Revenge on Cars With Expired Tags
Richard Arthur Merlin
Gawd, I'm pissed! I run a real estate brokerage, and
(apparently) one of my competitors has been trying to scare my
customers and agents away. Thus far, two of my customers and one
of my salesmen have reported finding anonymous, pre-printed notes
under the wipers of their cars informing them that since their
car was spotted in my parking lot with expired license tags, it
had been reported to the California DMV. It made it clear that
*MY* parking lot, and those using it, were being specifically
targeted.
The asswipe wasn't bluffing, either. I checked several weeks
later and all three of them had received collection letters from
the DMV threatening them with legal action if they didn't
immediately pay their delinquent registration fees, plus a hefty
penalty. Apparently the DMV has an address set up to accept
complaints like that, and it even accepts *ANONYMOUS* ones!
Needless to say, I'm still working on positively identifying this
asshole. I'm 90% sure I know who it is, but I want to be certain
before I exact my own revenge on him. (I'm also pissed that I
didn't think of it first!) In the meantime, I thought I'd pass
this USEFUL information along. If you know some deserving mark
(like your asshole boss, the guy who just cut you off on the
freeway, etc.) who's driving around with expired California tags,
report his license number and the make of his car to:
Department of Motor Vehicles
Revenue Collection Program
PO Box 932325
Sacramento, CA 94323-3250
Have fun! (Check your own tags, first...)
- Rich Merlin
**** **** **** ****
--------
For information about this Usenet posting service, send mail to
rema...@soda.berkeley.edu, with Subject: remailer-info.
Please, don't throw knives.
The R R M Tweek
evno...@netcom.com (Evan Nossoff) writes:
>
>Note, they can no longer claim (as in past years) that the vehicle was
>nonoperational. Now you have to file the $5 planned nonoperation
>statement when the vehcile first goes up on the blocks.
Here's a question for you Evan... Does one have to file a $5 non-op
each year? I've had a vehicle non-op'd for the last year, and just
received a renewal notice... the notice does not mention that a current
non-op needs to be renewed or not.
--
tw...@ccnet.com tw...@tweekco.ness.com WW4Net-1@11551 DoD #MCMLX N6QYA
**** Regarding the Internet><WWIVNet gateway and other assorted stuff: ****
http://www.io.com/user/tweek/ tw...@io.com IM: Michael D. Maxfield
david s. broudy
Tweek) wrote:
< Here's a question for you Evan... Does one have to file a $5 non-op
< each year? I've had a vehicle non-op'd for the last year, and just
< received a renewal notice... the notice does not mention that a current
< non-op needs to be renewed or not.
I'm not Evan, but I can tell you that the non-op needs to be renewed every year.
--
bro...@mizar.usc.edu -- http://wpc-4.usc.edu/ /=/
Will that be one lump, or two? \=\ /=/
Thomas Goodwin
Reason 836 why I left california.
Robert S. Helfman
>
> Reason 836 why I left california.
To: ucc...@email.unc.edu
Subject: Re: Revenge on Cars With Expired Tags
Newsgroups: alt.california,alt.revenge,alt.vigilantes,ca.general,ca.driving
In-Reply-To: <ucctomg....@email.unc.edu>
References: <3i272o$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Cc:
Bcc:
In article <ucctomg....@email.unc.edu> you write:
>
> Reason 836 why I left california.
We hope you're happy. I'm sure we won't miss you.
You have no idea how galling it is to see all these transplants
arriving here, and then failing to register their cars. For your
information, these freeways cost a lot of money, both to build and
maintain and patrol, and nobody should ride for free.
Unlike most Americans, I don't feel overtaxed. I know we have the
lowest tax rates of ANY industrial democracy. So when I have to
register my cars, I just pay it like a good citizen.
BTW, if the roads around Fayetteville were any indication, you
could use some REAL highway and registration taxes in North Carolina.
Victor Eijkhout
> arriving here, and then failing to register their cars.
Maybe it would help if CA didn't slam a $300 fine on me,
just for the fact that I'm from out of state. Car passes
the smog test, but was not built for CA, therefore I must pay.
--
Victor Eijkhout
Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles CA 90024 ........ Keep honking.
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036; home +1 310 209 0068 ......... I'm reloading.
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout/ ................... [LA bumper sticker]
J. Kimberlin
>In article <ucctomg....@email.unc.edu> ucc...@email.unc.edu (Thomas Goodwin) writes:
>>
>> Reason 836 why I left california.
>
>To: ucc...@email.unc.edu
>Subject: Re: Revenge on Cars With Expired Tags
>Newsgroups: alt.california,alt.revenge,alt.vigilantes,ca.general,ca.driving
>In-Reply-To: <ucctomg....@email.unc.edu>
>References: <3i272o$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>
>In article <ucctomg....@email.unc.edu> you write:
>>
>> Reason 836 why I left california.
>
>We hope you're happy. I'm sure we won't miss you.
>
>You have no idea how galling it is to see all these transplants
>arriving here, and then failing to register their cars. For your
>information, these freeways cost a lot of money, both to build and
>maintain and patrol, and nobody should ride for free.
I agree, however.....
>Unlike most Americans, I don't feel overtaxed. I know we have the
>lowest tax rates of ANY industrial democracy. So when I have to
>register my cars, I just pay it like a good citizen.
If you just pay your taxes without questioning them, or understanding
what the money is being spent for and how, I don't think you are a very
knowledgable citizen, even if you are a good one (read docile).
BTW, we do not live in a democracy, never did. This is a republic. Even
the Greeks who invented democracy said it wouldn't work once the
population exceeded 5000 voters. Here we have many more potential
voters, but many do not vote because they don't care who runs over them,
takes their money, subjugates them, taxes them, regulates them, etc. I
think we have a chance to become a democracy when everyone can vote on
every issue from their own home. The electronics age and the internet
has made this possible, but society makes the idea improbable right now.
There are other places where the tax rates are cheaper than the USA. I
pay about 28% Fed, 11% CA, 8% (a guess) FICA, mandatory disability, plus
sales taxes on everything I buy. This adds up to more than 50% of my
salary. Hong Kong has a 15% flat tax, for instance, not that I would
live there.
Don't be too quick to play the role of a sheep - question authority and
get answers. If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything.
JerryK
David Prenatt
[somebody wrote]
: >You have no idea how galling it is to see all these transplants
: >arriving here, and then failing to register their cars. For your
: >information, these freeways cost a lot of money, both to build and
: >maintain and patrol, and nobody should ride for free.
[J. Kimberlin replied]:
: I agree, however.....
[. . .]
: If you just pay your taxes without questioning them, or understanding
: what the money is being spent for and how, I don't think you are a very
: knowledgable citizen, even if you are a good one (read docile).
: BTW, we do not live in a democracy, never did. This is a republic. Even
: the Greeks who invented democracy said it wouldn't work once the
: population exceeded 5000 voters. Here we have many more potential
: voters, but many do not vote because they don't care who runs over them,
: takes their money, subjugates them, taxes them, regulates them, etc.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Non-voters do care; casting a ballot
for the pre-approved candidate of your choice is not a meaningful option
for anyone.--DFP,Jr.
: I think we have a chance to become a democracy when everyone can vote on
: every issue from their own home. The electronics age and the internet
: has made this possible, but society makes the idea improbable right now.
Direct democracry has always been a possibility, from the very
founding of this republic. However, the founding fathers intentionally
avoided direct democracy as a "tyranny of the uninformed." _See generally_
The Federalist Papers.--DFP,Jr.
: There are other places where the tax rates are cheaper than the USA. I
: pay about 28% Fed, 11% CA, 8% (a guess) FICA, mandatory disability, plus
: sales taxes on everything I buy. This adds up to more than 50% of my
: salary. Hong Kong has a 15% flat tax, for instance, not that I would
: live there.
Have you been to Hong Kong? If so, I am curious: Why wouldn't
you live there?--DFP,Jr.
: Don't be too quick to play the role of a sheep - question authority and
: get answers. If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything.
I'll drink to that!
Sign Me,
Curiouser and Curiouser
*****
David F. Prenatt, Jr.
King Hall School of Law, Class of 1995
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
*****
Robert S. Helfman
>> You have no idea how galling it is to see all these transplants
>> arriving here, and then failing to register their cars.
