City, County And Local Government Law Section Present: Fill & Download for Free

Robert Moses was obsessed with public parks.In the early twentieth century, the Progressive Era had engulfed local politics in the country’s larger cities. The Oxford-educated Moses, as the New York City Reconstruction commissioner, had led a largely unsuccessful push to reform the state’s corrupt patronage system.[1]His efforts, however, caught the eye of New York Governor Al Smith, who was elected under a progressive banner. Smith tapped him to be his liaison to the state legislature in 1922.Moses now had the governor’s trust, along with access to the corridors of state power. He decided to focus his reformist zeal on one of the most publicly visible arms of government: the state park system.Photo: Library of Congress ROBERT MOSES - MAS CONTEXTIn 1922, Long Island was largely sectioned off from the rest of the state, ruled by its own local governments and powerfully connected landowners. The few local parks that existed were overcrowded and remote; driving to them was a day-long exercise in frustration.[2]The total appropriation for state parks in 1923 was $30,000. The rest of the parks were owned by private moneyed interests keen on retaining exclusive use of the land.[3] The idea of the public overrunning their fiefdoms was an abomination that must be resisted.After Smith’s election, Moses had spent weeks personally traversing Long Island, noting beautifully unused tracts of land. He madly sketched his ideas for grand bathhouses, immaculately maintained beaches, and scenic picnic areas. He proposed a large parkway (the Northern State Parkway) that cut through the center of Long Island, offering easy access to the oases he envisioned.[4]Arrayed against his vision were powerful opponents: rich landowners with state legislators in their pockets. Moses knew that any proposal would be lost in the byzantine maze of state committees, abandoned to die a slow death.But Moses had two weapons of his own:His unmatched ability to write and draft laws and regulations.The knowledge that state legislators very rarely read the bills they voted on.Image: 1931 planning presentation of Long Island Parkway Robert Moses’ 1931 Planning Map for Long Island Parks and ParkwaysTo accomplish his goal, Moses left behind much of his reformist ideals.To free his hands for the power grab, he shook impatiently from them the last crumbs of the principles with which he had entered public service and for which, during the years of his idealism, he had fought so hard.[5]Moses began writing a bill to establish a State Council of Parks, comprised of all local park commissions. The head of this council would be insulated from public comment, and have a term of office longer than the New York governor.[6]Among many devious sections of the bill was a clause that allowed the Long Island State Park Commission to seize land needed for parks. The Commission would acquire land by condemnation and appropriation “in the manner provided by section fifty-nine of the conservation law.”[7]In 1924, “appropriation” had only one meaning in a legislative context: an allocation of funds by the Legislature. Most legislators - probably all legislators - would, if asked, have said that was the only meaning the word had ever had.And since section fifty-nine of the conservation law had been passed in 1884, most legislators had not read it.But the best bill drafter in Albany had read it - and he knew that in that section “appropriation” had quite a different meaning.[8]This meaning of “appropriation” had its roots in a dispute between New York State and lumber contractors. When lumber companies began stripping forests from parcels of land faster than the state could preserve them, the government struck back with a new law.Section fifty-nine of the conservation law defined “appropriation” as a state official physically walking on the land and declaring the state’s ownership. The owner was told he no longer owned the land, and must speak with the condemnation commission for compensation.This constitutionally questionable act was only intended to remedy this remote circumstance. But the Legislature had never officially repealed it, so it remained on the books.Moses intended to use it.He also slipped in his definition of “parkways,” and ensured that the State Council had the right to operate and build roads for park use. Though county supervisors could reject the location of highways, existing law did not mention “parkways.” Moses could attempt to build his parkway without pesky objections from local leaders.[9]Moses dropped hidden bombs throughout the law, concealing them from the Legislature and even his allies.By the time the “defining” of the terms used in section eight was finished, the Long Island State Park Commission would be empowered, if the act was passed, to write its own laws, hire policemen to enforce them and prosecutors to prosecute them.By the time it was finished, the commission would, if the act was passed, have over its land, land which if Moses had his way would total forty thousand acres, virtually all the powers granted to the City of New York in the city’s charter.