Automobile in California
Compiled by
Introduction
The right to travel via any means has essentially been lost. Modem society
consists of a ruling class and a slave class. The slave class is generally trained for
a minimum of 13 years at how to be an obedient, high functioning slave. The
highest functioning move on and receive any where from 4 to 15 more years of
training in specialized fields, all of which contain various memes injected by the
ruling class.
Very few people come into contact with the "law", unless it is for
automobile related traffic tickets. The consequence of ignorance of the law results
in the systemic exploitation of the slave class. The ignorance of the slave class is
extorted by the ruling class. Year after year the ruling class imposes more and
more legislation to tax and burden the slave class to the point that the slave class
has no opportunity to learn even the basics of law in order to defend against the
abuses of the ruling class. Some in the slave class manage to find the time to
study law, usually as a result of suffering terrible abuse at the hands of corrupt
Commissioners, Magistrates, and Judges. Some have their children stolen from
them, others have their entire life savings and possessions taken. In my case, I
began researching automobile related law due to being financially tight on
resources yet having an abundance of time on my hands as a result of being bed
stricken from chronic health issues.
This text consists of my appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal regarding
the facts concerning driver licensing in California. I have included certified
copies of the Acts of the Legislature related to the topic of licensing for the
commercial use of the highways. In addition, I have included the numerous
exemptions of those who do not engage in commerce upon the high ways from
the requirements of licensing, the documented evidence that the California
Legislature intentionally obfuscated the intent of the licensing laws, the evidence
that the California Judiciary all receive parts of the fines and fees from traffic
tickets in direct violation of the California Constitutional prohibition of Judges
receiving fines and fees from cases, and additional interesting and useful facts
regarding the right to travel via automobile.
Please spread this text to all who would find it interesting and useful.
Spread word of my case in the 9th Circuit, which the Court can sit on indefinitely
without ruling. If there is more of an outcry for this right and for a ruling on this
case perhaps they will make a ruling. There are billions of dollars in unlawfully
acquired monies involved in this nationwide racket by the Judges in the BAR
association. Many Judges may not be aware of these facts, but if they do learn the
facts that are contained in this document, how do you think they will handle it? It
will effect the retirement of Judges across the land. Could an honest Judge come
out on this issue with out retribution by others?
The only way the right to travel via any means will become a right again, is
if the slave class demands it. How important is it to you that you should be free to
go where you want, how you want, and when you want? Every aspect of your life
will eventually be at the whim of a technocratic ruling class if there is not
sufficient resistance to their tyranny. Even if you don't know any one else who
takes this seriously, don't let it deter you. The general masses are followers. Focus
on what you can do and do it. When there are enough of us doing this then the
rest will follow.
If you find the research that I have taken the time to compile useful and you
would like to donate towards my current and future endeavors, feel free to
contact me at my_experience@safe-mail.net.
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 1 of 64
2
3
4
5
I {-!
~.Uu
,_ j
')
'"
... f11/,
lu l'f
F I L E D - - - - -- - DOCKETED _.,O~AT:=-E- -
INITIAl.
7
8
10
11
Philip C. Bilde
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
v.
14
)APPEAL
15
) APPELLANT'S BRIEF
16
17
18
19
20
Defendants
ORIGINAL
21
Case: 14-55077
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 2 of 64
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF Tfffi CAS ........................................ .. ....................... .................7
Nature of the Proceeding ........... ............................. ............ .. ... .................................. ?
Notice of Appeal................................................................. ...................................... 7
Jurisdiction .... ..................................................................... .......................................7
Nature of the Judgment.......... .......... ........................................................... ........... ?-8
Questions Presented ........... ............ ................................... ............. ...................... 8-1 0
Summary
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 3 of 64
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 4 of 64
California Vehicle Code 310................................ 11, 16, 28, 30, 32, 33, 43, 45,49
California Vehicle Code 12500....... 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 28-37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 49
6
7
APPENDIX
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
3
4
Page: 5 of 64
8
Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925) ........................ ........... ......... 12, 16, 23, 43
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 6 of 64
Ma'at-Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir. 2007) ...............................8, 14, 38
Rosenfield v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.3d 198, 202 (1983) ............................ .37
Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. v. Heaton, 105 CaL 162, 165
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
Case: 14-55077
-oB/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEotry: 6
Page: 7 of 64
Jurisdiction
Bikle brought this action before the United States District Court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985(3), 1986 and the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
28, United States Code, as an appeal from a fmal judgment of dismissal with
prejudice, on December 13, 2013, in the United States District Court for the
10
Central District Court of California, in Santa Ana. Notice of appeal was timely
11
filed, on January 10, 2014, in accordance with Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A copy of the complaint was provided to the District Clerk in order to allow
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 8 of 64
court alleges that all of Bikle's claims, " ... stem from the underlying premise that
because he does not use his vehicle for commercial purposes, he is not required to
have a driver's license." The trial court alleges that a nearly identical 1983 claim
was rejected as frivolous by the Ninth Circuit. The trial court relies upon the
Ma'at-Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir. 2007) case and the California
A 133375, 2012 WL 893879 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2012) for dismissal. Bikle's
charges of conspiracy to deprive Bikle of his due process rights, Fifth Amendment
claims, Ninth Amendment claims and state-law tort claims under supplemental
10
11
12
Questions Presented
13
14
1)
15
16
17
18
a license fee?
