52 votes

Pulled over today with no license, license plate, or registration

A CHP officer came up behind me today on 680N and turned his lights on, because I dont have a plate, I knew he didnt have a warrant, I know I didnt commit any Crime, so if I pulled over, it would be considered an "Arrest by Consent". I continued to my exit, about 3/4 of a mile. On the exit the officer said "Pull over right here" through his loud speaker, I ignored him and continued to the light, turned my blinker, and turned. He repeated "pull over right now", I continued on, and took a right and pulled into a church parking lot.

The officer came to my passenger window, I immediately asked "Am I under arrest?", he said "No", I said, "So Im free to go?", he said "no", I said "So Im under arrest", this time he said "yes". I told him that I did not consent to this arrest, and asked him if he had a warrant. He said no, and asked for my drivers license.

I handed him my notarized secured party declaration, a copy of the title to the truck, and my proof of insurance.

He went back to his car for about 5 minutes. A sergeant showed up and took over. I asked him if I was arrested and he said "no". I again said "So I can leave?" he said "no, you're detained". He started talking about arresting me and towing the truck and I asked under what authority. I told him I was on private property and I have not committed a crime. He agreed, but was playing tough guy.

He started asking me what was going on with my license, asked if I was ever licensed in California, and why the truck wasnt registered. I explained all of my info, we read through the case law and cvc together, and both officers admitted that they were fascinated by this. Turns out they were anti-obama, anti-health care, and 'tea partiers' (who knows what type) but either way we made a connection.

I repeated that I have conviction and respect for the Constitution, and that I understand the codes and definitions. I reminded the officers that ALL ROADS in the United States have been deemed "channels of Interstate commerce" by the Supreme Court, and because of that, local and State laws are trumped by Federal Laws, and that in the Federal Laws a "Motor Vehicle" was a "Commercial Vehicle"...we were waiting for almost 30 minutes while they waited for word from their supervisors.

Eventually, they hand me a citation with "none" marked in the DL location, and "none" in the License Plate location. I asked him if I was required to sign it, and he said "yes, otherwise we have to take you to jail." This now made the signature "under duress". I wrote "under duress" and signed my name next to the ticket.

This is where I was surprised, the Officer said "hey, we never read you your Miranda rights, so anything we use against you in court is not admissible."
Im not sure if this is true, but I was intrigued.

I have written "refused for fraud" across the original ticket, and sent it to the Court and the CHP with the letter below attached. I have done this in the past, and never heard another word, I had wondered if there were any warrants, apparently not!
*************************************

NOTICE and DEMAND

ATTN: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8185
California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division
Officer B. Knudsen
DUBLIN (390)
4999 Gleason Road
Dublin, CA 94568-3310

CC: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8192
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
5672 Stoneridge Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8559

RE: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Violation Number: 60435 LJ

This notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS as evidenced by the original citation in possession of, or submitted by Officer B. Knudsen.

Because this notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS;
1) Statements made therein shall not be considered admissible evidence,
2) As a party to this action, I hereby void this contract and notice to appear, and
3) Any perceived consent or promise to appear is hereby withdrawn.

If you, or any Officer of the court or Officer of the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL disagrees with the facts or statements stated above, you must refute those items point by point within 10 days of receipt of this Notice, via sworn affidavit, under your full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an insufficient response, as declarations permit lying by omission and hearsay, which no honorable draft may contain. If an extension of time is needed to properly answer, please request it in writing. Failure to respond will be deemed agreement with the facts stated above and an inability to prove your claim.

_____________________________________
Name, non resident, non licensed and non registered pursuant to CVC 4, 17459, 17460
See: Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 (1941), Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579., Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

(Enclosed) Copy of Notice to Appear

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Could this be the reason I see SO many cars w/out ANY plates,

in South Orange Co. , Ca. . ? I have never thought , duh, patriot because they're nearly exclusively 60 to 100k cars. Still odd I see maybe 3 to 5 of these seemingly non conformist cars all about where I work in Laguna Niguel, Ca. Any DP'ers know?

Aaron Russo, Nikola Tesla, Ron Paul, I'm jus' sayin'

Steve Jobs ...

... used to drive his new Mercedes without any plates in California.

He found a "loophole" that the "state" would not demand plates for 6 months on a new car.

So, he leased a car and, every 6 months, the dealer would give him a different one (that looked exactly the same).