[10]Later the same year, the bill was passed with minimal changes. Governor Al Smith appointed Moses as president of the Long Island State Park Commission.[11] This ensured him a seat on the State Council of Parks.Fortunately he had the foresight to stock the commission with his allies. They quickly named Robert Moses as the chairman of the State Council.[12]Photo: Robert Moses State Park statue Statue of Robert Moses in BabylonRobert Moses, after surviving numerous court battles, eventually became the head of twelve departments, many at the same time.[13]Long Island State Parks Commission: President, 1924-1963New York State Council of Parks: Chairman, 1924-1963New York State: Secretary of State, 1927-1928Bethpage State Park Authority: President, 1933-1963Emergency Public Works Commission: Chairman, 1933-1934Jones Beach Parkway Authority: President, 1933-1963New York City Department of Parks: Commissioner, 1934-1960Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority: Chairman, 1934-1981New York City Planning Commission: Commissioner, 1946-1960New York State Power Authority: Chairman, 1954-1962New York’s World Fair: President, 1960-1966Governor of New York State on Housing: Special Advisor, 1974-1975[14]He was never elected to public office.[15] He survived in his own empire much like the feared FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, compiling dossiers on his political enemies and wielding them with devastating effect.[16]For almost forty years, Robert Moses reigned unchallenged as the authority on urban planning in New York. He displaced 250,000 low-income residents in his push to build city-spanning highways, sending them to substandard housing.[17]The extent of his building projects in New York were unprecedented. “He built 13 bridges, 416 miles of parkways, 658 playgrounds, and 150,000 housing units, spending $150 billion in today's dollars.”[18] This influenced hundreds of other urban planners across America, bringing his vision of vehicle-centric roads to the rest of the country.Since his death in 1981, there has not been a more brutally effective American politician.Source:Caro, Robert A. The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. Alfred A. Knopf, 1974.Footnotes[1] Robert Moses | American public official[2] How Robert Moses Shaped The "Long Island," He Misunderstood - ClassicNewYorkHistory.com[3] The Power Broker[4] How Robert Moses Shaped The "Long Island," He Misunderstood - ClassicNewYorkHistory.com[5] The Power Broker[6] The Power Broker[7] The Power Broker[8] The Power Broker[9] The Power Broker[10] The Power Broker[11] Robert Moses | American public official[12] Robert Moses | American public official[13] The legacy of Robert Moses[14] Robert Moses | [15] The legacy of Robert Moses[16] The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York by Robert Caro review – a landmark study[17] The Power Broker[18] Great Cities Need Great Builders

Yes, there were elections. There have been elections for Parliament ever since the Middle Ages. However, only a relatively small number of people had the vote.In a village of 300 or so people, maybe nine or ten would be entitled to vote. So they wouldn't be 'nobles', but they'd be local notables. The kind of prosperous farmers who employed others to work on their land; the kind of men who rode a horse instead of walking, the ones who had a pew at the front of the church at Sunday services; the kind you'd greet with "Good morning, Mr Smith" instead of "Hello there, John".Voting was public; the idea of the secret ballot was a late 19th century innovation. The candidates and the returning officer (a local public official such as the mayor or sheriff) would gather on a platform (the 'hustings') in the town square, there would be speeches, and then each voter in turn would go up on the stage, identify themselves, and announce which candidate they were voting for. This would be written down in the poll book, which was public record.In other words, 95% of the people had no vote, but they did have some influence over the election. It would take a brave man to walk out in front of a hostile crowd and declare that he was voting for an unpopular candidate! Riots and mob violence were by no means unknown.‘Polling’, by William Hogarth, painted in 1758. Note the blue and orange flags standing for the two parties, Tories and Whigs. The wrecked coach in the background is intended as a satirical comment on the state of government in Britain.Parliament had begun in the early Middle Ages as a gathering of the king's chief counsellors; the nobles and leading churchmen of the realm. In 1264 an innovation was introduced where, as well as the barons and bishops who normally attended, each community in the realm was invited to choose a couple of representatives and send them to Parliament as well, to ensure it presented a complete cross-section of the country's opinion.This gradually became standard practice, and by the following century Parliament had become divided into the House of Lords — the original gathering of nobles and chief clerics, who were