19
2)
20
21
Case: 14~55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 9 of 64
3)
described, and the exaction of a license fee from the one and not from
for hire?
10
4)
12
13
5)
vehicles for hire have to provide a peace officer with a driver's license
16
upon demand?
17
19
20
21
15
18
11
14
Assuming (1) or (2) are answered in the affirmative, does the division
6)
Case: 14-55077
7)
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 10 of 64
identification?
8)
for hire does not provide a driver's license to an officer upon demand,
automobile?
a)
10
11
permissive?
b)
12
13
Is the term "may", in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) 12500 (a)
c)
14
15
16
d)
17
18
19
statutory section?
20
Summary of Argument
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 11 of 64
the State of California. It further applied the incorrect law to Bikle. The cases that
the District Court relied upon also misinterpreted the Legislative Acts regarding
driver's licenses. The misinterpretation, by California State Courts, may have been
a result of the vague and over-broad language of the. Califomja Vehicle Code 3 10
and 12500, or it may have been the result of a biased judiciary, influenced by the
fines and fees from traffic tickets which get laundered through local Cow1ty
General Funds before portions are extracted and placed into the Judges Retirement
10
portions of fines and fees. See California Constitution Article 6 Section 17.
11
12
absolutely owned, personal property with out probable cause. Officer Santos and
13
Officer Hayes along with their employing agencies Los Angeles Sheriffs
14
Department, Los Angeles County, and the City of Lakewood in Los Angeles
15
16
travel via automobile, with out obtaining a driver's license, into the privileged, and
17
18
19
20
been defined repeatedly by the Legislature in the acts which create the laws
21
relating to the chauffeur's licenses and operator's licenses, which are conjointly
known as the "driver's license" .
11
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 12 of 64
using the United States Postal Service fraudulently, to convey that criminal
prosecution had been initiated and that a criminal case had been opened against
attorney, who is the only lawfully vested person responsible for initiating a
Bikle is a member of the class of persons who utilize the public right-of-way and
who are not obligated to obtain a driver's license, as can clearly be seen by careful
10
decisions pertaining to the subject. Bikle had the rights to: travel via automobile
11
and to due process pursuant to the 14th amendment. Peace officers are not
12
13
and by conveying that such criminal prosecution was initiated, the officers
14
15
Bikle should be allowed to amend his complaint such that all due process
16
violation claims under the Fifth amendment are properly claimed under the 14th
17
18
Bikle should be allowed to amend his complaint such that all right to travel
19
via automobile claims are properly brought under the 14th amendment. See Buck
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 13 of 64
Court supplemental jurisdiction. Bikle does not expect to have an impartial venue
in the State arena given the potential Judicial biases presented in this appeal.
The District Court dismissed Bikle's complaint on errors. The dismissal with
prejudice should be vacated and the case should be remanded to continue where it
left off.
Summary of Facts
The following is a subset of the alleged facts from the original complaint.
Bikle requests that all of the alleged facts be taken into consideration with this
10
appeal; however, this subset summarizes the core issues on appeal, to wit:
11
12
Bikle was arrested and issued a citation, by Officer A. Santos, for allegedly
13
violating Califmnia Vehicle Code 12500(a) and 16028(c), no driver's license and
14
no insurance, respectively. Bikle informed the Officer that he was not engaged in
15
the business of transportation, that is, transporting persons or property for hire.
16
Bikle informed the Officer that the California Statutes only required those engaged
17
18
19
When prompted for identification, Bikle provided the Officer with a United
20
States Passport, which should have been sufficient for identification purposes. See
21
13
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 14 of 64
owned, personal property, a Ford F-150 with the Vehicle Identification Number
Following this Officer Santos and Officer Hayes conveyed, via the United
States Postal Service, that a criminal case had been initiated against Bikle. The
employers of said Officers, including the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, the
10 City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County, and Los Angeles County, failed to
11
12
13
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
14
15
(A)
This error included relying upon the following cases, in which the
16
involved courts in tum misinterpreted the law: Ma'at-Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x
17
514 (9th Cir. 2007) and Olajide v. California. Department of Motor Vehicles, No.
