his or her written promise to appear, his or her own recognizance, or a deposit of bail.

1042.5

Trial of an infraction shall be by the court, but when a defendant has been charged with an infraction and with a public offense for which there is a right to jury trial and a jury trial is not waived, the court may order that the offenses be tried together by jury or that they be tried separately with the infraction being tried by the court either in the same proceeding or a separate proceeding as may be appropriate.

837

A private person may arrest another:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.

2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.

3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

We see that an Infraction is NOT a “public offense”. The Definition at Cal Penal 16 is technically correct, “crimes and public offense includes Felonies, Misdemeanors and Infractions” BECAUSE, there are some Infractions that MAY become or be considered public offenses, for example, running 6 red lights in a row may become something more than a mere infraction.

See Cal Penal Code 837 above…do we think the Legislators intended to allow “private persons” to go around yanking people out of the car and holding them for the police for mere infractions?

How do you think the City attorney would try to prosecute me if I see a State employee turn without a blinker, and I arrest them and take them to the nearest magistrate?

If its a big city employee, am I allowed to call over 10 of my friends to help me subdue him to make the arrest?

Quote:

Cal Penal 839

Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

Furthermore, I dont even need to tell them why I am arresting them:

Quote:

841

The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it, except when the person making the

arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its commission, or after an escape.

The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being arrested.

I am allowed to take any “offensive weapon”, ie nail clippers, 3 oz. or more of liquids, lighters, etc…Ill have to check with TSA to see what is offensive or dangerous.

Quote:

846

Any person making an arrest may take from the person arrested all offensive weapons which he may have about his person, and must deliver them to the magistrate before whom he is taken.

And lastly, dont forget that I have to handcuff and load this guy in the back of my car to take him to the nearest magistrate:

Quote:

847

(a) A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer.

(b) There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace officer or federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 830.8, acting within the scope of his or her authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any arrest under any of the following circumstances:

(1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful.

(2) The arrest was made pursuant to a charge made, upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the person to be arrested.

(3) The arrest was made pursuant to the requirements of Section 142, 837, 838, or 839.

Did the Legislators intend to classify Infractions as “Public Offenses”???

not according to the Court.

http://section520.org/sava.pdf

Quote:

See People v. Sava (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 935, 235 Cal.Rptr. 694

No. D005040. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. March

27, 1987.

…If the Legislature intended to treat infractions as public offenses and if the charging of a public offense invokes the right to trial by jury, sections 19c and 1042.5, which deny a jury to one who commits an infraction, conflict with section 689. However, the same (1968) Legislature enacted section 19c, the pertinent amendment of section 16 and section 1042.5. Construing these sections in accordance with the precepts laid down in In re Kay, supra, we must conclude that it was not the intent of the Legislature to enact inconsistent statutes and, further, that when it added the term “public offense” to section 16 it was not so categorizing infractions because if it did so, it would have caused inconsistency between sections 19c and 689 of the Penal Code.

Support for this interpretation is found in the language of section 1042.5 which states that a defendant “charged with an infraction and with a public offense for which there is a right to jury trial” may be accorded a jury trial. Had the Legislature intended that an infraction be treated as a public offense, it would have worded the statute differently, for example, “an infraction and with some other public offense.” [50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7]

Furthermore, this court has previously held in People v. Oppenheimer (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4, 7, fn. 2 [116 Cal.Rptr. 795], that inasmuch as section 689 of the Penal Code was originally enacted in 1872 and last amended in 1951, and sections 19c and 1042.5 of the Penal Code were enacted in 1968, we must read all the sections together and, in case of conflict, give effect to the latest enacted sections — sections 19c and 1042.5. We therefore have declared in People v. Oppenheimer, supra, that sections 19c and 1042.5 qualify section 689 insofar as infractions are concerned. Hence, even though we were to treat an infraction as a public offense under section 16, we must nevertheless excise infractions from section 689 in order to effect the objective of the Legislature. (Pen. Code, §§ 4.)

The court in People v. Oppenheimer (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4 [116 Cal.Rptr. 795], declares that an infraction is a petty offense. A defendant was not historically accorded the right to a jury in trials of petty offenses. Whether an infraction is characterized as a petty offense or a noncriminal offense, an appellate court in the circumstances of the present case should not bar prosecution for manslaughter by reason of an earlier plea of nolo contendere to an infraction. To do otherwise would fly in the face of the legislative adjuration to construe statutory provisions “according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.” (Pen. Code, §§ 4.)