>
>Maybe it would help if CA didn't slam a $300 fine on me,
>just for the fact that I'm from out of state. Car passes
>the smog test, but was not built for CA, therefore I must pay.
I doubt if it was a fine. It was more likely the California Use Tax,
which is a euphemism for sales-tax-on-imported-used-cars. Check the
fine print on your receipt.
Tommy the Tourist
Because you were too damned cheap to pay for your license tags,
and wanted a free ride on the rest of us? Well, I can't say that
we've missed you!
*****
Did you get that MAK-90. At the gun show, I found a MAK-91. I heard
about a mechanic. He's done quite a few autoconversions already.
--------
For more information about this anonymous posting service,please send mail
to rema...@csua.berkeley.edu with Subject: remailer-info.
This message contains automatically generated keyword blocks
that have been designed to resemble a threat. These blocks
are not a statement of intent by the remailer operator or anyone else.
--------
Thomas A. Russ
> Maybe it would help if CA didn't slam a $300 fine on me,
> just for the fact that I'm from out of state. Car passes
> the smog test, but was not built for CA, therefore I must pay.
Well, the smog test is really very limited, in that it only measures
tailpipe emissions at two engine speeds.
I suspect that California emissions equipment involves features that
also limit emissions from other parts of the car, such as the gas tank
venting and the crankcase. These are not tested in the smog check but
still have an impact on the air quality.
The primary motivation, however, is to discourage residents from trying
to save $100 by going to Nevada to buy a non-CA equipped car. By making
the additional cost to register higher than the additional cost to get a
properly equipped car, there is no economic incentive to bring cars into
the state.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute t...@isi.edu
Robert S. Helfman
>
>There are other places where the tax rates are cheaper than the USA. I
>pay about 28% Fed, 11% CA, 8% (a guess) FICA, mandatory disability, plus
>sales taxes on everything I buy. This adds up to more than 50% of my
>salary. Hong Kong has a 15% flat tax, for instance, not that I would
>live there.
Hong Kong is not an "industrial democracy". It's a British protectorate
and it soon will be part of the PRC -- and I'm sure you wouldn't
want to live there, either.
My original posting specifically referred to industrial democracies
in stating that we have one of the lowest, if not THE lowest tax
rates. There are lots of countries with lower taxes. But they're
not democracies. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia come to mind.
J. Kimberlin
I agree with you and I think that I shall retain my citizenship in the
USA and my passport. Lots of other places are great to visit. France
comes to mind, but gas is about $4.50 a gallon + - there.
I think I stated in my original post that we pay about 94% in taxes here
in the USA while most of Europe pays 96%. Sweeden a few years ago taxed
a few rich people 101% of their year's income - but then their laws
changed. My original point was that many people have little idea or no
idea about the tax/fee structure of organized society. There are both
overt and covert taxes, direct and indirect. The actual intrinsic value
of many of the things we buy is miniscule while taxes inflate this value
way out of proportion. When analyzed, the value of an object in
time-units (instead of money) can be high or low depending on the
object. As soon as you add taxes, the amount of time you have to spend
in order to obtain the object increases significantly.
The fact that the USA has lower taxes than anyone else is not germane to
the argument. If we do not exercise due diligence, we will be right up
there with the other socialist republics in confiscatory taxes/fees which
will be spent paying functionaries who do nothing except tell us how
great the ruling class really is and how they have our best interests in
mind. In short - slaves.
Regards,
JerryK
J. Kimberlin
>In article <...> eijk...@jacobi.math.ucla.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
>
> > Maybe it would help if CA didn't slam a $300 fine on me,
> > just for the fact that I'm from out of state. Car passes
> > the smog test, but was not built for CA, therefore I must pay.
>
>Well, the smog test is really very limited, in that it only measures
>tailpipe emissions at two engine speeds.
>
>I suspect that California emissions equipment involves features that
>also limit emissions from other parts of the car, such as the gas tank
>venting and the crankcase. These are not tested in the smog check but
>still have an impact on the air quality.
This would be easy to check. I think another poster called Ford and
found that all the cars were made the same. Early-on I know that cars
were produced specially for California, but just about all states now
have to comply with the Federal EPA Clean-air act and the automakers just
find it an engineering nightmare to make cars one way for here, and
another for there.
>The primary motivation, however, is to discourage residents from trying
>to save $100 by going to Nevada to buy a non-CA equipped car. By making
>the additional cost to register higher than the additional cost to get a
>properly equipped car, there is no economic incentive to bring cars into
>the state.
Now you have it! This is the *welcome to CA, FU tax*. It is about
money. Unfortunately, the Florida tax, similar to this one, failed in
the Supreme Court. Another poster said something recently about this.
But any sort of tax like this appears to be in restraint of trade and
interstate commerce. Thus, it is unconstitutional.
California not only charges more, they also require you to retrofit, as
required, to Ca emission standards. If you retrofit to satisfy smog
requirements, why would you have to pay an additional fee to register if
it were not just a harrassment tax? The $300 won't let us breathe easier
nor even pay for one more lung cancer treatment. In the rare case of a
new car coming in these days not being CA certified, I can see the
requirement of retrofitting, but not retrofitting and the $300.
Probably the supreme court won't either as I have heard there is a case
out there challanging this fee. Anyone know the case number, court,
disposition, etc.? If so please update us, as details are available
>Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute t...@isi.edu
Regards,
JerryK
David Chesler
>I think I stated in my original post that we pay about 94% in taxes here
>in the USA while most of Europe pays 96%. Sweeden a few years ago taxed
>a few rich people 101% of their year's income - but then their laws
>changed.
FWIW, I just did someone's taxes, and her last dollar of income cost
her three more dollars in federal income taxes, doubling them from
$3 to $6. (This was a 19-year-old earning something like $3026.)
--
David Chesler (da...@chesler.absol.com, sometimes che...@world.std.com,
che...@tiac.net -- new account, same lousy attitude,
still expecting Jurisoft, a part of Lexis-Nexis,
a Reed Elsevier company to one day have d...@jurisoft.com)
Robert S. Helfman
>I think I stated in my original post that we pay about 94% in taxes here
>in the USA while most of Europe pays 96%. Sweeden a few years ago taxed
>a few rich people 101% of their year's income - but then their laws
Where on earth do you get a figure of 94%? Are you saying that 94%
of everybody's income is taxed at that rate? That's ridiculous.
Even if you include gas taxes, excise taxes, federal, local, and state
income, sales tax, etc., that figure could not possibly be correct.
I could easily believe 50% (my fed and state marginal rates are
39%, and gas, sales, and excise could easily make another 11%).
But 94%? Not possible.
Are you saying that an $80k income becomes only $4800 in spendable
dollars? Where ARE you getting these numbers?
Once upon a time we had a federal marginal tax rate of 80% but only
on the "last dollars" of a very, very high income level. The rates
have never been higher than 38% for at least 15 years now.
anonymous...@shell.portal.com
evno...@netcom.com (Evan Nossoff) wrote:
> : (like your asshole boss, the guy who just cut you off on the
> : freeway, etc.) who's driving around with expired California tags,
> : report his license number and the make of his car to:
>
> : Department of Motor Vehicles
> : Revenue Collection Program
> : PO Box 932325
> : Sacramento, CA 94323-3250
>
> DMV knows who hasn't registered, but doesn't have the staff to go
> out and find all the violators. Generally they get caught and
> undergo "preventative therapy," a 60% fine. If they haven't
> regiestered because of outstanding parking tickets, they'll have
> to pay those, too. Many who scoff once do not scoff again--and
> eventually they have to register the vehicle.
So you're saying that even though the DMV knows who hasn't
renewed their license tags, the backlog of such vehicles prevents
taking action unless someone complains? If so, is the address
shown above the correct one to use? If not, what is the correct
one? Is there a fax number that can be used for such complaints?
> P.S. DMV also takes license plate numbers and addresses for
> those still use their out of state registration although now
> living in California. They can get stuck for three years fees
> and penalties. One owner was stuck with a $2500 tab for falsely
> maintaining his out of state plates. Of course that was on a
> newer car with a fairly high value.
Would the same address apply, or is there another address for
that purpose? What about a fax number for complaints about
vehicles misregistered out-of-state?