summoned individually by right of their title — and the House of Commons, the elected representatives of each region and locality.Meeting of Parliament under King Edward I.In the beginning, each organised community was simply asked to choose representatives to send to Parliament; it was left up to them how to select them. This led to a wide variety of different selection methods; in some cities the town council would simply pick its representatives itself, while in others the council might organise an election by all taxpaying residents in the city, or all qualified guild members, or all people owning property above a certain value, or whatever other qualification seemed reasonable to them.Early on, a division arose between urban and rural constituencies. While in the cities elections were organised by the local council, in rural areas they were arranged by the sheriff of each county, who was a royal official. Because of this, elections for 'county constituencies' became standardised on a uniform franchise throughout the country. A law passed in 1430 set out the rules which remained in force until the 1800s. In the cities, however, the 'borough constituencies', there remained a much wider variety of rules and systems to determine which people were eligible to vote.In the counties, the rule established in 1430 laid out that anyone owning freehold property valued at 40 shillings (£2) or more in annual rents would be eligible to vote. These 'forty shilling freeholders' were a comparatively small group of wealthy people in 1430; but the qualification was never revised upwards due to inflation, so by the 1700s a much larger percentage of the population were eligible to vote due to owning £2 worth of land.It is often claimed that women were not allowed to vote; but this is not strictly true. The law did not specify sex, only the value of property owned. True, it was extremely rare for women to own property in their own right -- anything they owned legally passed to their husband on marriage -- but it was at least theoretically possible for a widow or unmarried heiress to own property worth 40 shillings or more in her own name. There are a small handful of recorded cases of women showing up to vote on this basis.This was considered scandalous -- an election hustings was a raucous and often violent scene, no place for a respectable widow -- and even when women did show up to vote, the returning officer might refuse to allow them to do so. Nevertheless, it did very occasionally happen. Ironically, the Great Reform Act of 1832, which greatly increased the number of people eligible to vote, also stated specifically for the first time in English law that voters had to be male. That rule was not lifted again until 1918.‘The Poll’ by Thomas Rowlandson, drawn in 1784. Satire of the controversial election in the Westminster constituency, eventually won by Charles James Fox with the active assistance of his patron and suspected lover, the Duchess of Devonshire (shown right, age 27), against his opponent Sir Cecil Wray who had the support of the Countess of Buckinghamshire (left, age 47).In the towns and cities, as mentioned, there was much wider variation in the franchise. Some boroughs restricted voting to only the wealthiest or best-connected inhabitants, others allowed virtually every resident householder to vote. While to modern eyes the latter arrangement sounds much more democratic and thus preferable, people in the 17th and 18th centuries did not necessarily share that opinion. The idea of 'drunken pot-wallopers' voting in elections and deciding the affairs of state was often mocked. (A 'pot-walloper' was any man who owned a fireplace large enough to boil a pot of water on.)When Parliament was first set up, the royal government simply invited representatives from each major town or city, and each county. However, as time went by this system lost its responsiveness and became fossilised and inflexible. Once a borough had acquired the right to send MPs to Parliament, it would keep that right, even if a thriving city of 15,000 inhabitants in the year 1350 had declined, by the year 1750, into a tumbled ruin inhabited by seven people and a flock of sheep. Conversely, a thriving industrial city of 100,000 people in the year 1750 might have no separate representation in Parliament (it would still be part of the local rural county) because after a while no new constituencies were being created.This problem became increasingly acute during the 18th century due to the rapid demographic change caused by the Industrial Revolution. There was pressure for reform, but this did not take place until 1832 because too many powerful people benefited from the existence of the 'rotten boroughs', as they were called. After all, if there are only seven electors in a constituency -- and the person they vote for is public record -- it is very easy to bribe or bully them into voting for your preferred candidate. Influential politicians were thus said to have one or several Parliamentary seats 'in their pocket' since they could usually pick and choose who would become the MP for that seat.Old Sarum, a mediaeval ruin that, until 1832, still sent two MPs to every ParliamentDuring the English Civil Wars era (late 1640s) the Levellers were a political movement active in the Parliamentary ranks who demanded universal suffrage: that even 'the poorest he that is in England' should have the right to vote, and 'that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government'. However, this was seen as much too radical by the standards of the era, and it would be nearly 300 years before all the demands of the Levellers were eventually met.