The judgment of dismissal is reversed.

HOLMES, P. J.

[juliusbragg]

I am filing suit against the police department, the tow company, and two officers in their individual capacity for violations of my fundamental human rights, caused by violations of their own code.

REMEMBER, when you are pulled over, you are “arrested”.

In California an officer can ONLY arrest someone without a warrant a few ways. see CVC 40300.5 and Cal Penal Code 836

Quote:

CVC 40300.5

In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836 of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a

person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:

(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.

(:cool: The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway.

(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested.

(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested.

(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.

Cal Penal Code 836

(a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur:

(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the officer's presence.

(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact, has been committed.

(:cool: Any time a peace officer is called out on a domestic violence

call, it shall be mandatory that the officer make a good faith effort to inform the victim of his or her right to make a citizen's arrest. This information shall include advising the victim how to safely execute the arrest.

(c) (1) When a peace officer is responding to a call alleging a violation of a domestic violence protective or restraining order issued under Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Family Code, Section 136.2, 646.91, or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1203.097 of this code, Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or of a domestic violence protective or restraining order issued by the court of another state, tribe, or territory and the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person against whom the order is issued has notice of the order and has committed an act in violation of the order, the officer shall, consistent with subdivision (:cool: of Section 13701, make a lawful arrest of the person without a warrant and take that person into custody whether or not the violation occurred in the presence of the arresting officer. The officer shall, as soon as possible after the arrest, confirm with the appropriate authorities or the Domestic Violence Protection Order Registry maintained pursuant to Section 6380 of the Family Code that a true copy of the protective order has been registered, unless the victim provides the officer with a copy of the protective order.

(2) The person against whom a protective order has been issued shall be deemed to have notice of the order if the victim presents to the officer proof of service of the order, the officer confirms with the appropriate authorities that a true copy of the proof of service is on file, or the person against whom the protective order was issued was present at the protective order hearing or was informed by a peace officer of the contents of the protective order.

(3) In situations where mutual protective orders have been issued under Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code, liability for arrest under this subdivision applies only to those persons who are reasonably believed to have been the dominant aggressor. In those situations, prior to making an arrest under this subdivision, the peace officer shall make reasonable efforts to identify, and may arrest, the dominant aggressor involved in the incident. The dominant aggressor is the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider (A) the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, (:cool: the threats creating fear of physical injury, (C) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and (D) whether either person involved acted in self-defense.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), if a suspect

commits an assault or battery upon a current or former spouse, fiance, fiancee, a current or former cohabitant as defined in Section 6209 of the Family Code, a person with whom the suspect currently is having or has previously had an engagement or dating relationship, as defined in paragraph (10) of subdivision (f) of Section 243, a person with whom the suspect has parented a child, or is presumed to have parented a child pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code), a child of the suspect, a child whose parentage by the suspect is the subject of an action under the Uniform Parentage Act, a child of a person in one of the above categories, any other person related to the suspect by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who is 65 years of age or older and who is related to the suspect by blood or legal guardianship, a peace officer may arrest the suspect without a warrant where both of the following circumstances apply:

(1) The peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the assault or battery, whether or not it has in fact been committed.

(2) The peace officer makes the arrest as soon as probable cause arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the assault or battery, whether or not it has in fact been committed.

(e) In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a warrant pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (a), a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for a violation

of Section 25400 when all of the following apply:

(1) The officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the violation of Section 25400.

(2) The violation of Section 25400 occurred within an airport, as defined in Section 21013 of the Public Utilities Code, in an area to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property.

(3) The peace officer makes the arrest as soon as reasonable cause arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the violation of Section 25400.

(NOTE: 25400 is shining bright lights at an airport, ex.)

Another way is by consent pursuant to CVC 17459 and 17460

Quote:

CVC 17459

The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle.

CVC 17460

The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent of the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state.

In other words, if you display License plates, the officer is allowed to presume that you knowingly consent to his issuance of a summons, therefore his arrest is legal. However, if you display no plates, and you display no numbers, words, or advertising to indicate that you are a “commercial vehicle” subject to the Public Utilities commission and the Legislature pursuant to California Constitution Article 12, sec 3, and especially if you display a “NOT FOR HIRE” sign, then the officers arrest without a warrant is unlawful, and the taking of the unregistered property after the illegal arrest is also unlawful.