> Why does DMV pursue these folks? It's only fair -- otherwise
> only the law abiding would pay fees and the lawless, who require
> more government resources from police to ambulances, would get
> off paying their fair share.
Just out of curiosity, how many complaints does the DMV get about
unregistered/misregistered vehicles?
> Evan Nossoff
> evno...@netcom.com
> The Last End User in America
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Would you care to explain that last line? <g>
--- Kathy Garcia <kga...@alpha.c2.org>
Scott Dunn
Mark Perew <pe...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Feb 1995 01:44:54 GMT Evan Nossoff (evno...@netcom.com) wrote:
>> Why does DMV pursue these folks? It's only fair -- otherwise only the
>> law abiding would pay fees and the lawless, who require more government
>> resources from police to ambulances, would get off paying their fair share.
>
>should someone steal it. The government has no intrinsic right to require me
>to pay them for a permit that a given vehicle may be operated. They certainly
>do not have any legitimate reason to extort money from the private transfer of
>vehicle ownership nor any valid claim to know of that transfer unless I choose
>to tell them.
>
>The DMV has grown far beyond any semblance of approrpiateness and has become a
>revenue generating center for the state of California (and I suspect most
>states). We should demand that the role of the DMV be trimmed to absolutely
>essential functions only, that the illegal "use tax" be recinded, fees for
>driver's "licenses" be revoked. The remaining DMV functions should be folded
>into the CHP and fines raised to pay for it's continued operation.
Ahh, the infamous use tax. Can you say "Buck Act"?
4 USC 105
(a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of,
collection of, or accounting for any sales tax or use tax levied by any
State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therin, having
jursidiction to levy such a tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with
respect ot which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part
within a Federal area: and such State or taxing authority shall have full
jursidiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal
area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as
though such area was not a federal area.
Can the tax be collected within, or without a Federal area? Are YOU in a
federal area? I'm not.
>
>
>--
>Mark Perew Chaos isn't just a theory, it's a way of life.
>Mark's Information Repository & Funtime Emporium
>http://www.kaiwan.com/~perew/
--
Scott Dunn : Sui Juris : @netcom.com :
"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of
declared national emergency.....A majority of the people of the United
States have lived all their lives under emergency rule." Senate Report
93-549, 1973. We are still in a state of declared emergency. To find
out more, send email.
Scott Dunn
<anonymous...@shell.portal.com> wrote:
>
>I have a question on a somewhat related subject, too. When you
>buy a pickup truck here in California, you have to register it as
>a "commercial" vehicle and pay weight fees. If you buy one with
>a camper shell attached, you can register it as a passenger
>vehicle and avoid the weight fees, right?
My question is: if you have to register it as a "commercial vehicle",
don't you need a commercial license? Is a driver's license
non-commercial just because the DMV says so? Well, okay, 2 questions.
>
>--- Kathy Garcia <kga...@alpha.c2.org>
>
>--------
>For information about this Usenet posting service, send mail to
>rema...@soda.berkeley.edu, with Subject: remailer-info.
>Please, don't throw knives.
J. Kimberlin
>In article <3ilv2d$9...@crl9.crl.com> kimb...@crl.com (J. Kimberlin) writes:
>>I think I stated in my original post that we pay about 94% in taxes here
>>in the USA while most of Europe pays 96%. Sweeden a few years ago taxed
>>a few rich people 101% of their year's income - but then their laws
>>changed.....
>
>Where on earth do you get a figure of 94%? Are you saying that 94%
>of everybody's income is taxed at that rate? That's ridiculous.
>Even if you include gas taxes, excise taxes, federal, local, and state
>income, sales tax, etc., that figure could not possibly be correct.
>I could easily believe 50% (my fed and state marginal rates are
>39%, and gas, sales, and excise could easily make another 11%).
>But 94%? Not possible.
These taxes are direct taxes. But the prices you pay include taxes that
have been levied on the products prior to their coming to market.
>Are you saying that an $80k income becomes only $4800 in spendable
>dollars? Where ARE you getting these numbers?
Actually the 94% figure is not mine. It could be 92% for all I know.
An $80K income does not become $4800 in spendable dollars. You can spend
the whole $80K. But 94% of what you do spend goes to the government in
one way or another for taxes on taxes on taxes while the intrinsic value
of the product in time-spent-to-manufacture is only 6% of the total cost
of the product.
>Once upon a time we had a federal marginal tax rate of 80% but only
>on the "last dollars" of a very, very high income level. The rates
>have never been higher than 38% for at least 15 years now.
Agreed for the direct taxes.
Regards,
JerryK
Joshua Thaler
: >Are you saying that an $80k income becomes only $4800 in spendable
: >dollars? Where ARE you getting these numbers?
: Actually the 94% figure is not mine. It could be 92% for all I know.
: An $80K income does not become $4800 in spendable dollars. You can spend
: the whole $80K. But 94% of what you do spend goes to the government in
: one way or another for taxes on taxes on taxes while the intrinsic value
: of the product in time-spent-to-manufacture is only 6% of the total cost
: of the product.
: >Once upon a time we had a federal marginal tax rate of 80% but only
: >on the "last dollars" of a very, very high income level. The rates
: >have never been higher than 38% for at least 15 years now.
: Agreed for the direct taxes.
Sounds like a bit of "fuzzy math" if you ask me. So this 94% number
includes taxes on the production of whatever it is your'e buying? does
this also include the money which is paid to the workers which they in
turn pay in federal and state income tax? The point is, is that in terms
of how much stuff the average american is able to buy (however you
compute the taxes), we have one of the highest standards of living in
the world. Stop complaining.
Joshua
Robert S. Helfman
>
>It [TAXES] still could get pretty high.
>
>Take a successful self-made guy who owns his own business, large
>enough that it needs to be incorporated for legal reasons. This
>corporation is in California.
>
>Say the guy has net profits of $100,000.
>
>31% of this goes to federal corporate income tax.
>
>9.3% goes to California corporate income tax.
>
>The corporation pays the remainder, about $60,000, to the owner.
>
>But this is PERSONAL income, and gets taxed itself.
>
>29% goes to personal federal income tax.
>9.3% goes to personal state income tax.
>
>The poor guy is left with $36,000.
>
>But he hasn't paid the property tax on his home.
>Or sales tax on all the stuff he's bought.
>Or gas tax.
>
>I can see his $36,000 whittled away pretty fast.
>
>94% does seem like a large percentage, but it's probably
>possible.
What you fail to mention is that this 'self-employed' guy is
writing off a zillion expenses to the company's operation:
His company-paid car.
His company-paid golf club membership (ditto: health club)
His company-paid lunches and dinners and travel.
His company-paid home computer.
The list goes on and on. I know someone with a small business in
this same income category. He pays zero income tax (state and
federal).
Dan Hepner
>Subject: Re: Revenge on Cars With Expired Tags
I'm as anti-tax as you guys, but things _could_ be worse.
>Take a successful self-made guy who owns his own business, large
>enough that it needs to be incorporated for legal reasons. This
>corporation is in California.
>Say the guy has net profits of $100,000.
>31% of this goes to federal corporate income tax.
[..]
>The corporation pays the remainder, about $60,000, to the owner.
>
>But this is PERSONAL income, and gets taxed itself.
It would be an exceptionally dumb tax setup which could not
result in this money being taxed only once, and as personal
income to the business owner.
Several options exist to achieve that goal, including setting
the corporation up such that it must pay over 95% of its profits
as dividends.
And there's always the fact that the corporation can pay
its owner a salary...
Dan Hepner
Joshua Thaler
: kimb...@crl.com (J. Kimberlin) writes:
: Take a successful self-made guy who owns his own business, large
: enough that it needs to be incorporated for legal reasons. This
: corporation is in California.
: Say the guy has net profits of $100,000.
A buisness which is large enough to be encorporated, but only has a net
of $100,000 a year? That would make it about the size of a sucessful
coffee shop.
Evan Nossoff
: Incidentally, for many cars today, there is no physical difference
: between a car built for CA and the other 49 states. When I bought my
: car, I paid $82 for "CA emissions req", which turns out to be just a
: longer warranty on the catalytic converter and a few other parts. [I
: found this out recently when I had to get the converter replaced.]