In a place like Laguna Niguel, that MIGHT be what's going on.

unfortunately, I doubt thats

unfortunately, I doubt thats why there are no plates.

Hey JULIUS ...

... you're still around!

Since you are the OP, give us an update.

How has your strategy been working?

...

This is real stuff. We should revisit this.

I love the end.

"non resident"

Residents are permanent and only dead things are.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

This thread is >3 yrs old! Where is juliusbragg today?

Is he still doing this? Is he still getting by w/o a license; license plate, etc...???

I love these threads! I don't know how true it is but it gives me a lot of optimism to opting out of the system.

There should be 3 X 5

There should be 3 X 5 laminated cards with the exact words to say to an officer, for people to use if they want to try this for themselves.

For the most part, law enforcement shouldn't see this as a big deal because most people are too stupid or scared to try this. They should just let people who try this go on their way for their impressive intelligence alone.

One thing I might add is use the four corners rule. Draw a box around the signature location on the ticket. This excludes your signature from becoming any part of the contract.

I like your idea of 3x5 card but...

what would your suggestion of words on the 3x5 card...in another type of matter - I just order a self-inking stamp with "without prejudice U.C.C 1-308" printed on it.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

Have you ever read UCC1-308?

If so, you wouldn't think it has anything to do with traffic tickets or registration or police stops.

I suggest you write down the following: "I would like to exercise my rights under teh 4th and 5th amendment to remain silent and disallow any searches. That way I can't say anything stupid, because, see, I have heard a lot of stupid things on the internet and if you keep harassing me I will deploy a deadly and dangerous gibberish tornado in your direction."

That should do it!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

rotfl...

thanks for the laugh...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

No, thank you

For having a sense of humor

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Sovereign Citizen Fan Fiction

Good, but the cop could benefit from some character development.

My problem with this whole concept/movement of sovereign citizens and citing the UCC is that cops/feds don't even follow real laws that everyone knows about, much less imaginary/non-applicable laws that the sovereign bunch cites.

If the entire federal government ignores the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th etc amendments to the Constitution, why would they rigidly adhere to UCC.1.1.40022?

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

true but you don't go far enough

It is true that they don't follow the Constitution. However, the fake laws and outdated laws that people are citing in this thread aren't even things they should follow. Police are in effect functionaries. They are enforcing the law that is, whether we like it or not. Pretending there are other fake laws that are real, or trying to pretend the Uniform Commercial Code somehow impacts on your traffic ticket won't get you anywhere, but will make you sound like a lunatic during your traffic stop.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Right.

There are no magic words that make the Mob go away, so why would there be magic words that make Feds go away?

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

I believe there is a document that...

...a Sovereign Citizen can fill out to use as a driver license that list the argument that driving is a right not a privilege from the state but currently I can not find it. Does anyone have a link to that document? I plan to use it in the near future.

Opps I found it and from an earlier post of Julius - thanks again!

http://www.dailypaul.com/78778/how-to-drive-without-a-driver...

Come 2014 I will begin using it in Colorado...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

You argue against yourself

You state

I reminded the officers that ALL ROADS in the United States have been deemed "channels of Interstate commerce" by the Supreme Court, and because of that, local and State laws are trumped by Federal Laws, and that in the Federal Laws a "Motor Vehicle" was a "Commercial Vehicle"

If this is true, then you are admitting that all vehicles on every road in the US is a commercial vehicle and all commercial vehicles, by law, needs to be licensed and the operator is not a 'traveler' but a 'driver,' and as such also needs to be licensed by law.

I'm not sure, what point you were arguing with the police which you believe relieves you of the need to have a license plate and driver's license.

thank you for being polite. this is the only way to convince

the police on the principles of liberty.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Hah

Yeah, I'm sure you sat down and went through the case law in the church parking lot.

Your are amazing...

...you have made my day!

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

Bravo.

~

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

hey, thank you so much!!

I live pretty close to MV, actually, and I have expired reg.

I have a plate and a DL.

If I get pulled over for my expired tags, what should I do? Ask if I'm arrested and sign under duress?

Or, will those things only work if I have no plates and DL?

I agree with those who say you should teach classes. I'd like to know more about what my rights are and have planned responses to situations that may arise, according to CA law. Is there a web site that instructs people on these things?

Again, thank you!!