18
A133375, 2012 WL 893879 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2012). Neither of these cases
19
20
licenses, nor did the involved courts acknowledge California Supreme Court case
21
law which upholds a distinction between the class of persons who engage in the
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 15 of 64
business of transportation versus the class of persons who merely use the roads as
(B)
Vehicle Code 12500 as the California Legislature clearly defined them. "May"
does not mean ''shall". The former is permissive and the latter is mandatory.
The District Court erred by applying the law, which regulates persons who
engage in the business of transportation, to Bikle, who does not engage in the
10
11
getting from one place to another, without direct or indirect compensation. The
12
District Court should have used the classification scheme established by the
13
14
discern that Bikle is a member of the class of persons who are exempted from
15
16
There are other reasons why the District Court's judgement was wrong.
17
The District Court may not be aware of facts that create a strong question as
18
to the ability of the current Califomia Judiciary to act in an impartial manner when
19
20
require a driver's license and those who do not. The California Judge's Retirement
21
Funds both obtain money from the County General Fund, where a judge is seated,
and this County General Fund gets a portion of fmes and fees from "traffic courts"
15
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 16 of 64
which deal with automobile related issues. The California Constitution prohibits
such a scenario to avoid the prospect of creating a biased Judiciary. See California
Ed. 623, 38 A. L. R. 286. it was stated clearly that a citizen who uses the public
highways for profit is engaging in a privileged activity, which the State may
regulate; however, those who do not make a profit from transporting persons or
property for hire upon the public highways have a right to use the road for
vehicular travel. So while the District Court claims that Ninth amenchnent rights
I0
can not be enforced under a 1983 suit, Bik1e still has the right to travel upon the
11
12
13
14
15
and broad. These sections of the California Vehicle Code have been amended to
16
become unconstitutionally over-broad and vague and cannot form the basis of a
17
criminal complaint.
18
Argument
19
20
I.
21
1
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 17 of 64
of the Legislature, the case history. and potential biasing factors for the California
In 1905 the legislature passed, "An act to regulate the operation of motor
carrying out the objects of this act.'' See Notice # 1. In this act the term "chaffeur"
10
means any person operating a motor vehicle as a mechanic, employee or for hire.
11
12
vehicle. The individual would then be issued a number and aluminum badge with
13
that number up upon it, which was to be wom when they were engaged in
14
providing services.
15
In 1913 the legislature passed, "An act to regulate the use and operation of
16
vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; to provide for the registration
17
and identification of motor vehicles and for the payment of registration fees
18
19
prohibit certain persons from operating vehicles upon the public highways; to
20
prohibit the possession or use of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner
21
thereof, and to prohibit the offer to or acceptance by certain persons of any bonus
or discount or other consideration for the purchase of supplies or parts for motor
1
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 18 of 64
vehicles, or for work or repairs done thereon; to provide penalties for violations o
provisions of this act, and to provide for the disposition of fines and forfeitures
fines and forfeitures collected hereunder; to provide for carrying out the objects o
this act and to make an appropriation and to create a revolving fund therefore; and
to repeal all acts or parts of acts either in conformity or in conflict with this act."
See Notice #2. This act retained the purpose of 1905 act regarding chauffeurs. Any
person who operates a motor vehicle and who directly or indirectly receives pay or
any compensation whatsoever for such operation or for any work or service in
10
11
the requirements for a chauffeur license. There were no requirements created for
12
13
14
15
16
17
fees~
Stork:
''The sole contention in this regard is that the Legislature,
without reason and warrant, has made an arbitrary classification
whereby chauffeurs or drivers of motor vehicles for hire are
required to pay a license, while all other drivers of vehicles are
classed as 'operators,' and are not required to secure a license or
pay a license fee ...
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
08/29/2014
10: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 19 of 64
14
15
16
17
18
19
This California Supreme Court case has never been overturned and has been
20
ignored by lower courts in California. The case may be old, but as will be
21
demonstrated, this classification scheme, of those who engage in business upon the
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 20 of 64
highways of the state and those who simply use the highways for purposes o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 21 of 64
1
2
Adults who use their automobiles on the highways and who do not engage in the
license.
In 1925 the legislature passed, "An act to impose a license fee for the
roads and highways in the State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for
certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions hereof and
for the disposition of the amounts collected on account of such licenses; to make
I0
an appropriation for the purpose of this act; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts in
11
conflict herewith." See Notice #4. In this act the term "operator":
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
"
shall include all persons, firms, associa6ons and
corporations who operate motor vehicles upon any public
highway in this state and thereby engage in the transportation of
persons or property for hire or compensation, but shall not
20
These operators are required in section 2 to obtain a license from the board of
21
equalization of the state of California to operate each and all ofthe motor vehicles
which the operator desires to operate. Individuals who do not engage In
21
Case: 14-55077
08/.29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 22 of 64
operator's license."