Quote:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 12 PUBLIC UTILITIES

SEC. 3. Private corporations and persons that own, operate, control, or manage a line, plant, or system for the transportation of people or property, the transmission of telephone and telegraph messages, or the production, generation, transmission, or furnishing of heat, light, water, power, storage, or wharfage directly or indirectly to or for the public, and common carriers, are public utilities subject to control by the Legislature. The Legislature may prescribe that additional classes of private corporations or other persons are public utilities.

The officers left their official capacity once they violated the Constitution, Amendment 4, therefore, I believe I am required to sue them in their personal capacity, and sue the Police Department for their participation and refusal to correct the violation.

[juliusbragg]

I simply wanted to point the “trick” in § 19-11-9.1.

Quote:

(a) Any entity in this state including for profit, nonprofit, and governmental employers, upon the request of the department and its authorized contractors, shall provide the department with information, including the name, address, social security number, employment, compensation, and benefits regarding a person owing or allegedly owing an obligation of support for a dependent child.

(a.1)(1) In accordance with the mandate contained in 42 U.S.C. Section 666(a)(13)(A) and notwithstanding any provision of Title 40…

NOTE that there is no comma after “entity in this state” and before “including”. This is a classic trick. These attorneys are actually very intelligent and have great understanding for the English language and punctuation usage…now for the trick.

See my letter regarding this same issue of commas in the California workers comp code:

“Use a comma before “including” and “such as” when followed by a nonrestrictive, nonessential phrase or clause.”

Quote:

NOTICE

to the

DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

Attention Mark Fudem, presiding judge

and Carrie Nevans, administrative director

1515 Clay Street

6th floor

Oakland, CA 94612-1402

RETURN RESPONSE TO:

San Ramon, California

Hello, I am writing in order to confirm my understanding of the term “employer” as found in the California Labor Code with regard to Workers’ Compensation, and whether or not I am capable of being an “employer” as that term is specifically defined by applicable law.

LABOR CODE

SECTION 3300-3302

3300. As used in this division, “employer” means:

(a ) The State and every State agency.

(B ) Each county, city, district, and all public and quasi public corporations and public agencies therein.

(c ) Every person including any public service corporation, which has any natural person in service.

(d ) The legal representative of any deceased employer.

I am a private contractor owning and operating my own small construction company. Accordingly, by a strict reading of the above statute, none of the above sections (a) through (d) would appear to apply to me. In particular, section (c) says “Every person including any public service corporation…” The lack of a comma before ‘including’ makes this a restrictive sentence.

See, United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989) finding that a comma was required to separate the meaning of two phrases in the same sentence and prevent joinder (“This reading is also mandated by the grammatical structure of the statute. The phrase “interest on such claim” is set aside by commas, and separated from the reference to fees, costs, and charges by the conjunctive words “and any.” As a result, the phrase “interest on such claim” stands independent of the language that follows.” [emphasis added])

The “Rochester Institute of Technology”, for example, has this to say about commas before including:

“Use a comma before “including” and “such as” when followed by a nonrestrictive, nonessential phrase or clause.”

[example given] “The new policy applies to everyone, including faculty.”

Similarly, the “Michigan State University Editorial Style Guide” states:

“Whether to use a comma before “including” depends on the intended meaning of the sentence. The presence of a comma makes the sentence nonrestrictive:

[example given] He managed a variety of projects, including joint, combined, and contingency exercises. (Projects may include joint, combined, or contingency exercises or some combination of the three.)

The absence of a comma makes the sentence restrictive:

[example given] He managed a variety of projects including joint, combined, and contingency exercises. (Every project must include joint, combined, and contingency exercises.)

Using these rules of the English language, I find it proper to read strictly the definition found in the Labor Code at section 3300; but these rules aren’t the only factors for my strict reading. Indeed, I also looked at consistency and the intent throughout the code. I respectfully invite you to review the examples below, and notice the comma before including, and after person:

Cal Labor Code 1404

A person, including a local government or an employee representative, seeking to establish liability against an employer may bring a civil action on behalf of the person, other persons similarly situated, or both, in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may award reasonable attorney's fees as part of costs to any plaintiff who prevails in a civil action brought under this chapter.

Cal Labor Code 350(:cool:

(:cool: “Employee” means every person, including aliens and minors, rendering actual service in any business for an employer, whether gratuitously or for wages or pay, whether the wages or pay are measured by the standard of time, piece, task, commission, or other method of calculation, and whether the service is rendered on a commission, concessionaire, or other basis.