: So, what I want to know is: My wife's car is a 49-state special, but
: the sticker says it meets CA regulations, so how come she can't just
: go back the dealer and pay them the extra money for the longer
: warranty and not have to pay the state $300 to register it when we
: move back next week?
If the sticker under the hood meets CA regulations, I believe the $300
fee is waived. Please check this out when you register the car. Call
your local DMV for an appointment (saves scads of wait time) and ask for
an inspection. If the clerk is confused ask to talk to the registration
supervisor because you believe your car meets CA standards.
I will check again, but my sources (which are the ones adminstering the
smog check program) say that there is a physical difference between cars
that bear the CA sticker and those that have the federal EPA sticker.
--
Evan Nossoff
evno...@netcom.com
The Last End User in America
The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent
DMV policy.
Evan Nossoff
: On Mon, 20 Feb 1995 01:44:54 GMT Evan Nossoff (evno...@netcom.com) wrote:
: > Why does DMV pursue these folks? It's only fair -- otherwise only the
: > law abiding would pay fees and the lawless, who require more government
: > resources from police to ambulances, would get off paying their fair share.
: The only legitimate purpose for registering a vehicle is to aid in tracking it
: should someone steal it. The government has no intrinsic right to require me
: to pay them for a permit that a given vehicle may be operated. They certainly
: do not have any legitimate reason to extort money from the private transfer of
: vehicle ownership nor any valid claim to know of that transfer unless I choose
: to tell them.
Another use of the funds is to build roads and maintain them and the
major portion of California vehicle fees go to that purpose. It is a
"use" tax. Frankly, if you look at some freeways and many surface
streets the need is for more maintenance funds not less. How would you
pay for roads?
: The DMV has grown far beyond any semblance of approrpiateness and has become a
: revenue generating center for the state of California (and I suspect most
: states). We should demand that the role of the DMV be trimmed to absolutely
: essential functions only, that the illegal "use tax" be recinded, fees for
: driver's "licenses" be revoked. The remaining DMV functions should be folded
: into the CHP and fines raised to pay for it's continued operation.
If you "lowered" the fee for the driver license from its $12 current
cost to its actual cost, the fee would go *UP* to $50. That's the actual
cost of issuing a driver license.
Tomorrow I will post a breakdown of DMV income and outgo, though there is
one included in every annual registration renewal notice.
As for being bloated: DMV operates on 9.8 cents per dollar collected,
while maintaining an important data base for courts, law enforcement and
others. It has 172 field offices and thousands of telephone operators,
data entry technicians (and yes, DMV increasingly uses OCR, but someone
has still got to operate and quality check it) and an investigative force
to keep auto dealers honest (well, relatively honest).
If you were to disperse DMV you would just have to re-invent it.
Evan Nossoff
: I have a question on a somewhat related subject, too. When you
: buy a pickup truck here in California, you have to register it as
: a "commercial" vehicle and pay weight fees. If you buy one with
: a camper shell attached, you can register it as a passenger
: vehicle and avoid the weight fees, right?
With a camper shell the PU truck meets the criteria of primarily for
hauling people. Without the shell, the PU truck becomes primarily for
hauling stuff. Stuff hauling is, under California law, a commercial
activity. As with much legislation, wherever the line is drawn to
distingush two catgories there will be debate over where the line is
drawn. The legislature made the situation relatively tolerable (IMHO) by
setting fairly low weight fees for light PU trucks.
: My question is, if you buy a pickup truck with a camper shell,
: register it as a passenger vehicle, then later decide to remove
: the camper shell and use it like a regular pickup, are you
: required to re-register it as a commercial vehicle? If so,
: what's the CVC section that says so? Does the DMV try to keep
: track of this sort of thing?
Technically yes you would have to re-register, but DMV probably would
find enforcement expesnive and offensive to the public. The people who
will get nailed on this are those at construction sites if the local
gendarmes or CHP feel moved to write a ticket on an obviously commercial
vehicle with automobile plates.
: What about "special cases" like the Subaru Brat? Presumably
: those "seats" in the pickup bed technically make it a "passenger
: vehicle", right? (Ever seen anyone actually riding in them?)
: What if the owner decides to remove them to increase his cargo
: capacity? Is re-registration as a commercial vehicle required?
Even with the seats removed, the Brat has limited cargo capacity, more
like a large trunk than a PU truck. I don't know what a fine toothed
reading of the law would reveal, but do feel that in the real world the
problem is not up very high an anyone's priority list.
The virtue of the "if it has a camper shell it's a car, if not it's a
truck" is that it is easy to enforce and minor violations do no great
harm to the public treasury.
Evan Nossoff
: evno...@netcom.com (Evan Nossoff) wrote:
: > : (like your asshole boss, the guy who just cut you off on the
: > : freeway, etc.) who's driving around with expired California tags,
: > : report his license number and the make of his car to:
: >
: > : Department of Motor Vehicles
: > : Revenue Collection Program
: > : PO Box 932325
: > : Sacramento, CA 94323-3250
: >
: > DMV knows who hasn't registered, but doesn't have the staff to go
: > out and find all the violators. Generally they get caught and
: > undergo "preventative therapy," a 60% fine. If they haven't
: > regiestered because of outstanding parking tickets, they'll have
: > to pay those, too. Many who scoff once do not scoff again--and
: > eventually they have to register the vehicle.
: So you're saying that even though the DMV knows who hasn't
: renewed their license tags, the backlog of such vehicles prevents
: taking action unless someone complains? If so, is the address
: shown above the correct one to use? If not, what is the correct
: one? Is there a fax number that can be used for such complaints?
The address is correct, and DMV follows up on complaints.
DMV doesn't know if they are driving, they have moved to Ohio or they
stole the sticker from a legally registered car. The point is that under
the division of authority, it is up to law enforcement to ticket out of
date license plates or illegal stickers (which show up on a traffic stop
when they run the license plates through DMV's computer). The point is
that it would be costly in the extreme to give the job to DMV, but giving
it to law enforcement generates a revenue stream to pay for enforcement.
: > P.S. DMV also takes license plate numbers and addresses for
: > those still use their out of state registration although now
: > living in California. They can get stuck for three years fees
: > and penalties. One owner was stuck with a $2500 tab for falsely
: > maintaining his out of state plates. Of course that was on a
: > newer car with a fairly high value.
: Would the same address apply, or is there another address for
: that purpose? What about a fax number for complaints about
: vehicles misregistered out-of-state?
The address works for both. I will try to get a fax number for you.
:
: > Why does DMV pursue these folks? It's only fair -- otherwise
: > only the law abiding would pay fees and the lawless, who require
: > more government resources from police to ambulances, would get
: > off paying their fair share.
: Just out of curiosity, how many complaints does the DMV get about
: unregistered/misregistered vehicles?
I'll answer tomorrow night.
: [sig line] The Last End User in America
: Would you care to explain that last line? <g>
Sure...everyone is a computer techie these days, all gobbled up doing
computer thingies rather than using the computer as a tool to write, run
spreadhseets or maintain a data base. I became aware of the trend about
2 years ago when PC Magazine reported that the sale of utility software
in dollar volume and in quantity exceeded the sale of production software
such as spread sheets and word processing. Especially on the Internet,
many people are computer specialists. I should write and find a place to
post my theories (which I find fascinating :)), but haven't gotten around
to it.
--
Evan Nossoff
evno...@netcom.com
The Last End User in America
The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent
DMV policy.
Evan Nossoff
: In article <3iorhc$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
: <anonymous...@shell.portal.com> wrote:
: >
: >I have a question on a somewhat related subject, too. When you
: >buy a pickup truck here in California, you have to register it as
: >a "commercial" vehicle and pay weight fees. If you buy one with
: >a camper shell attached, you can register it as a passenger
: >vehicle and avoid the weight fees, right?
: My question is: if you have to register it as a "commercial vehicle",
: don't you need a commercial license? Is a driver's license
: non-commercial just because the DMV says so? Well, okay, 2 questions.
California does not have a commercial or non-commercial license. It ha
different classes. Class B is for vehicles with three axles weighing
more than 6000 pounds or any vehicle weigning more than 26000 pounds,
generally these vehicles are found in commercial use. CLass c licenses
allow you to drive automobiles, light trucks such as pickups, vans and
other such vehciles, most of which are non-commercial, but some of which
are commercial vehicles.
