The 1915 case is what allows each state to essentially bypass the Constitution since the case says that driving a motor vehicle is a privilege.
It's what allows the state of california, for example, to treat tickets as "Infractions " subject to civil penalties.
Parking violations in California are classified as infractions under CVC §40000.1, but they are subject to civil penalties enforced through administrative procedures under CVC §40200(a)dd4b53141564.
Infractions are a type of civil offense (not misdemeanors or felonies), and the decriminalization in the early 1990s shifted enforcement from criminal courts to civil administrative systems to reduce burden on the judiciary.
If driving a motor vehicle was a right, following the constitutional right to travel, each state would have to treat parking and traffic tickets as criminal matters just like any other offense.
Basically they're treating driving the same as if you were piloting a helicopter for example
AGAIN, NO, a 1915 case has absolutely nothing to do with parking tickets! Parking tickets have nothing to do with your constitutional rights!!! No one has an inherent right to park! Parking violations fall under municipal ordinances and they are enforced through summary offenses. There's nothing unique about California, it's the same shit in every municipality throughout the country! AND AGAIN, parking half under POLICE POWERS, period, and involves a NUISANCE IN FACT!
Unlike you, I actually have an ongoing Federal lawsuit that happens to be about PARKING, so I know a shit load about this particular subject.
Listen, we're not here to learn from you. You're dealing with some experienced people in this law group, Randy being the most SEASONED of all of us, and he's OLD! 😄 So when we tell you something it's coming from experience and knowledge, not opinion. Parking tickets are a joke...lol If you're struggling with parking tickets you have one hell of a learning curve ahead of you before you deal with any real legal matters!
Go read some California case law any parking tickets. Go search Google Scholar and read what the courts talk about, that is if you can find any parking violation cases on there, given that this is the lowest of level legal matter, if you can call it that...lol
with all due respect, it seems to me that you’re falling for their sleight of hand.
it’s true that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right.
it’s also true that people have a right to use their own cars and trucks on the people’s roadways.
both the right and the privilege exist. it’s just a matter of whether the person is doing “transportation” business (for compensation or hire) or just minding their own private affairs.
businesses getting paid for transportation have motor vehicles and they operate them on our roads. soccer moms have cars or minivans but not motor vehicles -- they are not engaging in the regulated activity of transportation.
so that case law is fine, imho.
I looked up California state law and there's no differentiation between business or personal or anything else for that matter.
Maybe you're referring to the Thompson versus Smith case, however courts have historically rejected that as precedent
CVC § 12500(a) (verbatim): "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."
And then if you look up the legal definition of highway, it basically covers all public roads, not just freeways and such
Define “person” and “motor vehicle”
state law can't regulate a right - of course the legislators won't speak to that angle.
i see nothing wrong with that language. it all pertains to "transportation" so i find no conflict as long as it's not applied to/against a soccer mom... it better be only applied to/against the persons who are "operators" of those "motor vehicles".
Its not a right, that's the problem. The Supreme Court differentiated travel via motor vehicle
you're mistaken. the right exists.
if you allow the existence of a privilege to indicate that your right is gone, then it will be for you as if it's not a right.
the supreme court has upheld both.
people have a right.
businesses have a privilege.
people's rights aren't regulated. they can't be. so of course the legislature isn't speaking to your right, or trying to restrict it.
the privilege of commercial "transportation" IS regulated. it must be. so of course the legislature restricts that privilege, in various ways, in great detail. and that's not a problem, as you suggest; it's perfectly appropriate.
yes, i have successfully fought tickets and won. i have shared various proofs over the years. what would you like to know?
I understand what you're saying, and I've researched this heavily, unfortunately the courts have consistently ruled that driving a motor vehicle is a privilege whether it's commercial or not.
And they Define person as a natural human being so using the "not a person" argument does not work in the courts either, historically speaking.
If you can show a Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise I'd love to see it. Keep in mind I want you to be right, However unfortunately that's not what the data shows in terms of court case history.
More fuckery from the Federal Court! Took 2 days to docket Carmen's last Response and the only reason it was only 2 was because we were forced to contact the clerk to make sure they put it in the right case because there have been many quirks so far:
- they sat on the initial filing because they lost the check!
- they filed a notice of appearance into the case for a lawyer in another case!
- they filed a leave of court for in pauperis in Carmen's name, which was a filing for another case for another litigant!
- they sent the notice for the Defendant's filing a full week after the filing date!
The BAR Association has turned our courts into a clown show and continue to prove themselves nothing more than clowns with their TIME TRAVELING TEMPORARY MEMO that traveled 8 years into the future, appointed a Magistrate from a foreign distinct, and suspended every Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure that would, and still should bring these criminals back into the case when this hits the 3rd circuit appellate court, if those judges have even an ounce of decency!
Not to pay ourselves on the back but our filings and our exhibits have been an ass kicking, as we sit in disgust and wait for this little scum bag Pappert to triple down on his Time Traveling Memo BULLSHIT so we can appeal this long list of errors of fact and law!
There’s no contempt of court there because it’s just a hearing (not court) and no one brought something like that up. Yeah probably sometimes they didn’t like it but when I made an objection they let me briefly explain why. I don’t remember being told I couldn’t object either.
I always used their own written rules or procedures of these hearings against them. Successfully but not really (I would “win” but wouldn’t win anything so then another round of hearings on the same issue started again. That’s not winning is it)
Looking back now I should have objected to all testimony as hearsay but in the probably first 2.5 years of hearings the other side never even started to “testify” mostly saying we have nothing. And other times before testimony started I answered that my rights weren’t met so “testimony” never started. I just kept hammering on my rights. It was awful. It would be adjourned for them to fix it and the same thing would happen again the next hearing.
Additionally some hearings they would start to question if I would be able to speak in the first place. All kind of shenanigans and they repeated it too but nothing was ever consistent.
Remember I had no dispute about the facts with the other side nor any of the documentation!
That’s obviously different in most cases. If I only could have used these teachings and file written motions.. it would have surely helped me practice motions too 😆
These administrative hearings are all recorded (automatically ?) though so that’s one thing I can ask for after they close the files.
Comments
Post a Comment