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
recognized that the state does possess such power with respect
to common carriers using the public highways for the
transaction of their business in the transportation of persons
or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the
Supreme Court of the United States:
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10 : 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 23 of 64
3
4
The High Court indicates clearly the reason for the rule which authorizes state
5
regulation via the licensing of a certain set of persons who use automobiles for the
6
specific purpose of transporting persons or property for hire upon the highways.
7
In 1926 the California Supreme Court provided an opinion in the case of
Bacon Service Corporation v. Russ relating to the issue of using automobiles and
9
who is required to obtain a license. The following are excerpts from the opinion:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 24 of 64
2
3
7
8
10
11
13
14
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10: 9227555
DktEn try: 6
Page: 25 of 64
1
2
3
4
Clearly the California Supreme Comt recognized the classification scheme ofthos
who engage in the business of transportation versus those who use thei
not required to obtain a license in order to use their automobile upon the highway
of the state.
Again in 1926 the California Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of
I0
In the matter of the application of Paul Schmolke for writ of habeas corpus. Th
11
12
13
14
"It is not the type of vehicle, but the peculiar nature of the
business conducted upon and over the public highways, that
justifies the classification of the statute for licensing
purposes." Ex parte Schmolke, 199 Cal. 42, 248 P. 244. (1926).
See also Notice #9.
15
This statement by the California Supreme Court is of the utmost importance with
16
regards to who is required to obtain a license. It is the business of transportation
17
via automobile upon the highways that is being regulated, NOT the non-business
18
use of an automobile upon the highway.
19
In 1937 the legislature passed, "An act to amend sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 o
20
an act entitled "An act imposing a license fee or tax for the transportation o
21
persons or property for hire or compensation upon the public streets, roads an
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 26 of 64
highways in the State of California by motor vehicle and providing that this ac
shall take effect immediately," approved May 15, 1933; to add sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 12, 15 and 21 to said act; to renumber and amend sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13,
14, 16, and 17 of said act; to repeal sections 10 and 15 of said act; relating to the
public highways by motor vehicle and providing that this act shall take effec
immediately." See Notice #5. Section l(a) of the act states, the term "operator'
10
state, either directly or indirectly, but shaJI not mean nor include the following:
11
(1) any person transporting his own property in his own motor vehicle;
12
provided, however, that any such person making a specific charge for sue
13
14
15
upon the highways of the state. Those deemed an operator are the only one
16
required to obtain said license. Again, those who do not engage in business have n
17
obligation to obtain an operators license. Perhaps one can see a pattern at this poin
18
with regards to the separate functional usage of automobiles and the obligations o
19
20
In 1941 the legislature passed, "An act to add Part 4, comprising sections
21
9601 to 10501, inclusive, to division 2 of: and to add section 50010 to, the revenue
and taxation code, thereby consolidating and revising the law relating to taxation
2
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 27 of 64
and the raising of revenue, including the provisions of "An act imposing a license
fee or tax for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation
upon the public streets, roads and highways in the State of California by motor
vehicle and providing that this act shall take effect immediately," approved May
15, 1933, as amended, and repealing acts and parts of acts specified herein." See
Notice #6. Section 9603 states: ''operator" includes: (a) any person engaging in
motor vehicle upon any public highway in the state, either directly or indirectly.
(b) Any person who furnishes any motor vehicle for the transpmtation of persons
10
or property under a lease or rental agreement when pursuant to the terms thereo
11
the person operates a motor vehicle furnished or exercises any control of, or
12
assumes any responsibility for, or engages either in whole or in part in, the
13
14
does not include any of the following: (a) Any person transporting his own
15
16
specific charge for the transportation. This subdivision does not in any way
17
limit any other exemption granted by this section." Chapter 2 of the act imposes a
18
license tax upon operators at section 9651. Chapter 3 requires every operator who
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10 : 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 28 of 64
In 1957 the legislature passed, "An act to add Sections 69.1 and 69.2 to the
Vehicle Code, relating to drivers' licenses." See Notice #7. In this short act the
"operators" license and the "chauffeurs" license are consolidated under the term "
license" includes both an operators and a chauffeurs license!' As one can see,
there are two types of licenses under this term and both of these types of licenses
Individuals who do not engage in the business of transportation have never been
10
In 1959 the legislature passed, "An act to repeal and re-enact the Vehicle
11
Code and to add Chapter 6.5 (commencing at Section 3067) to Title 14, Part 4,
12
Division 3 of the Civil Code and to amend Section 11004.5 of the Revenue and
13
Taxation Code, relating to vehicles.'' See Notice #13 . General provisions within
J4
section 2 indicate that, "The provisions of this code, in so far as they are
15
substantially the same as existing provisions relating to the same subject matter,
16
17
enactments." Section 310 reads, "Drivet's license" includes both an operators and a
18
19
20
21
limits." Section 12500 (a) states, "No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a
highway unless he then holds a drivers license issued under this code, except such
2
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 29 of 64
persons as are expressly exempted under this code." Section 12500 (d) reads as, "It
chauffeur unless he then holds a chauffeurs license Duly issued under this code,
except such persons as are expressly exempted under this code." Clearly, this
entire division is intended for those who engage in the business of transportation.
The division heading is comprised of the two categories of licenses issued to those
who engage in two different types of business of transportation. All of the acts
passed up to this point expressly exempted those who do not engage in the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
' Of first importance in this is the fact that the chauffeur offers
his services to the public, and is frequently a carrier of the
general public. These circumstances put professional chauffeurs
in a class by themselves, and entitle the public to receive the
protection which the Legislature may accord in making
provision for the competency and carefulness of such drivers.
The chauffeur, generally speaking, is not driving his own car.
He is intrusted with the property of others. In the nature of
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 30 of 64
2
3
4
5
6
The classification scheme which distinguishes between those who engage in the
transportation but who use an automobile upon the highways has never been
abrogated.
10
In 1961 the legislature passed, "An act to amend Sections 310, 12500,
11
12502, 12503, 12506, 12510, 12511, 12512, 12514, 12515, 12517, 12518, 12519,
12
12800, 12804, 12811, 12813, 12814, 13100, 13550, 13551, 13802, 14605, 14606,
13
14607, 14900, 16081, 22514, 42230, and the heading of Division 6 (commencing
14
with Section 12500) of, and to repeal Sections 250, 450, 12801, 12812, and 14604
15
of the Vehicle Code, relating to drivers' licenses." See Notice # 14. It is without a
16
doubt that this legislation, and that in the years following, are overly broad and
17
vague and therefore unconstitutional. Section 2 reads, "Section 310 of said code is
18
amended to read: 310. "Driver's license" is a license to drive the type of motor
19
vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is licensed under this code."
20
This amendment obfuscates the original intention of the term which was to
21
encompass both the operator's and the chauffeur's license. Rather than maintaining
a distinction between those who engage in the privileged activity of using the
3
Case: 14-55077
OB/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 31 of 64
highways for commercial purposes and those who use the highways as a matter o
encroachment upon the rights of the people. Section 4 states: "The heading o
encompass. The layman uses the word driver in a manner to describe everyone
transportation and those who merely use their automobile to travel from point A to
I0
point B without transporting persons or property for hire. All of the legislative acts
11
up to this point clearly do not require everyone who uses an automobile to obtain a
12
13
12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway unless he then
14
holds a drivers license issued under this code, except such persons as are expressly
15
exempted under this code." Given the amendments which have occurred here the
16
layman would believe that they are required to have a drivers license in order to
17
use their automobile upon the highway. These amendments do not create any new
18
19
carried down through the decades. These amendments are vague and broad which
20
21
31
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10 : 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 32 of 64
The Legislature passed the following act in 1963, "An act to amend sections
310 and 12500 of the vehicle code, relating to drivers license." See Notice # 15.
Section 310 was amended to read, " 310. "Driver's license" is a valid license to
drive the type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is
licensed under this code." Section 12500 was amended to read, "(a) no person shall
drive a motor vehicle upon a highway unless he then holds a drivers license issued
under this code, except such persons as are expressly exempted under this code.
(b) No such person shall drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is
not of a type for which he is licensed." These amendments do not clarify the matter
10
with which they are concerned. They are broad and vague in nature. The original
11
Acts clearly dealt with individuals who only engage in the business o
12
transportation and exempted those who did not. The result is that it appears as if
13
every individual who uses an automobile is subject to the sections when only a
14
subset of individuals who use automobiles for commercial purposes are actually
15
16
The Legislature passed the following act in 1971 ~ "An act to amend sections
17
305 and 310 of the vehicle code, relating to drivers licenses." See Notice #16.
18
Section 1. states, "Section 305 ofthe vehicle code is amended to read: 305. A
19
"driver" is a person who drives or is an actual physical control of a vehicle ..." This
20
section of code overlaps with the layman's perception of who is a driver. However,
21
section 310 does not accurately reflect the original act and its intentions to regulate
those who engage in the business of transportation. After the 1971 amendment,
3
Case: 14-55077
10 : 9227555
08/29/2014
DktEntry: 6
Page: 33 of 64
section 310 reads, "31 0. "Drivers license" is a valid license to drive the type of
motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is licensed under this
layman would have had a more accurate perception of what a drivers license was
regulated~
rea~
In 1984 the legislature passed the following act, "An act to amend Sections
10
4000, 12500, 12501, and 14605 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles." See
11
12
person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a
13
drivers license issued under this code, except those persons who ate expressly
14
15
The legislature passed following act in 1990, ''An act to amend Sections
16
405, 2936, 12500, and 12804.9 of, and to add Section 14602.5 to, the Vehicle
l7
Code, relating to vehicles." See Notice # 18. Section 12500 (a) was amended to
18
read, "No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person
19
then holds a drivers license issued under this code, except those persons who are
20
21
In 1993 the legislature passed following act, ""An act to amend Sections
39005 and 81033 of, and to repeal Section 81034 of, the Education Code, to
33
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 34 of 64
amend Section 14007 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 21602, 99234,
and 102051 of the Pub] ic Utilities Code, to amend Section 10 1.8 of, and to add
Section 2121 to, the Streets and Highways Code, and to amend Sections 410, 635,
4453, 4461, 4604, 11713.3, 12500, 12502, 12505, 12517.2, 12524, 12802,
15255.1, 15275, 21456.1, 21801 , 22450, 22651 , 22658, 23157, 23161 , 23166,
23168, 23186, 23195, 34500, 34505.1, 34505.6, 35581 , 35780.3, 36305, and
40508 of, and to amend and repeal Sections 12804.9 and 12804.12 of, and to
repeal Sections 12804 and 23157 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation,
10
and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately." See Notice # 19.
11
Again, section 12500 was amended to read, "No person shaU drive a motor vehicle
12
upon the highway, unless the person then holds a drivers license issued under this
13
code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code."
14
Also, in 1993 the Legislature passed the following act, "An act to amend
15
Section 5220 of the Business and Professions Code, to amend Section 44241 of the
16
Health and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 407, 1808.4, 5004.1, 12500,
17
12951, 14601.2, 14601.5, 14608, 14609, 22511.55, 22511.6, 23302, and 40202 of,
18
to add Section 5902.5 to, and to repeal Section 24016 of, the Vehicle Code,
19
relating to transportation." See Notice #20. Section 12500 was amended to read,
20
"No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway, unless the person then
21
holds a valid drivers license issued under this code, except those persons who are
expressly exempted under this code."
3
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 35 of 64
The Legislature passed the following act of 1996, "An act to amend sections
15975 and 29535 of the government code, to amend section 99314.6 of, and to add
sections 130051.21 and 130243 to, the public utilities code, to amend sections
188.8, 348, and 438 of, and to add section 73.3 to, the streets and highways code,
and to amend sections 1801, 4000, 12500, 12800.5, 12804.14, 21212, 22651 ,
23136, 23 137, 23158.2, and 42205 of, and to add Sections 5002.7 and 25282 to,
and to repeal section 32108 of, the vehicle code, relating to transportation, and
declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately." See Notice #21.
Section 12500 was amended to read, "No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon
10
the highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this
II
code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code."
12
The legislature passed the following act in 2003, "An act to amend Sections
13
260 and 15210 of, and to add Section 35103 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to
14
vehicles." See Notice. #22. Section 260 was amended to read, "(a) A "commercial
15
vehicle" is a motor vehicle of the type required to be registered under this code
16
17
18
property. (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the
19
20
vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to chapter 4 (cotnmencing with section
21
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 36 of 64
clearly stated in section 260. This classification is clearly harmonious with the
either and operators or a chauffeurs license. Those who use the highways for
personal profit are not only required to obtain a drivers license for that activity, but
they are required to register their vehicle because it is used in commerce. The
license and registration allows the state to regulate their business activities.
In 2004 the legislature passed the following act, "An act to amend Sections
407.5, 12500, 12509, 12804.9, 21225, and 21235 of, and to add Section 21226 to,
10
the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles." See Notice #23. Section 12500 was
11
amended to read, "(a)A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway,
12
unless the person holds a valid drivers license issued under this code, except those
13
persons who are expressly exempted under this code." Parts a, b, c, d, of Section
14
12500, all use the term "may". Part e, of Section 12500, utilizes the term
15
16
mandatory and may is permissive." Section 12500 reads as permissive with this
17
amendment. One cannot be punished for doing what one is allowed to do by law.