So, Scott I hate to put several months of our discussions in the
dumpster, but their aint no commercial driver license, even though DMV
has a Commercial Drivers License unit. If you have, for example, a
recreational concrete mixer you need a Class B license to drive it, even
though you only use it for pesonal pleasure.
The law is wondrous...strange...and wondrous too are the minds that
warped the woof of the fabirc of our legal system.
Mark Perew
> Another use of the funds is to build roads and maintain them and the
> major portion of California vehicle fees go to that purpose. It is a
> "use" tax. Frankly, if you look at some freeways and many surface
> streets the need is for more maintenance funds not less. How would you
> pay for roads?
Roads are supposed to be funded through gas taxes. That is a true users tax.
If you drive more miles and thus use the roads more then you will require more
gas and thus pay more gas tax.
> If you "lowered" the fee for the driver license from its $12 current
> cost to its actual cost, the fee would go *UP* to $50. That's the actual
> cost of issuing a driver license.
It sounds as if we are diverting funds away from roads and into the
bureaucracy.
> If you were to disperse DMV you would just have to re-invent it.
Most government bureaucracies have some legitimage function which needs to be
preserved. The trick is to wade through all the garbage, eliminate the
functions that serve no legitimage purpose, reassign those that do in order to
streamline the functions and wind up with a savings to the taxpayer.
Put the CHP in charge of maintaining driver information and then raise the
fines so that those who are breaking the law are supporting the system and
those who are law abiding aren't penalized.
Put the auto dealer issues in the hands of another state agency such as
CalTrans or the Dept of Commerce. You could merge that function with the BAR.
Again, support the legitimate function by collecting fines from those who make
the function necessary and leave the innocent alone.
Get rid of registration of private, non-commercial vehicles.
By eliminating the unnecessary and reassigning and subordinating the few
legitimate functions we can cut the high level bureaucracy where most of the
waste occurs. Any government agency has self preservation as its first
priority. By splitting the functions and subordinating them to larger and
legitimate issues we reduce (but sadly do not eliminate) the trend toward self
perpetuation.
David Prenatt
: I have a similar problem - a cargo type van - Dodge, short wheel-base-
: which has to be registered with commercial plates. I don't mind the fees
: which are not too bad - $60 - but I do not and never have used it in a
: commercial way. True I slip in a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood or some chicken
: sh*t for my garden occasionally, but mainly I use it for hauling around
: my Live Steam Locomotive and other hobby stuff.
: There does not appear to be any way I can register this vehicle other
: than commercial even though I own no business, nor haul no commercial
: wares, nor intend to do so.
: Does the CVC have a section to handle my situation? If it does not, why
: not? If it does, how can I access this section of law at the DMV and
: change the status of my van?
While I have not researched this issue recently, last time I did,
I found that the California Vehicle Code does not give you an option for
classifying a commercial vehicle (such as yours) as non-commercial. In
fact, right or wrong, many people whom I know have been cited for using
non-commercial vehicles for commercial purposes when moving personal items
from one residence to another (a very hard charge to disprove).
The justification given for overinclusive laws/policies, such as
those mentioned above, is typically administrative efficiency.
Administrative hearings, subject to judicial review, are an option (wherein
a government agency reconsiders its interpretation of the law--this may also
require public hearings if it is characterized as "rulemaking"). However,
state courts generally defer to the findings of administrative law
judges, who in turn are more likely than not to maintain the status quo.
Sincerely,
DFP,Jr.
STRYK9
>: Please justify the actual $50 cost of issuing a drivers license. I would
>: like to see a breakdown, including cost to photograph, cost to process
>: paperwork by computer, time to laminate license, price of holograph
>: material for license, etc.
> Simply one more example of your tax dollars at work!
hey kids, plz try to keep this thread off of alt.revenge, its incredibly
boring for those of us smart enough not to live in california, which i
guess would be okay if it weren't for the californians.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nur die halbe Welt ist Teflon und Asbest, der Rest ist brennbar
-Einst"urzenden Neubauten
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Kimberlin
>J. Kimberlin wrote (in pertinent part)
>
>: I have a similar problem - a cargo type van - Dodge, short wheel-base-
>: which has to be registered with commercial plates. I don't mind the fees
>: which are not too bad - $60 - but I do not and never have used it in a
>: commercial way. True I slip in a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood or some chicken
>: sh*t for my garden occasionally, but mainly I use it for hauling around
>: my Live Steam Locomotive and other hobby stuff.
>
>: There does not appear to be any way I can register this vehicle other
>: than commercial even though I own no business, nor haul no commercial
>: wares, nor intend to do so.
>
>: Does the CVC have a section to handle my situation? If it does not, why
>: not? If it does, how can I access this section of law at the DMV and
>: change the status of my van?
>
> While I have not researched this issue recently, last time I did,
>I found that the California Vehicle Code does not give you an option for
>classifying a commercial vehicle (such as yours) as non-commercial. In
>fact, right or wrong, many people whom I know have been cited for using
>non-commercial vehicles for commercial purposes when moving personal items
>from one residence to another (a very hard charge to disprove).
I found that if I put in a back seat I could register it non-commercial.
With only two seats up front the presumption was that the cargo space
would be used for commercial purposes.
Another case of presumptive guilt, I guess.
>
> The justification given for overinclusive laws/policies, such as
>those mentioned above, is typically administrative efficiency.
>Administrative hearings, subject to judicial review, are an option (wherein
>a government agency reconsiders its interpretation of the law--this may also
>require public hearings if it is characterized as "rulemaking"). However,
>state courts generally defer to the findings of administrative law
>judges, who in turn are more likely than not to maintain the status quo.
>
>Sincerely,
>David F. Prenatt, Jr.
>King Hall School of Law, Class of 1995
>University of California
>Davis, CA 95616
JerryK
Ken Gordon
jth...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>A buisness which is large enough to be encorporated, but only has a net
>of $100,000 a year? That would make it about the size of a sucessful
>coffee shop.
So what's your point? There are lots of corporations at that profit level.
--
Ken Gordon | "Definition of luck: opportunity
kgo...@courier6.aero.org | meeting preparation."
The Aerospace Corporation |
Disclaimer: The usual | -Eli Zaret
Scott Dunn
dave demartini <dd6...@nado.hp.com> wrote:
>
> As to the topic of police powers and the DMV. There is little that
> can be done, legally, to correct situations where the DMV has taken
> it upon themselves to suspend or revoce licenses, WITHOUT DUE
> PROCESS (as is always the case). Quite often a judges decision to
> re-instate or drop charges that resulted in a suspension are ignored
> by the DMV, and the individual must then fight the DMV for a correction.
The same goes true for those wishing to get a post-tow hearing. Everyone
that I know who's gone to the DMV to get a hearing gets the same line of BS:
"You'll have to deal with Sacramento." And they think they serve the
people. The regulations plainly state who does the hearings. Although I
think 10 days is a long time to wait for a hearing while your life's
blood is draining away in the impound yard. There are several cases that
say 48 hours max for a hearing to be had.
>
> I'll rent out the local convention center and throw a party if/when
> the DMV is abolished are replaced with something that is functional.
>
Let me know where it is. I'll join ya.
> They are almost as nightmarish as the IRS.
>
They are more so.
> Fat chance of ever having me turn in a 'registraion offender'.
> In fact, I might even buy them a lunch!
>
> Granted there is NO constitutional right to drive in this country, I
> don't believe there is one to maintain a DMV either.
>
The only place for the DMV is in the state defined at section 6017 of the
R&T code, which a federal area folks.
> Records on CVC violations should be mainted by the judiciay, not some
> bizarre autonomous branch of the state government that has little or
> no accountability to the people.
>
> I too, look forward to seeing the costs break-down for the DMV.
> Perhaps some of us should write and offical request under the freedom
> of information act. Then we could sue the state when it does not
> comply.
>
That is coming up. If you want to learn more about the Freedom of
Information Act, and the Privacy act, let me know. I know of a very good
seminar coming up later this month, here in SoCal. Email me if you want
more.