A lot of laws are old and outdated. What’s one law you think needs to be changed or added?There is one law I can think of.I was pulled over for a traffic ticket.When you get pulled over, they always ask for three things.Drivers licenseRegistrationProof of Financial Responsibilities (aka Car insurance card)The CA Highway patrol asked me for all three things but on the Registration, I had a copied one and not the original. He demanded the “original” not the copy. I said you don’t need the original. We went back and forth like this 3 times. Then, His “smart-ass” response was, “I’ll just write you a ticket for that also”. I said, “fine do it.”He pulled me over for crossing the double yellow lines, into the carpool HOV lane. I had another passenger so we met the criteria for 2 or more people plus my car was a brand new 2018 Nissan LEAF EV which was allowed in the carpool lane even with 1 person because it’s an EV.Anyway, Well he walked back to his CHP motorcycle and was there for the longest time searching for the code in his CVC (California Vehicle Code) book to write me up. He couldn’t find it so when he came back I only received the ticket for crossing the two double lines.Well, I have a J.D. law degree and one of my skills is to help people fight traffic tickets.So I wrote up my complaint. My argument was as follows.See LA is in Cal-Trans District 7. San Francisco is in Cal-trans District 11. Orange County (OC) is in Cal-trans District 12.In San Fran and OC Cal-Trans permits you to go in and out of the carpool HOV lane anywhere. In LA you can only enter / exit at the broken lines, not the solid double lines.My argument was I had just left OC and entered LA and there was no marker to show where each county line ended and was delineated. Thus I was free to enter the carpool lane since I believed I was still in OC territory. I also said I had a 2nd passenger, my 15-year-old son, AND my car was an approved EV that could travel in the carpool HOV lane even if I was by myself.The traffic court bought my argument and the ticket was dismissed.==============================================Okay here’s the tricky part on where the law is “outdated” and should be removed.It was the part where he insisted I had to have the original registration in the car, in my car instead of a copy.I researched and showed the court that that law was invented in the days “BEFORE” or “PRIOR” to computers in police units and “BEFORE” or “PRIOR” to they had CB radios in police units and before they had copiers or XEROX copy machines.So, back then the police had to see an ORIGINAL registration.My argument to the court was this COP / CA HIGHWAY PATROL was corrupt and wanted to write me a BOGUS ticket on top of the carpool lane violation for not having ORIGINAL registration in my car.I stated to the court that my car had not one, not two, but THREE car video cameras that caught everything he did and everything he said. I had TWO video cameras facing forward, and ONE facing the rear.So my video cameras caught him walk back, get his VC Vehicle codebook and look through it for a good 10–12 minutes before he gave up and never wrote me for the 2nd ticket infraction.My video camera’s audio also caught him lying and saying the ORIGINAL registration was required and not a copy.Years back I had taken a Traffic school class, and it was being taught by a who else? A California Highway Patrol officer. He taught classes to make extra side money.And he taught us, NEVER, NEVER EVER put the original registration in your car. Just make a copy.The reason is “if your car gets towed”. You need the ORIGINAL Registration to get your car out of the Tow Yard or Storage yard. THEY or THAT TOW Facility will “not” take a copy of the Registration only the Original.So now whenever I renew my tags and my wife’s, I always put the tag on the car license plates, then make a photocopy of the registration and put the copy in our 3 cars.I told the court all this.Then I further told the court that back in the day they didn’t have copiers, CB radios, and car or motorcycle computers.PLUS, PLUS, PLUS, he could CLEARLY SEE, that my car was BRAND SPANKING NEW, NEW, NEW. I just just bought the car on March 10th of 2018. It was a 2018 NISSAN LEAF EV. I got the ticket in April of 2018. The very next month.So he (the CHP) COULD clearly see my tags were brand new, then why would he even need to see my registration? Except to harass me and give me a hard time.Furthermore, he could have any time called it in to dispatch to verify it.Note: Also in California, we have had something called TBWD; that’s Trial-By-Written-Declaration; that means you write up your arguments (aka type it up on a computer) as a Trial Pleading or a Brief; albiet they call it your “Declaration” and submit your “verbal arguments on paper”.That’s what I did; that’s what I do for the people I help with traffic tickets. Here’s another Quora answer I gave on how-to-do-that on Trial type Pleading template or format paper available in Microsoft Word or Word Perfect.Stanley Hutchinson's answer to I got a ticket for going 45 mph in a 35 mph when the speed limit was just about to change to 45 mph. Should I just pay the fine or take it to court?Also here is an actual excerpt from my TBWD on this case that I submitted to the court; with all pertinent identifiers removed. Enjoy! I copied and pasted it so all the Indentations are messed up. But read it for the Content. I put a lot of time into these TBWD.“SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELESEL MONTE COURTHOUSE11234 VALLEY BLVD.EL MONTE, CA 91731RE: Citation # HQxxxxDefendant: John Doe | Case: Citation #HQxxxx1vs. California Highway Patrol (CRANE #20988) (name illegible on citation) || Motion for Subpoena: CR-125/JV-525| Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum (order to attend court or| provide documents (Facts not in evidence)| Motion for Pitchess SB1421| Motion to Compel an answer| Motion to Dismiss| Motion to Impeach for Perjury (CA PC141)DECLARATION OF JOHN DOEI, John Doe, declare as follows:1. I am the Defendant in this above-entitled matter. I makeThis declaration in support of my contention that I was wrongfully cited for VC21655. I have personal knowledge of the facts of the matters stated herein.On said day and date of the said citation, 1:05 pm Wednesday 04-14-18. I was wrongfully ticketed by CA Highway Patrol, where this corrupt California Highway patrol officer CRANE (name illegible on citation) cited the driver of the vehicle under VC21655.MOTION FOR SUBPOENA of FACTS to be Entered into Evidence (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)Under the 5th Amendment, I am not under any duty to testify nor provide any neither culpable nor exculpable evidence for the prosecution for this “Strict Liability” citation.I am “Presumed Not Guilty”. Motion to dismiss the ticket is entered.The prosecution has the burden of proof and the prosecution must meet this burden beyond a “reasonable doubt”, not me. I have the right to confront my accuser (Crane) and examined under Direct examination or cross-examined. (Exhibit A. Attachment form CR-125/JV-525.)CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE LAWCA EVIDENCE CODE 115. Except where otherwise provided by law the burden of proof shall be by the preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Here the accuser is the CA State Government witness California Highway Patrol officer Crane (Crane). Motion for Production and subpoena are entered (supra.)(infra.). (EXHIBIT A. Attachment form CR-125/JV-525.)CALIFORNIA CAL TRABS DISTRICTS 12 Orange County and DISTRICTS 4 Alameda Counties HOV rulesCalifornia Highway Patrol’s ARE aware or should be aware that Caltrans Tran Districts 4 and 12 permit ingress and egress from the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) aka Carpool lanes at any point. EXHIBIT B (copy of citation)2003 California Vehicle Code (CVC) Visit the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website, see Appendix A-7 and A-8: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm. Most of the HOV related vehicle code sections are located in Division 11 of the CVC.♦ Section 21460 Double Lines♦ Section 21654 Slow-Moving Vehicles♦ Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles♦ Section 21655.3 Permanent High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes♦ Section 21655.5 Exclusive- or Preferential- Use Lane for High-OccupancyVehicles♦ Section 21655.5(b) Mass Transit and Para Transit Vehicles may use HOV lanes regardless of occupancy♦ Section 21655.6 Approval of Joint Transportation Planning Agency or CTC♦ Section 21655.7 Use of Highway: Public Mass Transit Guideway♦ Section 21655.8(a) Entering or Exiting Preferential- Use Lanes♦ Section 21655.9 HOV Lanes: Use by Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles♦ Section 21714 Three-Wheeled Vehicles: Operation in HOV Lanes♦ Section 22364 Lane Speed Limits♦ Section 22406 Maximum Speed for Designated VehiclesUNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – 14th AMENDMENTUnder the 14th Amendment Right to Due Process and Right of Confrontation. A defendant has no duty to testify, nor any duty to provide Exculpatory evidence where there is a presumption of a negative. That negative is a presumption of ‘not guilty’.Also, under the 14th amendment, I have a right to confront any accuser herein Government witness(s) and demand proof and evidence to meet the burden of proof of what evidence the Government witness has against the defendant.Where there is a failure to provide such evidence to corroborate the allegations by the Government witness a motion to dismiss must be granted by the court for lack of evidence to prosecute. That Motion to dismiss