If you have a plate, then you

If you have a plate, then you have consented to being pulled over per CVC 17459

BUT, it still is not a public offense. You should sign the ticket under duress and immediately file a demurer per Cal Penal code 1004, something like this:

THIS NOTICE of DEMURRER and DEMURRER to COMPLAINT, is filed pursuant to PC §§1004(4), PC §§1012; People v Gompper (1984) 160 CA3d Supp 1, 8–9., as THE FACTS STATED DO NOT CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC OFFENSE.

Officer X arrested me without a warrant per CVC 40504, and in violation of CVC 40300.5 and PC 836 for an act not rising to the level of Public Offense.

You don't go far enough either

If you are operating a vehicle on a public highway, you have consented to being pulled over, within the boundaries set by 4th amendment jurisprudence. Current caselaw says that "reasonable suspicion" of a crime or infraction is all that is needed.

If you don't have a plate, you don't get some kind of magical free pass, you actually do the opposite. The reason being, that any cop that sees you has reasonable suspicion to pull you over. That is not a good way to roll, if you have anything remotely illegal in your car. How many times do you think policemen claim to smell marijuana as a way to get their "probable cause" to conduct a search?

I'm just sayin. If it were that easy to opt out of the system, everyone, including me, would be doing it.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

someone downvoted this?

Why? No comment? Can't handle the truth?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

you forgot to add no camera,

you forgot to add no camera, and no credibility.

-bill

If This Catches On

If this catches on, what do you want to bet they won't plug the loophole?

Of course, at this very moment we have multiple stories on the DP re police over-reacting and killing people for similarly ignoring their orders.

You're lucky it was 680, I think. I live nearby and I suspect the highway patrol (despite the murder of an officer a year or so ago) doesn't have as much of a bunker mentality as they might other places.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Julius ...

... first off, I take my hat off to you for your actions.

Second, you added a "connect the dot" thing that I have not seen anywhere else. I have read others who say that "motor vehicle" is defined in federal law as ONLY for commercial purposes, but then I read any vehicle code (which is what a judge or lawyer would do) that says the definition of motor vehicle is NOT restricted in that way.

So, I have concluded that people who tout the commercial only angle must be wrong (and I presume that is what any judge or lawyer would conclude, too). BUT ... you said that the Supreme Court has ruled that ALL ROADS are for interstate commerce, and that trumps local laws.

What case is that? I have read that there were cases where the SCOTUS said people have the right to travel from state to state, but that courts have also ruled that does not trump local traffic laws.

If it is true that driver's licenses are only necessary for commercial travel and not for personal travel, then it follows that one could get/have a driver's license and then ONLY use it for commercial travel. If pulled over, why couldn't the person just inform the cop that he is NOT currently engaged in commerce and that those rules only apply when he is? Same argument, but "lower profile" so that more people might give it a try to test the system (have a DL, registration & plates, but put the plates in the trunk and only show IF traveling for commercial purposes). What is your take on that?

Also -- looks like you posted that your car was impounded a couple of years ago. Would you give us more info on what happened at that time, and how you remedied it?

Short answer...yes, the

Short answer...yes, the "commercial only" angle is wrong. Ill explain using California law.

In California, ONLY commercial activity requires a license and ONLY commercial vehicles REQUIRE registration. It is fairly obvious from the code (CVC herein) and the California Constitution that Commercial vehicles are "required to be registered" but nowhere are noncommercial vehicles "required to be registered". See CVC 4000(a)(1)
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/4000.html

    4000. (a) (1) A person shall not drive, move, or leave standing
    upon a highway, or in an offstreet public parking facility, any motor
    vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly,
    unless it is registered and the appropriate fees have been paid
    under this code or registered under the permanent trailer
    identification program, except that an off-highway motor vehicle
    which displays an identification plate or device issued by the
    department pursuant to Section 38010 may be driven, moved, or left
    standing in an offstreet public parking facility without being
    registered or paying registration fees.

You will see that 4000(a) states that the vehicle must be registered "UNDER THIS CODE" and they avoided simply stating "registered" period. Now look at the definition of "commercial vehicle"

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/260.html

    260. (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 persons for hire, compensation, or profit or
    designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of
    property.
    (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the
    transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not
    commercial vehicles.
    This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4
    (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
    (c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.
    (d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does
    not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.

So the cvc requires that vehicles that are "required" to be registered by the code MUST be registered.

Now look at the California constitution Art 12, sec. 3

    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.