> <rave_mode=OFF>
>
>
> NOTE FOLLOWUPS
>
> **********************************************************************
> ** Dave DeMartini ** North American **
> ** Hewlett Packard Co. ** Distribution Organization **
> ** dd6...@nado.hp.com ** Production Engineering Group **
> **********************************************************************
> ** ~~ DON'T TREAD ON ME ~~ **
> **********************************************************************
David Prenatt
the cost of issuing a driver license:
: Please justify the actual $50 cost of issuing a drivers license. I would
: like to see a breakdown, including cost to photograph, cost to process
: paperwork by computer, time to laminate license, price of holograph
: material for license, etc.
Don't forget the cost of the DMV computer fiasco. After all,
somebody has to pay for that as well.
Simply one more example of your tax dollars at work!
Sign Me,
The Court Jester
*****
David F. Prenatt, Jr.
King Hall School of Law, Class of 1995
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
*****
dave demartini
know Indiana licences private licence branchs to collect property taxes
on automobiles, issue licences, issue driver's licences, and record
changes of title. Now this is done for a surcharge by a private licence
branch and the taxpayer wins on the economic side. All legal questions
are taken care of by another agency, the judiciary. In most states
(acording to what I know) the state AAA can take care of most DMV
functions. And in Indiana the AAA is a franchised licence branch for the
state.
Regards
JerryK
=== end inlucde ===
Jerry,
AAA here in CA does serve as front-end for DMV matters. I have never
used it (I'm not a member), but my associates who are members inform
me that AAA does a much more efficient job of processing the data for
them.
But then again, I can't imagin anything less efficient than a DMV
office.
As to the topic of police powers and the DMV. There is little that
can be done, legally, to correct situations where the DMV has taken
it upon themselves to suspend or revoce licenses, WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS (as is always the case). Quite often a judges decision to
re-instate or drop charges that resulted in a suspension are ignored
by the DMV, and the individual must then fight the DMV for a correction.
I'll rent out the local convention center and throw a party if/when
the DMV is abolished are replaced with something that is functional.
They are almost as nightmarish as the IRS.
Fat chance of ever having me turn in a 'registraion offender'.
In fact, I might even buy them a lunch!
Granted there is NO constitutional right to drive in this country, I
don't believe there is one to maintain a DMV either.
Records on CVC violations should be mainted by the judiciay, not some
bizarre autonomous branch of the state government that has little or
no accountability to the people.
I too, look forward to seeing the costs break-down for the DMV.
Perhaps some of us should write and offical request under the freedom
of information act. Then we could sue the state when it does not
comply.
<rave_mode=OFF>
J. Kimberlin
>Mark Perew (pe...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com) wrote:
>: On Mon, 20 Feb 1995 01:44:54 GMT Evan Nossoff (evno...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: The DMV has grown far beyond any semblance of approrpiateness and has become a
>: revenue generating center for the state of California (and I suspect most
>: states). We should demand that the role of the DMV be trimmed to absolutely
>: essential functions only, that the illegal "use tax" be recinded, fees for
>: driver's "licenses" be revoked. The remaining DMV functions should be folded
>: into the CHP and fines raised to pay for it's continued operation.
>
>If you "lowered" the fee for the driver license from its $12 current
>cost to its actual cost, the fee would go *UP* to $50. That's the actual
>cost of issuing a driver license.
Please justify the actual $50 cost of issuing a drivers license. I would
like to see a breakdown, including cost to photograph, cost to process
paperwork by computer, time to laminate license, price of holograph
material for license, etc.
>Tomorrow I will post a breakdown of DMV income and outgo, though there is
>one included in every annual registration renewal notice.
The annual registration renewal notice breakdown states that 503,000,000
was used to support DMV. I would like to see the cost breakdown of DMV
salaries, benefits, rent for facilities, telephone charges, heat,
electricity, and the catagories that the accounts devide the debits into.
>As for being bloated: DMV operates on 9.8 cents per dollar collected,
>while maintaining an important data base for courts, law enforcement and
>others. It has 172 field offices and thousands of telephone operators,
>data entry technicians (and yes, DMV increasingly uses OCR, but someone
>has still got to operate and quality check it) and an investigative force
>to keep auto dealers honest (well, relatively honest).
It could be that a good telemarketing system like that employed on a 900
number with nested menus could replace a few of those thousands of phone
operators. The system could operate in several languages in the first
instance, then persons could shift to a second menu with catagories to
check for help with their questions. The electronic sophistication is
available.
IMHO the DMV should not serve as a database maintainer for anyone. The
DMV database should not be for sale or for access. Insurance and other
commercial inquiries should be handled but by the court system, not the
DMV.
Your explanation is factual but IMHO the DMV is assuming or has been
granted police powers that should be granted to the judiciary.
>If you were to disperse DMV you would just have to re-invent it.
Not necessarily. DMV functions have been privatized in some states. I
know Indiana licences private licence branchs to collect property taxes
on automobiles, issue licences, issue driver's licences, and record
changes of title. Now this is done for a surcharge by a private licence
branch and the taxpayer wins on the economic side. All legal questions
are taken care of by another agency, the judiciary. In most states
(acording to what I know) the state AAA can take care of most DMV
functions. And in Indiana the AAA is a franchised licence branch for the
state.
>Evan Nossoff
>evno...@netcom.com
>The Last End User in America
>
>The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent
>DMV policy.
Regards
JerryK
J. Kimberlin
>
>: I have a question on a somewhat related subject, too. When you
>: buy a pickup truck here in California, you have to register it as
>: a "commercial" vehicle and pay weight fees. If you buy one with
>: a camper shell attached, you can register it as a passenger
>: vehicle and avoid the weight fees, right?
>
>With a camper shell the PU truck meets the criteria of primarily for
>hauling people. Without the shell, the PU truck becomes primarily for
>hauling stuff. Stuff hauling is, under California law, a commercial
>activity. As with much legislation, wherever the line is drawn to
>distingush two catgories there will be debate over where the line is
>drawn. The legislature made the situation relatively tolerable (IMHO) by
>setting fairly low weight fees for light PU trucks.
>
>: My question is, if you buy a pickup truck with a camper shell,
>: register it as a passenger vehicle, then later decide to remove
>: the camper shell and use it like a regular pickup, are you
>: required to re-register it as a commercial vehicle? If so,
>: what's the CVC section that says so? Does the DMV try to keep
I have a similar problem - a cargo type van - Dodge, short wheel-base-
which has to be registered with commercial plates. I don't mind the fees
which are not too bad - $60 - but I do not and never have used it in a
commercial way. True I slip in a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood or some chicken
sh*t for my garden occasionally, but mainly I use it for hauling around
my Live Steam Locomotive and other hobby stuff.
There does not appear to be any way I can register this vehicle other
than commercial even though I own no business, nor haul no commercial
wares, nor intend to do so.
Does the CVC have a section to handle my situation? If it does not, why not?
If it does, how can I access this section of law at the DMV and change
the status of my van?
>Evan Nossoff
>evno...@netcom.com
JerryK
Eduardo Subelman
(spwo...@netcom.com) writes:
> Take a successful self-made guy who owns his own business, large
> enough that it needs to be incorporated for legal reasons. This
> corporation is in California.
> Say the guy has net profits of $100,000.
> 31% of this goes to federal corporate income tax.
> 9.3% goes to California corporate income tax.
> The corporation pays the remainder, about $60,000, to the owner.
> But this is PERSONAL income, and gets taxed itself.
> 29% goes to personal federal income tax.
> 9.3% goes to personal state income tax.
> The poor guy is left with $36,000.
I submit your guy deserves to pay the taxes he is paying. Call it
natural selection.
My gal pays herself a salary (from the corporation) of $100,000.
This is an expense to the corporation.
Then the corporation's profit is ZERO: no taxes. Of course that
leaves her with a PERSONAL income of $100,000. Of this 31% goes to
personal federal income taxes and 9.3% goes to state income taxes.
Which leaves my gal with $60,000 instead of the $36,000 your poor guy
kept.
The same result can be obtained by creating a Subchapter S
Corporation, where the corporation pays no taxes, and its profits
get reported as the stockholder's personal income, so they are only
taxed once.
Not that I enjoy paying 40% of what I make to the government, mind you.