Cal Labor Code 1160.6

…Upon the filing of any such petition, the board shall cause notice thereof to be served upon any person involved in the charge and such person, including the charging party, shall be given an opportunity to appear by counsel and present any relevant testimony.

Cal Labor Code 4907

The privilege of any person, including attorneys admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the state to appear in any proceeding as a representative of any party before the appeals board, or any of its referees, may, after a hearing, be removed, denied, or suspended by the appeals board for a violation of this chapter or for other good cause.

Cal Labor Code 1701

(:cool: “Audition” means any activity for the purpose of obtaining employment, compensated or not, as an artist whereby an artist meets with, interviews or performs before, or displays his or her talent before, any person, including a producer, a director, or a casting director, or an associate, representative, or designee of a producer, director, or casting director, who has, or is represented to have, input into the decision to select an artist for an employment opportunity. An “audition” may be in-person or through electronic means, live or recorded, and may include a performance or other display of the artist's promotional materials.

Cal Labor Code 1704

A person, including, an owner, officer, director, agent, or employee of a talent service, who willfully violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each violation is

punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. However, payment of restitution to an artist shall take precedence over the payment of a fine.

My research continued to show numerous instances where a comma was placed before ‘including’ when the sentence clearly was not restrictive. In fact, even the “California Department of Education Style Manual 2006” addresses the issue of restrictive and non-restrictive comma placement:

that, which. That commonly introduces clauses that cannot be omitted without a change in the meaning of a sentence. Do not set off with commas. Which commonly introduces clauses that can be omitted without a change in the meaning of a sentence. Set off with commas.

Restrictive: The book that I left on the bus was soon returned to me by a kind stranger.

Nonrestrictive: The book, which I now only read at my leisure, was returned to me by a kind stranger.

Also, according to “A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage” at page 766:

“Restrictive clauses are essential to the grammatical and logical completeness of a sentence. Nonrestrictive clauses, by contrast, are so loosely connected with the essential meaning of the sentence that they might be omitted without changing the essential meaning.

First, if you cannot omit the clause without changing the basic meaning, the clause is restrictive; use that without a comma. Second, if you can omit the clause without changing the basic meaning, the clause is non restrictive; use which after a comma.”

Further “King County Style Manual” states:

“Including, such as. Use these terms when the items that follow are only part of the total; don't list everything or end the list with words like and more, and others, etc.

If the words that follow these terms are essential to the meaning of a sentence, do not put commas before the phrase. But if the words that follow these terms are not essential, commas are appropriate. (Words are nonessential if they can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence.)”

The “University of Santa Cruz Style Manual” states:

Commas:

Washington, D.C., is. . . .

My wife, Amanda, works. . . .

I live in Santa Cruz, which I enjoy very much.

If, however, the word, phrase, or clause is restrictive (identifies or restricts the meaning of the noun), commas should not be used:

“Shasta County Style Manual”:

Rule #6: Parenthetical Words and Phrases

Use commas to set off words and phrases that appear within the sentence, but are unnecessary to a reader's understanding of a sentence. The words and phrases often rename or tell more about the words they modify, and can, in most cases, be used as substitutes for those words.

• Desert Rose, a type of Franciscan dishware, is a popular seller at most antique malls.

• Bob Mills, the defendant in the case, failed to appear in court this morning.

My final concern comes in the form of an alternative phrase. This phrase being “private employer” as found in 3741 of the Labor Code:

Cal Labor Code 3741.

As used in this article:

(a) “Director” means the Director of Industrial Relations.

(:cool: “Private self-insurer” means a private employer which has

secured the payment of compensation pursuant to subdivision (:cool: of

Section 3700.

and:

Cal Labor Code 3700.1.

As used in this article:

(a) “Director” means the Director of Industrial Relations.

(:cool: “Private self-insurer” means a private employer which has

secured the payment of compensation pursuant to Section 3701.

and:

Cal Labor Code 1025

Every private employer regularly employing 25 or more employees shall reasonably accommodate any employee who wishes to voluntarily enter and participate in an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program, provided that this reasonable accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

And there are several others. Of course this leads me to conclude that an “employer” as defined in the Cal Labor Code 3300 means exclusively what is listed, which are those entities that are public in nature, such as State Agencies, or Public Service Corporations; and that a “private employer” is not public in nature.