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10 : 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 37 of 64
Conservation Comm., 15 Cal. 3d. 577, 125 Cal. Rptr. 485, 542
P.2d. 645. (1975)
In 2007 the legislature passed following act, "An act to amend Sections
1804, 5002.7, 12500, 128 10.5, 12811, 13005, 15210, 22450, and 22452 of the
Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.'' See Notice #24. Section 12500 was amended
10
to read, "A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the
11
person then holds a valid drivers license issued under this code, except those
12
3
4
5
13
It should be clear upon a review of the legislative acts and case law that
14
persons who use the public highways for private gain by engaging in the business
1.5
16
regulation via licensing, while persons who are adults and who do not use the
17
public highways for private gain are not regulated nor are they required to hold a
18
19
None of the cases relied upon by the District Court gave an exhaustive
20
review of this subject matter. The lower California courts substituted their views
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10 : 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 38 of 64
"The Court may not substitute its views for those of the
San Diego, 121 Cal. App. 3d. 579, 587, 175 Cal. Rptr. 395.
(1981)
The individuals who made claims, in the cases cited by the District Court, that they
were not required to have a drivers license may not have provided the degree o
detail required for the courts that they found themselves in to make a proper
decision, or the judiciary may have been biased by the pecuniary rewards
I0
mentioned in this appeal. The potential failure on the part of those individuals to
11
provide such detail should in no way prejudice Bikle's claims. The District Court
12
erred by relying upon these cases: Ma'at-Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir.
13
2007), Olajide v. California Deparment of Motor Vehicles, No. A 133375, (Cal. Ct.
14
App. Mar. 16, 20 12). The District Court should have relied upon the legislative
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
There are other reasons why the District Court's judgement was wrong.
Any reasonable individual would concur that the following facts cast a
shadow of doubt over the ability of a judge to behave in an impartial manner. A
pecuniary reward exists for all judges in the State of California in the event of a
charge and conviction for all "traffic cases". The pecuniary reward is contingent
strictly upon convictions, and this reward is withheld in the event of the acquittal
3
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 39 of 64
the judges. That is to say, retirement allowances should never be tied directly to
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Penal Code 1463 .22 shifts excess and fixed amounts of moneys, from convictions
18
ofCVC 16028, into the general fund described in CVC 42201 (a):
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
1
2
3
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 40 of 64
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The following statute would route the fines from a conviction of charg
12500(a), a misdemeanor, directly into the general fund:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10 : 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 41 of 64
The California Government Code (GC) 75100 establishes the Judges' Retiremen
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Both GC 75101 and GC 75600 take moneys from the county general fund, whic
14
are then allocated to both the Judges' Retirement Fund and the Judges'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 42 of 64
System II, and out of the General Fund he or she shall transfer
monthly into the Judges' Retirement System II Fund a sum
equal to 18.8 percent of one-twelfth of the aggregate amount of
those salaries. [Emphasis added].
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 43 of 64
that individual is exempted by the legislature and has never been required by the
II.
Bikle had the right to travel and transport his property upon the highways by
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Bikle has never made the highways his place of business by using them to
transport persons or property for hire.
15
16
"To punish a person because he has done w hat the law plainly
allows him to do is a due process violation "of the most basic
sort." Bordenkircher v. Hayes.434 U.S. 357, 363.
17
18
19
Bikle was punished for doing what the law allowed him to do.
20
21
broad with regard to who is a member of the class of persons being regulated and
43
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 44 of 64
who is not being regulated. It is also vague and broad with regard to the use of the
These statutes are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague and cannot form
the basis of a criminal complaint.
statute violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This concept is
known as void for vagueness. Vagueness is a subject of both constitutional law and
10
criminal law. It is taught in every law school in this country and has been for the
12
Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) and Connally v. General Construction Co., 269
13
U.S. 385 (1926). In Connally a statute was held to be fatally vague. The Supreme
14
Court said:
15
16
17
18
19
20
In Grayned v. City ofRockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) the Supreme Court stated:
21
'rlt is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void
Case: 14-55077
3
4
5
6
7
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 45 of 64
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
45
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 46 of 64
1
2
CONCLUSION
Bikle requests that the order for dismissal with prejudice be vacated and that
this case be remanded to the lower court with an order to allow Bikle to make the
off. The County of Los Angles, City of Lakewood, and Los Angeles Sheriffs
Department have failed to adequately train their employees and Bikle shouJd be
allowed to pursue damages for this negligence. Bikle requests that this court order
10
who do not engage in the transportation of persons or property for hire upon the
11
highways from obtaining a driver's license. Bikle also requests that this court grant
12
13
14
Respectfully Submitted,
15
16
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 47 of 64
ADDENDUM
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
16
20
21
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 48 of 64
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
J3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"A judge of a court of record may not practice law and during
the term for which the judge was selected is ineligible for public
employment or public office other than judicial employment or
4
Case: 14-55077
2
3
4
08/29/2014
10 : 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 49 of 64
personal use.
6
10
California Vehicle Code 12500:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
2
3
08/29/2014
10 : 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 50 of 64
customers.
(d) A person may not drive a motor vehicle or combination of
vehicles that is not of a type for which the person is licensed.