--
Ed Subelman sube...@elvis.tti.com
Citicorp(+)TTI (310) 450-9111, x2972
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
David Chesler
Evan Nossoff <evno...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: [sig line] The Last End User in America
>
>: Would you care to explain that last line? <g>
>
>Sure...everyone is a computer techie these days, all gobbled up doing
>computer thingies rather than using the computer as a tool to write, run
>spreadhseets or maintain a data base. I became aware of the trend about
>2 years ago when PC Magazine reported that the sale of utility software
>in dollar volume and in quantity exceeded the sale of production software
>such as spread sheets and word processing. Especially on the Internet,
>many people are computer specialists. I should write and find a place to
>post my theories (which I find fascinating :)), but haven't gotten around
>to it.
This it totally off topic for these groups -- sorry.
I don't know if the observation is correct. All of my sources have
keyboard templates for popular word processors, but I've yet to find
one for VC++ or MS-Windows in general.
I'm noticing more and more people on Usenet who are on services like
AOL or the public access Unix, clearly with news and mail and talk
as their primary purpose -- it's not just people borrowing some time
on their course account, or development account to read the net a
bit. (Since I'm working in the PC world these days, I'm in that
category when I'm using my TIAC account.)
I think computer specialists are monotonically less prevalent on
the Internet as time goes by, even as our number in the general
population increases.
I understand that the biggest volume of software sold is games,
especially for Nintendos and such.
My shop is filled with people who used to do Unix, and prefer
it (although these Integrated Development Environments are kind
of neat...) but our boss is always telling us how much the market,
for software and for software engineers favors toy ^h^h^h personal
computers.
--
David Chesler (che...@tiac.net - CURRENT che...@world.std.com - SOMETIMES
d...@jurisoft.com - FUTURE da...@chesler.absol.com - ALWAYS)
Bronx H.S. of Science alumni list: bronx-scie...@infopro.com
Evan Nossoff
: In article <3j2ice$s...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>,
: dave demartini <dd6...@nado.hp.com> wrote:
: >
: > As to the topic of police powers and the DMV. There is little that
: > can be done, legally, to correct situations where the DMV has taken
: > it upon themselves to suspend or revoce licenses, WITHOUT DUE
: > PROCESS (as is always the case). Quite often a judges decision to
: > re-instate or drop charges that resulted in a suspension are ignored
: > by the DMV, and the individual must then fight the DMV for a correction.
DMV holds over 100,000 hearings on licenses it has suspended (and for
which it has statuatory authority) every year. About half result in a
suspension. That sounds like a great dealof due process to me...a 50% rate.
: The same goes true for those wishing to get a post-tow hearing. Everyone
: that I know who's gone to the DMV to get a hearing gets the same line of BS:
: "You'll have to deal with Sacramento." And they think they serve the
: people. The regulations plainly state who does the hearings. Although I
: think 10 days is a long time to wait for a hearing while your life's
: blood is draining away in the impound yard. There are several cases that
: say 48 hours max for a hearing to be had.
DMV does not hold a hearing on towing, the local courts do and that is
specifically outlined in the law. I don't know what what
regulations you are referring to. I don't know where you live, but
courts in most of California are holding hearings and making findings.
--
Scott Dunn
Mark Perew <pe...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Feb 1995 07:43:21 GMT Evan Nossoff (evno...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>Put the CHP in charge of maintaining driver information and then raise the
>fines so that those who are breaking the law are supporting the system and
>those who are law abiding aren't penalized.
Make their top administrator an elected official first.
>
>Put the auto dealer issues in the hands of another state agency such as
>CalTrans or the Dept of Commerce. You could merge that function with the BAR.
>Again, support the legitimate function by collecting fines from those who make
>the function necessary and leave the innocent alone.
>
This might be nice....
>Get rid of registration of private, non-commercial vehicles.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But this is the best.
>
>By eliminating the unnecessary and reassigning and subordinating the few
>legitimate functions we can cut the high level bureaucracy where most of the
>waste occurs. Any government agency has self preservation as its first
>priority. By splitting the functions and subordinating them to larger and
>legitimate issues we reduce (but sadly do not eliminate) the trend toward self
>perpetuation.
Thanks for making those observations.
>--
>Mark Perew Chaos isn't just a theory, it's a way of life.
>Mark's Information Repository & Funtime Emporium
>http://www.kaiwan.com/~perew/
Scott Dunn
>: In article <3j2ice$s...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>,
>: dave demartini <dd6...@nado.hp.com> wrote:
>: >
>: > As to the topic of police powers and the DMV. There is little that
>: > can be done, legally, to correct situations where the DMV has taken
>: > it upon themselves to suspend or revoce licenses, WITHOUT DUE
>: > PROCESS (as is always the case). Quite often a judges decision to
>: > re-instate or drop charges that resulted in a suspension are ignored
>: > by the DMV, and the individual must then fight the DMV for a correction.
>
>DMV holds over 100,000 hearings on licenses it has suspended (and for
>which it has statuatory authority) every year. About half result in a
>suspension. That sounds like a great dealof due process to me...a 50% rate.
You mean they can hold these hearings without anyone (like the license
holder) present? Is that "due process"?
>
>: The same goes true for those wishing to get a post-tow hearing. Everyone
>: that I know who's gone to the DMV to get a hearing gets the same line of BS:
>: "You'll have to deal with Sacramento." And they think they serve the
>: people. The regulations plainly state who does the hearings. Although I
>: think 10 days is a long time to wait for a hearing while your life's
>: blood is draining away in the impound yard. There are several cases that
>: say 48 hours max for a hearing to be had.
>
>DMV does not hold a hearing on towing, the local courts do and that is
>specifically outlined in the law.
Excuse me, but perhaps you should read title 13 of the
Administrative code yourself. I did, and I don't see anything in there
about the courts.
Also, a great case about the timeliness of the hearing can be found in
strangely enough Sofer v. Costa Mesa, 607 FSupp. 675.
I don't know what what
>regulations you are referring to. I don't know where you live, but
>courts in most of California are holding hearings and making findings.
>
One more thing, are there any hearings by anybody else before a ticket
winds up in court? I mean, are there any administrative rememdies that
are somehow waived when we walk into court? Perhaps the Board of
Equalization holds a hearing?
>
>
>--
>
>Evan Nossoff
>evno...@netcom.com
>The Last End User in America
>
>The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent
>DMV policy.
J. Kimberlin
>: In article <3j2ice$s...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>,
>: dave demartini <dd6...@nado.hp.com> wrote:
>: >
>: > As to the topic of police powers and the DMV. There is little that
>: > can be done, legally, to correct situations where the DMV has taken
>: > it upon themselves to suspend or revoce licenses, WITHOUT DUE
>: > PROCESS (as is always the case). Quite often a judges decision to
>: > re-instate or drop charges that resulted in a suspension are ignored
>: > by the DMV, and the individual must then fight the DMV for a correction.
>
>DMV holds over 100,000 hearings on licenses it has suspended (and for
>which it has statuatory authority) every year. About half result in a
>suspension. That sounds like a great dealof due process to me...a 50% rate.
It is not clear here whether or not the hearings are held before the
licenses are suspended or after the licenses are suspended. If the
hearing are held before the licenses are suspended there might be due
process. If the hearings are held in protest to a suspension that is
done before the fact, then it is another case of being guilty until
proven innocent and not due process.
Request clarification!
>Evan Nossoff
>evno...@netcom.com
>The Last End User in America
>
>The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent
>DMV policy.
JerryK
Evan Nossoff
: In article <3j2ice$s...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>,
: dave demartini <dd6...@nado.hp.com> wrote:
: >
: > As to the topic of police powers and the DMV. There is little that
: > can be done, legally, to correct situations where the DMV has taken
: > it upon themselves to suspend or revoce licenses, WITHOUT DUE
: > PROCESS (as is always the case). Quite often a judges decision to
: > re-instate or drop charges that resulted in a suspension are ignored
: > by the DMV, and the individual must then fight the DMV for a correction.
Actually the DMV has a simplified hearing process for many such appeals.
In about 100,000 hearings last year, about 50,000 licenses were restored,
hardly a draconian process. (note that this is the result of the number
of appeals; the number of appealable suspensions each year is about 1
million).