Because of the facts stated above I have made the present determination that I am not an “employer” as defined in 3300 of the California Labor code, and therefore I am specifically exempted from obtaining Workers Compensation insurance, whether I hire private workers or not.

If I am in error regarding this issue, I request clarification, preferably with a response to this letter within 15 days of receipt, with evidence that is contrary to the above.

Respectfully submitted,

This means that the sentence, “Any entity in this state including for profit, nonprofit, and governmental employers” means ONLY “for profit employers, non-profit employers, and governmental employers”. THESE are the persons who are required to submit SS numbers.

[juliusbragg]

The term “State” more info:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/ghg2010/ghgisoratta.pdf

(176) “Jurisdiction” means U.S. state or Canadian province. For purposes of this article, “U.S. state” means U.S. State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa and includes the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. For purposes of this article, “province” means any Canadian province or territory.

VS. (same act)

(326) “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and any other Commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, as well as the territorial sea as defined by Presidential Proclamation No. 5928.

“When Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded.” Arizona Elec. Power Co-op. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987); see also West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Community Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988).

SECTION 104

“;and the word “State” to mean and include a Territory, and District of Columbia”

http://books.google.com/books?id=9UQFAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA166&ots=kGk6Nz0gDv&dq=%22and%20the%20word%20%E2%80%98State%E2%80%99%20to%20mean%20and%20include%20a%20Territory%20and%20District%20of%20Columbia.%22&pg=PA166#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4501.01

“(Z) “State” includes the territories and federal districts of the United States, and the provinces of Canada.”

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/98/2005/2005-Ohio-4805.pdf

“JUDGE ELIZABETH MATTINGLY DECISION”

“{¶ 17} The term “state” as used in this section is defined in R.C. 4501.01(Z) and is applicable by virtue of R.C. 4507.01(A). It includes only “the territories and federal districts of the United States and the provinces of Canada”. [Cite as State v. Roblero, 2005-Ohio-4805.]

[juliusbragg]

“person” almost always includes a corporation. If you dissect the definition of Person, it becomes very telling.

For example:

(i) “Person” means a natural person, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, business trust, joint venture, unincorporated association, or any other legal or commercial entity.

The first thing to do when looking at a definition is to avoid using the defined word in the definition, therefore we will set aside the first term “natural person” and look at the other defining words. There is something that they ALL have in common…they are all “legal or commercial” entities. Notice that the definition never says human, man, woman, child, flesh and blood, etc. but instead lists a series of commercial entities. So what is a “natural person”? Is there any type of legal or commercial entity that is 'natural'? the answer is yes. A human being that has chosen to be considered a legal entity by giving up their human rights is a “natural person”.

A human being doesnt need a drivers license to move in his private car, but a natural person does. In my opinion, this is because a “natural person” means a 14th Amendment Federal citizen that is treated as a commercial entity, with a birth certificate and Federal I.D. number to support it. This “natural person” is not a 'we the People', or a natural born Citizen with a capital “C”, but is instead a lesser class of person that requires licenses and permission for almost everything they do.

[juliusbragg]

Im back again…

Quote:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are a few key words in this Amendment i would like you to review:

1.) “are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

So a person born in the District of Columbia and residing in the District of Columbia is only a citizen of the United States and not a citizen of the state wherein they reside, because D.C. is not a “state”. How can one be a citizen of the “United States”(allegedly meaning states of the Union), but not even a citizen of a state?

Now, if “citizen of the United States” means “federal citizen” as I believe, then it makes PERFECT sense.

2.) “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

Of course states can make laws that abridge privileges of their own Citizens…therefore, this section of the amendment is warning states that these Federal persons are to be governed by Congress as the Constitution clearly lays out:

Quote:

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Keeping this in mind, look what the Court says:

Quote:

Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.

3.) “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

In the 14th Amendment, the “person” being referred to is the newly freed slave (and eventually anyone that claims that status) because that is who it was written for. The right to due process was already established by the 5th Amendment for white Citizens:

Quote:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is no reason to be redundant with the Constitution.

4.) “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Again, the “person” referred to is the Federal citizen. Notice that it says “within its jurisdiction” instead of “subject to”. This is because a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States is completely subject to the UNITED STATES and when citizens of the United States are “within” the jurisdiction of the states of the union, they shall be treated as equals to white federal citizens (those white men born in and residing in Federal zones).

Further reasons:

There was no reason to use a lower case “c” in citizen in the 14th Amendment for the first time ever in the Constitution UNLESS a different meaning was intended. EVERY OTHER WORD was capitalized correctly.

There is no reference to a “natural born Citizen” in the 14th Amendment, which is why 14th Amendment citizens of the United States rely on “Civil Rights” rather than “human rights”. They owe their allegiance to the UNITED STATES Congress for their existence.

Quote:

“A 'civil right' is a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it.” Nickell v. Rosenfield (1927), 255 P. 760

Quote:

“United States citizenship does not entitle citizens to rights and privileges of state citizenship.”

[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]

“We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell.”

[The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)

“The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment.”

[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]

14th Amendment citizens of the United States could not vote before the 15th Amendment. This PROVES that 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” were not the same as natural born Citizens as found in the Constitution and first 11 Amendments.

[juliusbragg]

All direct taxes in the united States of America must be apportioned…I will provide some caselaw as I find it. To be otherwise, the states could levy a 100% direct tax on its Citizens. The Federal Constitution is a limit on government in general, and an enumerated list of powers for Congress

Bouvier's law dictionary.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sIWPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA3222&lpg=PA3222&dq=It+is+an+essential+rule+of+taxation+that+the+purpose+for+which+a+tax+is+levied+%22should+be+one+which+in+an+especial+manner+pertains+to+the+district+within+which+it+is+proposed+that+the+contribution+shall+be+collected&source=bl&ots=RcyIC2JuAf&sig=yW6bRbMaT88qNAEZ2c_ZOFSow_s&hl=en&ei=n7KOTfD2LK680QGompmoCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20an%20essential%20rule%20of%20taxation%20that%20the%20purpose%20for%20which%20a%20tax%20is%20levied%20%22should%20be%20one%20which%20in%20an%20especial%20manner%20pertains%20to%20the%20district%20within%20which%20it%20is%20proposed%20that%20the%20contribution%20shall%20be%20collected&f=false

It is an essential rule of taxation that the purpose for which a tax is levied “should be one which in an especial manner pertains to the district within which it is proposed that the contribution shall be collected. . . . A state purpose must be accomplished by a state taxation, a county purpose by a county taxation, etc.” Cooley, Tax. 104.

Apportionment, which is a necessary element of taxation, Is a matter of legislation; Cooley, Tax. 175

[juliusbragg]

USC Title 5 is “records maintained on Individuals”, and Title 5 is TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES.

Therefore, the definition of “Federal Personnel” that lumps together “officers and employees of the Government of the United States” and “members of the uniformed services” with “individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States” treats all of those listed equally.

If there is any doubt that Social Security is considered a “Retirement Program” look here:

http://www.usajobs.gov/ei/benefits.asp

Quote:

Federal Employment Information Fact Sheets: Benefits of Working for the Federal Government

Our 3-part retirement program includes a social security benefit, a 401(k) type plan, and a defined benefit component based on years of employment and salary history.

See also

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/277/~/income-that-counts-towards-the-earnings-limit-test

Quote:

The Social Security retirement program insures against loss of earnings from work and not against the failure to have investment income.

see:

http://www.dhhs.ne.gov/ags/agsincmsupport.htm

Quote:

Social Security

Social Security is a retirement program for Americans who have paid for coverage through payroll diduction or self-employment taxes.

As a few examples.

Because Social Security is a “Retirement Program”, because Social Security is NOT mandatory, and because Social Security is applied for by right of election, ANY one who 'has' and uses a social security number WILL BE TREATED as Federal Personnel, thereby subject to Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 clause 14 states:

[The Congress shall have Power To] make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Furthermore, ONLY Federal Persons can even have a Social Security number…Admin and I disagree over the concept of 14th Amendment citizens being Federal persons, vs. State Citizens, but we agree (I believe) that Federal numbers are for Federal persons.

USC Title 552 is what Congress uses to justify the Obama care, for example, and why I believe it will be found Constitutional…

http://www.dailypaul.com/152581/why-the-health-care-bill-is-constitutional-with-cites

HR-3590 will ONLY be for Federal Persons that have Social Security numbers, and Non Resident Aliens will not be required to pay in:

Quote:

Subpart B–Eligibility Determinations

SEC. 1411. PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR EXCHANGE PARTICIPATION, PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND REDUCED COST-SHARING, AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY EXEMPTIONS.

…

(b) Information Required To Be Provided by Applicants-

(1) IN GENERAL- An applicant for enrollment in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange in the individual market shall provide–

(A) the name, address, and date of birth of each individual who is to be covered by the plan (in this subsection referred to as an ‘enrollee’); and

(:cool: the information required by any of the following paragraphs that is applicable to an enrollee.

(2) CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS– The following information shall be provided with respect to every enrollee:

(A) In the case of an enrollee whose eligibility is based on an attestation of citizenship of the enrollee, the enrollee’s social security number.

We see above that the Social Security number is “required” for anyone without a “birth certificate” or other evidence of citizenship.

Below we see that nonresident aliens may be excluded.

Quote:

‘(:cool: CERTAIN EMPLOYEES MAY BE EXCLUDED- For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), an employer may elect to exclude under the plan employees–

…‘(iv) who are described in section 410(b)(3)(C) (relating to nonresident aliens working outside the United States).

Quote:

Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.

Quote:

“We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell.” [The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)

[juliusbragg]

A few examples of “STATES”

I think these may help to establish that “State” aint always “State” as some think it is.

http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/JJF/Opinions/recent/Sep2007/07-455.pdf

Quote:

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON D.C. Defendant.

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/state/DC.html

Quote:

Information Collections Rule Query Form

for the State of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/2047

Quote:

General Program Requirements

In order to qualify for this benefit program, you must be a resident of the state of District of Columbia, pregnant, breastfeeding and postpartum woman, infant or child up to five years of age and: (1) are individually determined by a health professional to be at nutrition risk; and, (2) meet an income standard, or are determined automatically income eligible. A person who participates or has family members who participate in certain other benefit programs, such as the Food Stamp Program, Medicaid or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, automatically meets the income eligibility requirement.

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/state/PR.html

Quote:

Information Collections Rule Query Form

for the State of PUERTO RICO

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/puerto-rico-receive-more-174-million-additional-recovery-funds

Quote:

“In addition to the more than $174 million announced today, the ARRA has provided $1,641,759,783 in funding through 10 different programs to the state of Puerto Rico. Prior to today’s announcement, Puerto Rico had received:”

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/Cong_Conf_Calls/Quick_Facts/PRqf.pdf

Quote:

For the State of Puerto Rico

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/american-samoa-receive-more-14-million-additional-recovery-funds

Quote:

“In addition to the more than $14 million announced today, the ARRA has provided $38,947,627 in funding through 7 different programs to the state of American Samoa. Prior to today's announcement, American Samoa had received:”

http://www.nationalresourcedirectory.gov/benefits_and_compensation/states_and_territories/american_samoa

Quote:

Below are all resources found for the state of American Samoa. Some counties and cities within this state may have resources specific to that area. To see those available, please select from the drop down menu below.

http://oa.doleta.gov/list_by_occ.cfm?state=GU&strSt_Name=GUAM&countyCode=All&strOcc=REFRIGERATION%20MECH%20(Any%20Ind)

Quote:

The following listing of registered program sponsors does not signify they are taking applications for apprenticeship or employment. Program sponsors determine individually when they will take applications.

Your search for

All Counties in the State of GUAM

[juliusbragg]

The CVC has to be in compliance with the Supreme Court and the Constitution…for example, the CVC cant say “A peace officer shall shoot any driver that believes in God.”

The Code also cant say “A peace officer may arrest someone for sneezing.”

This is because in America, believe it or not, an arrest is a seizure, and an unreasonable seizure is in violation of the Constitution.

Quote:

As stated in People v. Curtis, 70 Cal.2d 347, 352 [74 Cal.Rptr. 713, 450 P.2d 33]: [2] “An arrest is a 'seizure' and an arrest without a warrant or probable cause is 'unreasonable' within the purview of the Fourth Amendment.”

Quote:

” 'n order to justify an investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience [citation], to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question. The corollary to this rule, of course, is that an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith. [Citations.]' ” (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903 , 914 [239 Cal.Rptr. 663, 741 P.2d 161]; cf. Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178, 98 S.Ct. 1717].)

People v. Renteria, 2 Cal.App.4th 440

[No. B055019. Second Dist., Div. Six. Jan 7, 1992.]

Quote:

“'To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .' . . . 'If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'” (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)

Hamilton v. Gourley (2002), 103 Cal.App.4th 351

[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

Above we see that Arrests are seizures, and in order to be lawful the warrantless arrest must be based on suspicion of CRIMINAL activity.

But, as the Supreme Court noted:

Quote:

The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a “consensual encounter” in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter. The second type, called “detention,” involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur “if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.” The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491; Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d 777.)

PEOPLE v. BAILEY, 176 Cal.App.3d 402

[No. H000583. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District. December 17,1985.]

Police Officers bank on “consensual arrests”, and as the CVC points out in CVC 17459 and 17460 anyone with a license or registration Consents to the arrest, wherein the summons is given.

HOWEVER, if you dont have a plate, the officer must act beyond his authority (presuming you dont commit a crime) to arrest you for no turn signal, and subsequently no license.

[juliusbragg]

'blue' wrote:

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Thanks for the input…

I think they would say penal code 836 a (1) above would be the reason for arrest

They would say it is a public offense to drive without a license…

Penal code 689 says no person can be convicted of a public offense, unless…

It does not say no person cannot be arrested for probable cause for “committing a public offense.” It just says no one can be convicted of a public offense without the ensuing conditions.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

HOLD the phone…the “Arrest” came BEFORE the evidence of no license, so even if “driving without a license” was a “public offense”, that would be evidence obtained after illegal arrest. Turning without signaling is NOT a public offense, it is ONLY an infraction for which no jury trial is awarded, therefore it CANNOT be a public offense.

In California there is another trick though…and that is, If you have a License Plate on your car (making it a motor vehicle) which is evidence of Registration, then you AUTOMATICALLY consent to a summons, which is to say, you are REQUIRED to pull over and consent to the arrest.

See CVC 17459

Quote:

The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then

a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle.

OR if you have a plate from another State:

CVC 17453

Quote:

The acceptance of rights and privileges under this code or any operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state as specified in Section 17451 shall be a signification of the irrevocable agreement of the nonresident, binding as well upon his executor or administrator, that process against him which is served in the manner provided in this article shall be of the same legal force and validity as if served on him personally in this state.

Again, California recognizes the difference between “motor vehicles” (Commercial in nature) and Private automobiles…

For example, look at the definition of “Station Wagon”

Quote:

A “station wagon” is a dual purpose vehicle designed for the transportation of persons and also designed in such a manner that the seats may be removed or folded out of the way for the purpose of increasing the property carrying space within the vehicle. The term includes, but is not limited to, types of vehicles which carry the trade names of station wagon, estate wagon, town and country wagon, and country sedan.

now look at others:

Quote:

(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of…

A “gantry truck” is a motor vehicle…

A “house car” is a motor vehicle originally designed, or permanently altered…

A “motor truck” or “motortruck” is a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property…

So why would a “station wagon” be a “dual purpose vehicle” instead of a “motor vehicle”??

Secondly, what does CVC 12500 say???

Quote:

(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.

does it say “may not drive a dual purpose vehicle”?? no, it says “motor vehicle” and as the Court points out, the legislators know how to broaden the scope when they want to:

Quote:

“The use of similar terms in related statutes also suggests the Legislature intends the word “drive” in section 23152(a) to have a narrow rather than broad scope. Section 305, defining the noun “driver” for purposes of construing the Vehicle Code, provides, “A 'driver' is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. …” Section 13353.2 likewise states the DMV “shall immediately suspend the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle if the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle” while having a prescribed blood-alcohol level. Similarly, section 12501 states that certain persons “driving or operating” vehicles are exempt from the general rule requiring a “driver's license.” (Id., subds. (:cool: & (c).) The use of the disjunctive “or” in these statutes suggests the Legislature recognizes a distinction between one who “drives” a vehicle and one who “operates” or “is in actual physical control of” a vehicle, and that the [53 Cal.3d 764] Legislature knows how to broaden the scope of coverage when it wants to do so.” Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 745; 809 P.2d 404

Lastly, the legislators of California are limited in their police power by the California Constitution. The CA Constitution ONLY talks about regulation of motor vehicles in one location, Art XII, sec 3

Quote:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 12 PUBLIC UTILITIES

SEC. 3. Private corporations and persons that own, operate, control, or manage a line, plant, or system for the transportation of people or property, the transmission of telephone and telegraph messages, or the production, generation, transmission, or furnishing of heat, light, water, power, storage, or wharfage directly or

indirectly to or for the public, and common carriers, are public utilities subject to control by the Legislature. The Legislature may prescribe that additional classes of private corporations or other persons are public utilities.

That is it. Commercial vehicles dedicated to the public, such as Freight Trucks, Taxis, limos, etc are “subject to control”.