Re: Peace vs. Police

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by New Kid on September 12, 1998 at 12:46:57:

In Reply to: Re: Peace vs. Police posted by Friend on September 11, 1998 at 08:41:27:

: I have borrowed this discertation from elswhere on the net with some modifications of my own (somewhere Karl Kleinpaste is given credit for most of this):

In other state court and federal appellate courts, there is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

"The word automobile connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for th transportation of persons on highways." Americna Mutual Liability Ins. Co., v. Chaptu 60 A2d. 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor vehicles or automobile for hire is a motory vheicle, other than an automobile state, used for the transportiation of persons fo rwhich renumeration is recieved." Intl. Motor Transit Co. v. Seattle, 251 P. 120

"The term 'motor vehicle' is different and broader that the word 'automobile'." City of Dayton v. Debrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 60 Ohio App. 232.

"The term Motor Vehicle may be so used as to include only those self-propelled vehicles which are used on highways primarily for purposes of transporting persons and property from place to place." See: 60 Corpus Juris Secundum 1, page 148; Ferrante Equip. Co. v. Foley Machine Co. N.J. 231 A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432

"It seems obvious that the entire Motor Transportation Code and the definition of motor vehicle are not intended to be applicable to all motor vehicles but only to those having a connection with the "Transportation" of persons or property." Roger Construction Co. v. Hill Or. 384 P2d. 219,222; 235 Or 352.

The California Motor Vehicle Code is predicated upon the Uniform Traffic Laws established by the Federal Government, therefore the definitions established by teh U.S. code apply to the Vehicle Code. The distinquishment is made clear in the Federal Statute 18 U.S.C. 31[which is declared the supreme law of the land in the California Constitution of 1879, Article 1 Section 3][*]

"Motor Vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highway in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or or the undertaking intended for profit."

The court has ruled the Federal Statutes must be given force and effect.

"Statutory law of the Unted States is part of the law of each State just as if it wer written into State statutory law." People v. Garajas, 147 Cal. Rptr. 195.

C.V.C. 41401 No person should be prosecuted for any violation of this provision of this code if the violation was required by a law of the federal government, by any rule, regulation, directive, or order of any agency of the federal government the violation of which is subject to penalty under an act of Congress, or by any valid order of military authority.

The process you propose I have heard from the King's Men. I do not want to dispute that issue. What I would like clarification on is there appears to be a classification of "vehicle" that occasionally is used non-commercially [see an Operator is not... supra posting]. And in that non-commercial activity it is exempt from the code requirements. Clearly if it is an automobile and there is no question that it is not a motor vehicle, then the automobile is immune.

[*][ I have recently come across a case filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles documenting the repeal of the 1879 California Constitution. It does not exist and has not since 1970. I intend to follow up with the documentation they provide as evidence of the fact. If they did it here, they could have done it else where.]

Any imput friend? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree?

New Kid on the Block.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]