is hereby entered in the interest of justice where the California Highway Patrol office fails to provide the requested motion for production underCR-125/JV-525 Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum (order to attend court or provide documents (Facts not in evidence) as ordered by the Subpoena.)In the interest of justice Motion to Dismiss is hereby entered.QUESTIONS FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERVC 21655The definition of law enforcement includes VC21655–Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation or local authorities to designate specific lanes for vehicles required to drive at reduced speeds. Requires vehicles driving at reduced speeds to use the farthest right lanes.My vehicle is a 2018 Nissan LEAF Electric Vehicle (EV) not a hybrid, But rather a FULL EV. Thus I am permitted to travel in the HOV lane. Furthermore, on that date, I had a passenger in the front seat of my vehicle making my car “ELIGIBLE” to be in the HOV lane. This evidence is self-evident on the citation itself as it lists the Year, Make, and Model of my Nissan LEAF EV.A complaint was also filed with CA Highway Patrol HQ in Sacramento vs. CRANE. (EXHIBIT D) for this violation.MOTION TO IMPEACH FOR PERJURY (CA PC141)Motion for CRANE to be Impeached and charged with Perjury under PC141.AB 1909, Lopez. Falsifying evidence. Approved by Governor on September 30, 2016. Filed with Secretary of state on September 30, 2016.SECTION 1. Section 141 of the Penal Code is amended to read:141 (b) A peace officer who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, or video recording will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.Submitting a traffic citation for prosecution without evidence and without corroborating evidence satisfies this statute signed into law by Governor Brown on September 30th, 2016, and filed with the Secretary of State effective immediately on the same said date September 30th, 2016.On the said date of this citation Defendant, Doe was traveling from Orange County via SR57 freeway HOV lane northbound and Transitioned to SR60 freeway HOV lane Westbound. The defendant was traveling in an Eligible EV vehicle and had a passenger THUS was qualified to enter the SR60 HOV westbound.Orange county district 12 permits entry of HOV lanes “anywhere”. And there is no marker to show where the Orange county line and Los Angeles County line separate.Defendant Doe was wrongfully cited.While stopped Defendant produced:1. A current and valid CA DL# Cxxxxxxx2. A current and valid Registration on a brand new 2018 Nissan LEAF EV. (only 1 month old from the date of purchase)3. A current and valid “proof of financial responsibility” aka “proof of insurance” via 21st Century insurances.4. These are ‘not’ disputed facts.However, corrupt CHP patrolman CRANE, refused to accept the Current and valid registration saying it was a copy, and not an original and he was going to issue me a citation for not having the original IN ADDITION to the VC21655.I verbally disputed that CRANE WAS INCORRECT. The law only requires valid registration. It does not specify the original or a copy.FACTS:FACTS: Defendant was informed by another CHP that the Original Registration should never be kept with the car.FACTS: There is no law that requires the Original Registration should be kept with the car.REASON: If and where the vehicle ever gets “towed” the tow yard will require the “original registration” to get the vehicle out of impound.Vehicle License FeesAn annual license fee is "imposed for the privilege of operating [a vehicle] upon the public highways in this state...." (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 10751.)[6] The amount of this fee "shall be a sum equal to 2 percent of the market value of the vehicle as determined by the [DMV]." (§ 10752.)As originally enacted in the year 1941, section 10753 directed the DMV annually to "compile and publish a list showing the market values... of each class 768*768 of the vehicle subject to the license fee...." (Stats. 1941, ch. 40, § 1, pp. 605-606.) Upon registration, the DMV would use the information in this "rate book" to assign to the vehicle a classification code from which its market value would be determined for the year of the sale and all subsequent years, regardless of any change in ownership. The DMV did not differentiate between vehicles originally sold within California and those originally sold outside the state.In year 1948, section 10753 was amended to require the DMV to determine the market value of vehicles "upon the basis of California delivered prices as established by the manufacturers or distributors in their selling agreements with authorized dealers as of the time the particular make and year model is first offered for sale in California...." (Stats. 1948, ch. 26, § 2, p. 129.) Manufacturers informed the DMV of the "delivered price" on each model, and the DMV entered this information in its rate book. Using a method described in section 10753.2 (enacted in 1948), the market value of each vehicle was determined from this "delivered price" according to a depreciation schedule set forth in the statute.