Obviously, Constitutionally, commercial vehicles are "subject to control by the legislature".

OK, now to why the commercial only aspect is wrong.

First, in California, a traffic stop is a "warrantless arrest" http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/ARREST...

see also:

    Nevertheless the violator is, during the period immediately preceding his execution of the promise to appear, under arrest. (People v. Weitzer (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 274, 294 [75 Cal.Rptr. 318]; People v. Valdez (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 459, 462 [48 Cal.Rptr. 840].) fn. 2 Some courts have been reluctant to use the term "arrest" to describe the status of the traffic violator on the public street waiting for the officer to write out the citation (see People v. Nunn (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 919, 923, fn. 4 [70 Cal.Rptr. 869]; People v. Wohlleben (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 461, 463 [67 Cal.Rptr. 826]; People v. Nieto (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 364, 369 [55 Cal.Rptr. 546]. The Vehicle Code however, refers to the person awaiting citation as "the arrested person." fn. 3 Viewing the situation functionally, the violator is being detained against him will by a police officer, for the purpose of obtaining his appearance in connection with a forthcoming prosecution. The violator is not free to depart until he has satisfactorily identified himself and has signed the written promise to appear.
    People v. Hubbard, 9 Cal.App.3d 827
    [Crim. No. 17355. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four. July 22, 1970.]

Secondly, Peace officers in California may ONLY make a warrantless arrest when a person is suspected of being drunk or commits a "public offense" see cvc 40300.5 http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/40300.5.html
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/836.html

OR if the person consents to the arrest, see

    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.]

third Guess what? most traffic infractions are not "public offenses" see People v. Sava, and People v. Battle
http://section520.org/sava.pdf

Since 1967 the State legislature reclassified traffic infractions as "noncriminal infractions". They did this because all crimes and public offenses REQUIRE a jury trial and public defender. see PC 689 http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/689.html

Just after the enactment of this the legislature added CVC 17459 and 17460 which made any person registering their vehicle in California or applying for a California Drivers license CONSENT to the the officer SERVING them a Citation, aka Notice to Appear, aka Summons. See CVC 17459. 17460 http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17459.html

SO, if a person has a license plate or drivers license, the officer is allowed to stop them ANYTIME the commit any minor administrative civil traffic infraction. BUT, if the driver has no Plate, and if the vehicle is not a commercial vehicle, (hence my Not For Hire sign) Then the officer can ONLY stop the driver if they commit an offense that rises to the level of "public offense", ie Reckless Driving, Speeding more than 20 Mph over the engineered speed, Hauling hazardous materials. AND the arrested person will have a jury trial.

So it is not that any person can go as fast as he wants, run red lights, or drive drunk as long as he is not commercial...but if he is not commercial, then he is not subject to the administrative civil violations of the vehicle code, nor "equipment" violations...

§9109. Classification of Goods: “Consumer goods”; “Equipment”; “Farm Products”; “Inventory”

Goods are

(1) “Consumer goods” if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes;

(2) “Equipment” if they are used or bought for the use primarily in business (including farming or a profession) or by a debtor who is a nonprofit organization or a government subdivision or agency or if the goods are not included in the definitions of inventory, farm products, or consumer goods.

California Code Comment

By John A. Bohn and Charles J. Williams

Prior California Law

1. The classification of goods in this section is new statutory law. The significance of this classification is described in Official Comment 1.

Although goods cannot belong to more than one category at any time, they may change their classification depending upon who holds them and for what reason. Each classification is mutually exclusive but the four classifications described are intended to include all goods.
Official Comment 2.

I hope this helps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjbBckck6jw

your analysis is wrong

You start out okay by citing to Veh Code 4000, which clearly states the opposite of what you are trying to prove. You then somehow focus on only the definitions pertaining to commercial vehicles.

Granted, if a vehicle isn't commercial, it isn't commercial, but per Veh Code 4000 it still needs to be registered and it says so clearly. There are other requirements for commercial vehicles, that is why there are separate codes for them. Nowhere do you prove that only commercial vehicles need to be registered in Ca under current law.

In particular you avoid the definition of motor vehicle:

415. (a) A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is self-propelled.

(b) "Motor vehicle" does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.

(c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, "motor vehicle" includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper.

Per VC 4000, motor vehicles need to be registered.

It is really simple analysis, if one can even call it that.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

...... I don't like this post....

..... it makes me feel rather inept. :P

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison