LAPD to quit enforcing impound law as a matter of 'fairness' to wetbacks

[midnight rambler]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/police-to-ignore-california-law-requiring-authorities-to-impound-vehicles/


As long as drivers can produce some form of I.D., proof of insurance and vehicle registration, they'll be allowed to keep their car. Police Chief Charlie Beck insists that it's simply leveling the playing field.**WTF??!??

Those lying rat bastards at LAPD. If someone doesn't have a DRIVER LICENSE, then they won't be getting any automobile liability insurance, I can guarantee you that.

[undgrd]

The drivers license is to operate the vehicle...not own it.

I agree they'll probably operate it without a drivers license.

[midnight rambler]

The drivers license is to operate the vehicle...not own it.



Dunno about Californicate, however I know that in Texas* and many other states one cannot transfer/register a 'CERTIFICATE OF TITLE' for a 'motor vehicle' without 'proof of insurance', and one cannot get 'proof of insurance' without a DRIVER LICENSE - period. This is a FACT as I have pursued the matter with a fellow I've know for years who owns an insurance company/agency. No DRIVER LICENSE, NO(!) insurance.

*Texas and the insurance companies maintain a database of who currently has automobile liability insurance in Texas, and this database can be accessed by state actors to verify that the insurance is current.

[solid]

Those lying rat bastards at LAPD. If someone doesn't have a DRIVER LICENSE, then they won't be getting any automobile liability insurance, I can guarantee you that.

Exactly, so basically nothing is changing then. These vehicles will be getting towed anyway. This is just a PR stunt for the LAPD to make it seem like they care about the illegal immigrant population. That, or just public awareness on the current policies.

"some form of I.D"...lol, what does that mean, anyway?

[midnight rambler]

Exactly, so basically nothing is changing then. These vehicles will be getting towed anyway. This is just a PR stunt for the LAPD to make it seem like they care about the illegal immigrant population. That, or just public awareness on the current policies.

"some form of I.D"...lol, what does that mean, anyway?

They're apparently referring to those bogus Matricula Consular cards - http://americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/MatriculaConsularShamIDs.html

(http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CH0QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Famericanpatrol.com%2FREFERENCE%2F MatriculaConsularShamIDs.html&ei=AIZsT5S1HNTKsQKQ4fn1BQ&usg=AFQjCNG24pm75RXxgs-Gp7CTP6VfrMZfrw&sig2=Y1ruNNANq2dtB2Ru88AMIg)

[solid]

They're apparently referring to those bogus Matricula Consular cards - http://americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/MatriculaConsularShamIDs.html



Interesting. The ability for them to gain insurance with those ID's could be a good thing, however. I know from experience, where half the folks on the road, either did not have insurance, or a license. I'm surprised I've never seen one of those cereal box ID's.

When you tow a vehicle because of no ID, those people don't get the vehicle back. It gets impounded for 30 days, fees run well over a thousand dollars to get the vehicle, and usually the vehicle is not worth that much.

Also, in Mexico, I'm told a lot of people there don't bother with insurance, or the police. If you get into an accident, people start flashing cash to resolve the situation to keep the cops out of it. Police are even more corrupt there. So, it's understandable that they carry that culture over here.

[midnight rambler]

Interesting. The ability for them to gain insurance with those ID's could be a good thing, however. I know from experience, where half the folks on the road, either did not have insurance, or a license. I'm surprised I've never seen one of those cereal box ID's.

When you tow a vehicle because of no ID, those people don't get the vehicle back. It gets impounded for 30 days, fees run well over a thousand dollars to get the vehicle, and usually the vehicle is not worth that much.

Also, in Mexico, I'm told a lot of people there don't bother with insurance, or the police. If you get into an accident, people start flashing cash to resolve the situation to keep the cops out of it. Police are even more corrupt there. So, it's understandable that they carry that culture over here.

Insurance companies can only write insurance policies on legal fictions, so if one cannot present a STRAWMAN (via a DRIVER LICENSE) then there's nothing to insure.

[solid]

Insurance companies can only write insurance policies on legal fictions, so if one cannot present a STRAWMAN (via a DRIVER LICENSE) then there's nothing to insure.

It sounds like that's what they are trying to change though. By accepting those consular cards as a legal form of ID.

It benefits everyone to have insurance. You try driving around my city where 50% of the drivers have nothing. See if you are comfortable on the road. Someone hits you, you are out, nothing, nada...

[midnight rambler]

It sounds like that's what they are trying to change though. By accepting those consular cards as a legal form of ID.

It benefits everyone to have insurance. You try driving around my city where 50% of the drivers have nothing. See if you are comfortable on the road. Someone hits you, you are out, nothing, nada...

The ONLY reason there's mandated auto liability insurance is to limit the state's liability on state-owned property*.

*Any automobile which has a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE issued on it is in reality owned by the state, as one cannot acquire a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE without 'delivering' (means surrendering) the 'Manufacturer's Certificate' (the actual original document representing ownership) to the state when submitting the application for a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. Doubt this? See 501.004 (Chapter 501 is 'the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ACT') of the Texas Transportation Code as to what party REALLY owns 'motor vehicles' which have had a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE issued for them.