[7] As before, the same classification code was assigned to the vehicle and the same tax was imposed, whether the vehicle was purchased in California or elsewhere.The DMV, however, urged the Legislature to alter the method for determining the vehicle license fee, because manufacturers objected to supplying information regarding prices, thereby causing delays at the beginning of each model year in updating the rate book. In the year 1967, the Legislature amended section 10753 to require the DMV to determine the market value of vehicles by reference to "California suggested base price" (§ 10753, subd. (a)), which was defined as "the retail price of the vehicle suggested by the manufacturer ... as reflected on the price listing affixed to the vehicle pursuant to the Federal Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958...." (§ 10753, subd. (g), as amended by Stats. 1967, ch. 435, § 1, pp. 1647-1648.) The "price listing" is commonly referred to as the "sticker price" of the vehicle.[8] Section 10753 defined California suggested base price to include "destination charge[s]" and the cost of statutorily required 769*769 "emission control devices," but not the cost of factory-installed "accessor[ies]" or "optional equipment."[9] (§ 10753, subd. (g).) The statute further provided: "In the event the [DMV] is unable to ascertain California suggested base price as herein defined ..., the [DMV] shall determine the market value upon the basis of the cost price to the purchaser of the vehicle as evidenced by a certificate of cost...." (§ 10753, subd. (c).)The years stated in the citation supra. Are respectively:1941, 1948, 1958, 1967.These were years “before” the invention of police vehicle radios and computers.Thus on April 14th, 2018, CRANE could clearly see defendants' tags and license plates were brand new and barely 1 month old and CRANE could have also used his radio and motorcycle mobile computer to ascertain the valid and current registration of the defendants brand new NISSAN LEAF EV Vehicle. My vehicle was brand new, purchased on March 10th, 2018, about 1 month and 4 days prior to April 14th, 2018.Yet, on the pretense of ‘not’ having the “original” registration in my car CRANE THREATENED AND INTIMIDATED defendant with an additional citation for not having that original registration.Defendant and passenger observed CRANE walk back to his vehicle and look through the CA VC book for 15 minutes. But he failed to find that code to cite the defendant. When CRANE returned there was no mention of the “failure to have registration” on the citation.Further corroborating evidence the defendant has. Defendants 2018 NISSAN LEAF has not 1, not 2 but 3 audio/video cameras installed for his safety.Two of these cameras face forward and one camera faces to the rear.All three cameras recorded audio and video interaction between Defendant and CRANE. These audio/videos can be produced at trial-de-novo to Impeach CRANE on the Motions stated herein and below.MOTIONS:Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “obstruction of justice” the defendant also has a right to justice.Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “conspiracy” to falsify charges.Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “perjury” PC 118.1 for misquoting the law and threats to falsely issue a citation under color of authority.Motion for Pitchess rule to disclose any other dishonesty or corruption by CRANE to be presented to the court for adjudication. Under SB1421 permitting discovery of Law Enforcement personnel files.Motion to Impeach under Penal Code Section 141 as amended by AB 1909 on 9-30-2016. Signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown and recorded immediately by CA State Secretary. (see Citation below)California Penal Code Section 141CA Penal Code § 141 (2017)(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a person who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter will be wrongfully produced as genuine or true upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a misdemeanor.(b) A peace officer who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, or video recording will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.(c) A prosecuting attorney who intentionally and in bad faith alters, modifies, or withholds any physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information, knowing that it is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years.(d) This section does not preclude prosecution under both this section and any other law.