I also object to your placing the blame on DMV for errors in the
records. DMV only takes information from the courts. And DMV cannot
change the information provided by a court, you have to go to the court
for that. The court then forwards the corrected record to DMV. If you
work it through the DMV end, it takes extra time because DMV has to go
the court to get confirmation. If you go directly to the court you can
often straighten out the problem more quickly.
: The same goes true for those wishing to get a post-tow hearing. Everyone
: that I know who's gone to the DMV to get a hearing gets the same line of BS:
: "You'll have to deal with Sacramento." And they think they serve the
: people.
: The regulations plainly state who does the hearings.
There are no such regulations. The *law* says that the municipal court is
to hold the hearings within ten days. DMV does *NOT* hold post-tow
hearings. Nor is it authorized to do so.
: think 10 days is a long time to wait for a hearing while your life's
: blood is draining away in the impound yard. There are several cases that
: say 48 hours max for a hearing to be had.
But in this case the law says within 10 days. Thus other cases are not,
unhappily, relevant.
: The only place for the DMV is in the state defined at section 6017 of the
: R&T code, which a federal area folks.
Wrong. Try the vehicle code, sections 1500 to 1821.
: > Records on CVC violations should be mainted by the judiciay, not some
: > bizarre autonomous branch of the state government that has little or
: > no accountability to the people.
Just how do you propose to do this? Do you want to stay stopped by the
side of the road while the police officer queries over 100 data bases?
Oh, you want to centralize operations? Pardon me, but that is what DMV
does. And the same problems that plaque DMV (bad info in, late
reporting, errors) will occur in any system. As I noted in another post,
if DMV was abolished, it would be quickly reinvented.
The director of the DMV is appointed by the Governor and while it has
legal authority to take actions, as do all executive branches, it's
administration is ultimately the responsibility of the Governor and its
purse strings are controlled by the Governor and the legislature. It is
also constrained by laws and the judiciary. Hardly autonomous.
: > I too, look forward to seeing the costs break-down for the DMV.
: > Perhaps some of us should write and offical request under the freedom
: > of information act. Then we could sue the state when it does not
: > comply.
At 10 cents a page, you are welcome to it, but the several thousand pages
are expensive. For an overview you can ftp to the legislature and get
the overall budget as printed in the state budget.
DMV complies with requests for documents. For example (and a long over
due response to a query from Scott Dunn) the DMV publications unit can
provide a current copy of the internal drivers license manual for about
$50 and the registration manual for about $125.
: That is coming up. If you want to learn more about the Freedom of
: Information Act, and the Privacy act, let me know. I know of a very good
: seminar coming up later this month, here in SoCal. Email me if you want
: more.
The Freedom of Information Act is a federal act dealing only with
federal agencies. The similar law in California is called the Public Records
Act (Government Code 6250, et al). Full text can be found in the
appendix of the Vehicle Code sold for $3 at every DMV office. The 1995
edition is now available.
--
Evan Nossoff
: >By eliminating the unnecessary and reassigning and subordinating the few
: >legitimate functions we can cut the high level bureaucracy where most of the
: >waste occurs. Any government agency has self preservation as its first
: >priority. By splitting the functions and subordinating them to larger and
: >legitimate issues we reduce (but sadly do not eliminate) the trend toward self
: >perpetuation.
What will prevent the agencies that inherit DMV authority from also
acting to protect their turf? No matter how you slice the cake, it's
still a cake. And no matter how you rearrange the bureaucrats, it will
still be a bureaucracy.
Evan Nossoff
:>Evan Nossoff wrote:
: >DMV holds over 100,000 hearings on licenses it has suspended (and for
: >which it has statuatory authority) every year. About half result in a
: >suspension. That sounds like a great dealof due process to me...a 50% rate.
: You mean they can hold these hearings without anyone (like the license
: holder) present? Is that "due process"?
Where do you get this stuff. The license holder requests the hearing and
is present and sometime choses to be represented by counsel.
: Excuse me, but perhaps you should read title 13 of the
: Administrative code yourself. I did, and I don't see anything in there
: about the courts.
Title 13 has nothing to do with post tow hearings, they are spelled out
in the vehicle code. and post -tow hearings are civil actions, not
administrative hearings.
: One more thing, are there any hearings by anybody else before a ticket
: winds up in court? I mean, are there any administrative rememdies that
: are somehow waived when we walk into court? Perhaps the Board of
: Equalization holds a hearing?
Huh? I can't even guess at what you mean here.
dave demartini
It is not clear here whether or not the hearings are held before the
licenses are suspended or after the licenses are suspended. If the
hearing are held before the licenses are suspended there might be due
process. If the hearings are held in protest to a suspension that is
done before the fact, then it is another case of being guilty until
proven innocent and not due process.
Request clarification!
>Evan Nossoff
>evno...@netcom.com
>The Last End User in America
>
>The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent
>DMV policy.
Evan Nossoff tried to make some sort of lame point about 50% of the suspended
licenses are returned after a hearinng.. AFTER. That is _not_ due processes.
As someone who has had alot of experience with suspended licenses in CA, I
can tell you that at NO point was there any due process. In at least 3/4
of the cases, the only time I found out that it was suspended was when I was
stopped (while obeying the law mind you) and informed by a police officer
that I had a suspended license. And of course, from that point on the car
(sometimes) becomes impounded, costing $75.00 for initial paperwork and some
times as much as $15.00 per day (including weekends when you can't get it back)
for storeage. Not to mention _another_ citation, and all sorts of fun stuff
related to that.
Well, that's hardly what any sane person would call due processes. The DMV
never has re-imbursed me for tow/storage fees, when _they_ pulled my license
without any attempt to notify (and in two cases it was _totaly unwarrented!).
Sorry, Evan, your story does match reality. Through statistics all you want,
you know, and I know that stats really mean nothing. And if you don't, you
had better read that little 50 year old book called "How to lie with
Statistics".
The CA DMV is little more than taxation without representation.
Scott Dunn
>:>Evan Nossoff wrote:
>
>Title 13 has nothing to do with post tow hearings, they are spelled out
>in the vehicle code. and post -tow hearings are civil actions, not
>administrative hearings.
Title 13, Article 3.2 HEARING PROCEDURE SEIZURE OF VEHICLES
310.04. Conduct of the hearing.
(a) The department shall fix a time and place for the hearing as
early as may be arranged in the county where the person requesting the
hearing resides, and shall give ten (10) days' notice of the hearing to
the registered owner, the legal owner, and to any other person known
to be claiming an intrerest in the vehicle, except that the hearing may be
set for a different place with the concurrence of the person requesting
the hearing and the period of notice mnay be waived.
I guess not.
>
>: One more thing, are there any hearings by anybody else before a ticket
>: winds up in court? I mean, are there any administrative rememdies that
>: are somehow waived when we walk into court? Perhaps the Board of
>: Equalization holds a hearing?
Since Evan has accused me of "hijacking threads" so that they are talking
about my favorite subjects, I will take this text to start a new thread.
>
>Huh? I can't even guess at what you mean here.
>--
>
>Evan Nossoff
>evno...@netcom.com
>The Last End User in America
>
>The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent
>DMV policy.
Gabor Morocz
In message No. 21538, Evan N. responded to an earlier message that the
DMV does not hold post-tow hearings.
and
In message No. 21551, Scott D. responded to Evan, citing Title 13
California Code of Regulations section 310.04, and alleging that the DMV
do hold post-tow hearings.
Evan is right. The DMV does not hold post-tow hearings. With respect
to the legality of a tow or the legality of the towing and storage
charges, the DMV does not hold hearings. These are civil matters that
are handled by the courts.
Section 212.04 of Title 13 California Code of Regulations (formerly
section 310.04) deals with an etirely different situation, a hearing
held before the seizure of the vehicle to recover delinquent
registration fees. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 9801,
the DMV has a right to collect registration fees that became delinquent.
The delinquncy creates a lien on the vehicle. The DMV has a right to
perfect the lien, obtain a civil judgment in court, and then seize the
vehicle. (Plenty of due process!) Before the seizure, the DMV is
obligated to notify all the interested parties who in turn have a right
to request a hearing. (This is even more due process!) That is the type
of hearing that is described in the cited Code of Regulation section.
It is not a regular tow hearing!
If you need more information, please read Section 9801 of the California
Vehicle Code, it is quite clear.
Yours,
Gabor M.