[solid]

The ONLY reason there's mandated auto liability insurance is to limit the state's liability on state-owned property*.

*Any automobile which has a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE issued on it is in reality owned by the state, as one cannot acquire a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE without 'delivering' (means surrendering) the 'Manufacturer's Certificate' (the actual original document representing ownership) to the state when submitting the application for a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. Doubt this? See 501.004 (Chapter 501 is 'the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ACT') of the Texas Transportation Code as to what party REALLY owns 'motor vehicles' which have had a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE issued for them.

It can be argued that every vehicle on the road is state owned. The properly registered ones (as you mention), and the ones not registered with the state. If caught with an unregistered one, it gets towed. Ownership is lost at the point, physically.

[midnight rambler]

It can be argued that every vehicle on the road is state owned. The properly registered ones (as you mention), and the ones not registered with the state. If caught with an unregistered one, it gets towed. Ownership is lost at the point, physically.

lol I have over 11 years experience regarding this matter, having traveled throughout Texas and into NM, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri without 'registration' on my privately owned automobile. How much experience do you have?

HOW THE FUCK DOES THE STATE LAWFULLY TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT OR COURT ORDER??!?!?!?

[solid]

lol I have over 11 years experience regarding this matter. How much experience do you have?

HOW THE FUCK DOES THE STATE LAWFULLY TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT OR COURT ORDER??!?!?!?

You said it yourself. When you drive your car on state owned roads, it's NOT your private property anymore. You surrender that right by driving on roads that you do not own.

[General of Darkness]

lol I have over 11 years experience regarding this matter. How much experience do you have?

HOW THE FUCK DOES THE STATE LAWFULLY TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT OR COURT ORDER??!?!?!?

How does the FED steal your money under the name of income taxes when it's illegal? It's called ROBBERY.

[midnight rambler]

you said it yourself. When you drive your car on state owned roads, it's not your private property anymore. You surrender that right by driving on roads that you do not own.

utter bullshit.

I never said any such thing.

[midnight rambler]

How does the FED steal your money under the name of income taxes when it's illegal? It's called ROBBERY.

imo palani has correctly pointed out the nexus for the tax liability, and that's the use of FRNs.

Also, 'legal' and 'lawful' are two entirely distinct things.

[General of Darkness]

utter bullshit.

I agree with Rambler. What monies were used to pay for the roads, fairy dust?

[palani]

In common law insurance doesn't exist. You are expected to be responsible for your actions. If you don't have enough assets to cover the damage you cause there exist(ed) the concept of bond servitude. Owe $100,000? Minimum wage $5 an hour? Expect 10 years of bond servitude to pay off your debts.

A company I used to work at had a Korean hired. He becomes a permanent resident. Wants a drivers license. The license bureau tells him he needs to have a SSN to get a drivers license. Discussing it with him I suggested that they were telling him that without the SSN he had no need for a license. He said "No, that cannot be." But it is.

[solid]

utter bullshit.

I'm not agreeing with it. I'm just stating that if you drive your vehicle without it being registered, or insurance..or a license, the state will take your vehicle. If you don't hold it, you don't own it. This is the way it's designed.

[midnight rambler]

state owned roadsCare to elaborate on who exactly owns the state?? And where exactly can I lay my own eyeballs on this 'state'*?? ???

*in reality does this 'state' really exist? where can I find it?? ???

[midnight rambler]

I'm not agreeing with it. I'm just stating that if you drive your vehicle without it being registered, or insurance..or a license, the state will take your vehicle. If you don't hold it, you don't own it. This is the way it's designed.

That's where you're wrong - I hold the MSO as well as a Fee Simple Title affidavit signed by the owner of the Dodge dealership (where he, his assigns, heirs, agents, etc. warrant title FOREVER) and notarized by his own notary. Turns out that affidavit of title is more powerful than the MSO itself. lol

[solid]

That's where you're wrong - I hold the MSO as well as a Fee Simple Title affidavit signed by the owner of the Dodge dealership (where he, his assigns, heirs, agents, etc. warrant title FOREVER) and notarized by his own notary. Turns out that affidavit of title is more powerful than the MSO itself. lol

How is that affidavit of title applied to the real world? Such, as driving without insurance, etc.

[midnight rambler]

How is that affidavit of title applied to the real world? Such, as driving without insurance, etc.

I'm a full liability man on the land. WHY THE FUCK WOULD I WANT THE PRIVILEGE OF LIMITED LIABILITY??

In reality, I hold title to my property.

"The terms title and interest are not synonymous." --Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.

Anyone with a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE on their 'motor vehicle' merely holds an interest in the automobile aka a 'beneficial interest'.

[solid]

I'm a full liability man on the land. WHY THE FUCK WOULD I WANT THE PRIVILEGE OF LIMITED LIABILITY??

In reality, I hold title to my property.

"The terms title and interest are not synonymous." --Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.

Anyone with a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE on their 'motor vehicle' merely holds an interest in the automobile aka a 'beneficial interest'.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong here. Suppose you own some land. You pour asphalt and build a road. You then own the road, on your land. If I drive on your road, with my car, that's trespassing. You have a right to say no to that. You could also say, that I can drive on your road, if I have my car insured. Correct?

[midnight rambler]

OK, correct me if I'm wrong here. Suppose you own some land. You pour asphalt and build a road. You then own the road, on your land. If I drive on your road, with my car, that's trespassing. You have a right to say no to that. You could also say, that I can drive on your road, if I have my car insured. Correct?

If my property is posted and someone merely crossed the property line on foot that would be trespassing. If I had a paved road on my property and I had the property posted that would be trespassing as well if one 'used' (commercial term just like 'drive' or 'drove') my road without my expressed permission, just like if one were on foot using my paved road. And if I wanted to be a complete asshole I could require ANYONE that comes onto my property on foot, on horseback, on a bicycle, on a motorcycle, in a car, etc. to have 'insurance'. lol

Solid, I bet when you attended cop school they never mentioned a word about 'traffic' meaning commerce and when you made a 'traffic stop' in reality you were actually making a 'commerce stop' to make sure someone had their permission to operate a business on public property all in order.

[solid]

Solid, I bet when you attended cop school they never mentioned a word about 'traffic' meaning commerce and when you made a 'traffic stop' in reality you were actually making a 'commerce stop' to make sure someone had their permission to operate a business on public property all in order.

You are correct, and I fully admit that I don't quite understand where you are going with that...

I suppose my point is that by paying taxes, we all collectively, should own a small piece of the roads being maintained by the state. So, if we all collectively, decide that everyone who uses those roads must have insurance, license, etc. To cover for possible damages they may cause. Say, Jose from Mexico drives his car on the roads. He doesn't pay taxes, he doesn't pay for insurance, etc...what gives him the right to trespass on our lands in such a manner? Sure, he may own the car he drives, but should be accountable for his actions. In reality, he's not though, we all cover it. He gets to ditch the car and run from any responsibility.

[midnight rambler]

So, if we all collectivelyAre you a Communist (closet or otherwise)?? ??? Or merely a Fascist*??

*FASCIST. A believer in the corporate state. --Blacks' Law Dictionary, 4th ed.

[sirgonzo420]

You are correct, and I fully admit that I don't quite understand where you are going with that...

I suppose my point is that by paying taxes, we all collectively, should own a small piece of the roads being maintained by the state. So, if we all collectively, decide that everyone who uses those roads must have insurance, license, etc. To cover for possible damages they may cause. Say, Jose from Mexico drives his car on the roads. He doesn't pay taxes, he doesn't pay for insurance, etc...what gives him the right to trespass on our lands in such a manner? Sure, he may own the car he drives, but should be accountable for his actions. In reality, he's not though, we all cover it. He gets to ditch the car and run from any responsibility.

That's the thing though.... not all of us consent.

[solid]

Are you a Communist (closet or otherwise)?? ??? Or merely a Fascist*??

*FASCIST. A believer in the corporate state. --Blacks' Law Dictionary, 4th ed.

I'm keeping my own personal beliefs out of this thread. Each individual situation is completely different...and deciding upon what is right, and just, to do in that situation requires flexibility. And ethics.

[midnight rambler]

I'm keeping my own personal beliefs out of this thread. Each individual situation is completely different...and deciding upon what is right, and just, to do in that situation requires flexibility. And ethics.

If you're a collectivist/statist then that's germane to the discussion.

Anyone who thinks I belong to their 'collective' can go fuck themselves.

[solid]

If you're a collectivist/statist then that's germane to the discussion.

I'll back out of this discussion then. I'm not going to waste time trying defend myself from your accusations. I don't believe that to be beneficial to the discussion.

[solid]

That's the thing though.... not all of us consent.

The illegal immigrants don't consent. Yet, everyone complains about them.

[sirgonzo420]

The illegal immigrants don't consent. Yet, everyone complains about them.

I don't complain about them. It's not their fault that an "illegal immigrant" (foreign national) has a higher status at law than does a "US citizen" (Congress created/controlled entity, as distinct from a State National or some other status).

I don't think there should be any universal "daddy" figure except for God or the Cosmos as a whole. The state only has authority and only should have authority over those who consent.

The world is made up of men who put their pants on just like I do.... why should *anyone* or any *group* have a greater claim on my life and liberty than I do? Why should I have to answer to anybody but my own conscience or God?

Who is the ultimate authority in *your* life?

[solid]

Well said, sirgonzo.

The world would be a better place, if more folks felt the same way.

FWIW, I will add, the only time I was written up, was for insubordination. I refused to follow an order to enforce the impound law on an illegal immigrant. I knew it was theft, by the state. It was an unjust situation, I felt, and refused to follow orders. I got my ass chewed and a formal letter on my file because of it.