(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 879, Sec. 1. (AB 1909) Effective January 1, 2017.)MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERWhere the Commissioner fails to honor these arguments and finds the defendant guilty of this illegal traffic infraction, Objection is hereby entered for purposes of Appeal. Motion to show cause is hereby entered. Defendant Doe request written explanation for cause for purposes of Appeal.MOTION TO SHOW BASIS or PRECEDENT FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERWhere the Commissioner fails to honor these arguments and finds the defendant guilty of this illegal traffic infraction, Motion to show Basis or Precedent that supersedes the citations quoted in arguments herein - is hereby entered. Otherwise, Objection is hereby entered for purposes of Appeal. Defendant Doe requests a written explanation for Basis for purposes of Appeal.CONCLUSIONNotwithstanding and for all the arguments and reasons stated above and incorporated by reference; I, therefore contend there is more than reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and veracity of the citation and the government record as argued and cited here in.. There reasonable doubt for the reasons, and case law and statutes as cited for dismissing the ticket. In the interest of Justice, I respectfully request that the said citation herein against DEFENDANT DOE be dismissed and the Motion to Dismiss be granted.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing statements are true and correct.Sincerely,JOHN DOEExecuted at:9545 Main StAll American City, CA 90001Dated: January 24th, 2019_________________JOHN DOEAPPENDIX A:http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tm/docs/HOV_Guidelines-English-Edition-Jan2018.pdf♦ HOV Guidelines, 2016 English Edition Appendix A♦ 7 ADDITIONAL HOV INFORMATIONCalifornia Vehicle Code sections relating to HOV lanes: To view the 2003 California Vehicle Code (CVC), visit the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm .Most of the HOV related vehicle code sections summarized below are located in Division 11 of the CVC. Section titles in BOLD indicate official title names as shown in the CVC. The section title in the regular font was included for clarity in describing the HOV related issue.Section 21460 Double Lines The purpose of the solid-white single line on the inside of the double yellow lines on buffered HOV lanes is to permit vehicles to legally drive to the left of the double yellow lines as defined in the provisions of this section. Section 21654 Slow-Moving Vehicles This section requires vehicles, such as those with 3-or-more-axles or vehicles with trailers as defined in Section 22406, to use the farthest right freeway lanes. Therefore, these vehicles cannot use the HOV lanes. Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation or local authorities to designate specific lanes for vehicles required to drive at reduced speeds. Requires vehicles driving at reduced speeds to use the farthest right lanes.Section 21655.3 Permanent High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes After 1/1/87, but before 12/31/87 all permanently designated HOV lanes operating 24 hours a day shall be separated from general use highway lanes by a minimum 4 feet wide buffer.Section 21655.5 Exclusive- or Preferential- Use lanes for High-Occupancy Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation and local authorities to designate specific lanes for HOV preferential use upon completion of competent engineering estimates made of the effects of the lanes on safety, congestion, and highway capacity.Section 21655.5(b) Mass transit and Para Transit Vehicles Enactment of SB 236 on January 1, 1998, permits mass Transit vehicles to use the HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirement. Enactment of AB 2582 on January 1, 2003, permits clearly marked para Transit vehicles to use the HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirement. This section also requires that HOV lane-use comply with posted signs designating the minimum occupancy requirement.Section 21655.6 Approval of Transportation Planning Agency or County Transportation Commission Requires the Department of Transportation to have the approval of the county Transportation commission prior to establishing new HOV lanes.Section 21655.7 Use of Highway: Public Mass Transit Guideway Allows for any portion of a highway to be designated for exclusive public mass Transit use.Section 21655.8(a) Entering or Exiting Preferential-Use Lanes A citation for violation of the provisions of this section, commonly called a buffer violation, carry a minimum fine of $271. APPENDIX A♦ HOV Guidelines, 2016 English Edition Appendix A♦ 8Section 21655.9 HOV Lanes: Use by Ultra – Low Emission Vehicles Website for list of vehicles that meet federal requirements and qualify as ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV) and super ultra-low-emission vehicles (SULEV) in Assembly Bill 71, enacted July 1, 2000: California Air Resources BoardSection 21714 Three-Wheeled Vehicles: Operation in HOV Lanes Prohibits three-wheeled vehicles from using the HOV lanes.Section 22364 Lane Speed Limits Allows the Department of Transportation to post the appropriate speed for designated lanes.Section 22406 Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles By definition in this section, trucks with three or more axles, or vehicles with trailers, are not allowed to use the HOV lanes because they cannot drive the maximum legal speed limit posted on HOV lanes in California. Provisions ofSection 21654 (above) then apply.If you like this answer, feel free to look at some of my other interesting answers.