(e) A motorized scooter operated on public streets shall at all
times be equipped with an engine that complies with the
applicable State Air Resources Board emission requirements."
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case: 14-55077
ID: 9227555
08/29/2014
DktEntry: 6
Page: 51 of 64
2
3
DATE0: _ __
Fll.ED-::SOUTHERN DIVISIONT
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COUR
DEC I 3 2013
\_'2--_
_1..>
_ _
r_
>_-r~'""""-
-IW\J
DEPUTYCLEHK
DEPUTY
6
7
10
11
PHILIP C . BIKLE,
12
13
14
Plaint iff,
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
PREJUDICE
vs.
OFFICER A. SANTOS et al . ,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
fares no better.
23
This one
24
25
26
27
28
state-law fraud.
(See compl.
~~
6, 75- 8 9, 90 - 95.)
1
He names as
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 52 of 64
1 defendants Deputy Santos, LASD Deputy Cathy Hayes, the LASD, the
(Id. at 28-29.)
10 No. EDCV 11-0707 - SVW (MLG), 2011 WL 5827958, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May
11
12
13
See Neitzke v.
15
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6, 109 S. Ct . 1827 1 1832 n. 6, 104
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
marks omitted)) .
23
24
25
26
{"A paid
27 . (Compl.
28
~ 16.)
Case: 14-55077
ID: 9227555
08/29/2014
DktEntry: 6
Page: 53 of 64
driver.
(Id . , 20.)
2
3
4
6
7
(Id. ~ 29.)
(Id.
,~ 24-25.)
(Id .
10
1l
12
13
14
15
16
17
appeared
18
Plaintiff.
19
(Id. , 42.)
prosecution
had
'Not ice of
Officer
initiated
it
against
21 law."
22
23
24 Appear .
25
26
( Id. ~ ~ 9 , 4 3 - 4 4 . )
27
28
3
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 54 of 64
(Id. , , 75-84 . )
11
(Id. ,, 90-95 . }
12
under the Fi fth Amendment for all their actions, which allegedly
13
.14
15
16
17
18
19
supervision.
20
DISCUSSION
21
22
23
from the underlying premise that because he does not use his
24
25
26
27
28
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 55 of 64
(See id . ,~ 60-62.)
driver's license.
Id. at 514.
The
10
11
be granted.
12
13
103 .
14
15
16
17
18
Review of the briefing in Ma' at-Ra makes clear that I"la' at-
Appellant's or
The
20
21
See Olajide
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
ID: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 56 of 64
lay behind the conspirators' action, and (2) that the conspiracy
1985(3).
Bray v . Alexandria
10
Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S . 263, 267-68, 113 S. Ct. 753, 758,
11
13
14
v . Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th Cir. 2004)
15
Olsen
16
17
18
19
20
treatment.
21
120 S. Ct. 1073, 1074, 145 L. Ed . 2d 1060 (2000); see also Barren
22
23
24
L.A. Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988)
25
26
27
28
requirements .
See Karim-Panahi v.
(affirming
Case: 14-5507 7
ID: 9227555
08/29/2014
DktEntry: 6
Page: 57 of 64
fail because "[t)he Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and
governments."
Cnty. of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002).
10
11
12
dri ve a motor vehicle, see Miller v . Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06
13
(9th Cir. 1999), and in any event the Ninth Amendment does not
14
15
16
States, 944 F.2d 483, 490 (9th Cir. 1991); Preskar v. United
17
18
19
20
(recommending
21
22
dismissed as well.
23
24
25
26
27
28
u .s.c.
1367.
{9th
If t he f ederal claim is
Case: 14-55077
08/29/2014
10: 9227555
DktEntry: 6
Page: 58 of 64
1 well.
DATEP:
DAVID 0. CARTER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
Presented by:
15
JEAN ROSENBLUTH
16
Jean Rosenbluth
U.S. Magi strate Jud ge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-1
AUG 2 8 2Dl~
3
FILED
DOCKETED.
4
5
Page: 1 of 14
DATE
INITIAL
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #1
19
20
21
Defendants
~W
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-1
Page: 2 of 14
Bilde, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to regulate the
7:
o~ this act."
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
816
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-1
Page: 8 of 14
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.
CHAPTER DCXII.
An act to 1eg1date tlte opemticn" of motor vehicles on public
hig111Ways, ancl making a1~ approp1'iation for the purposo
of ca,rying cmt the objects of this act.
[Approved March 22, 1905.]
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
TIDRTYSfXTH SESSION.
DktEntry: 5-l
Page: 9 of 14
817
Subdivision 2. 'l'he secretary of state shall thereupon file Rt'gisua. h'IS offi ce, reg1ster
.
a vof11efe.
\lull of
such statement m
sueh mo t or veh'1c1e lll
book or index to be kept for that purpose, and assign it a
distinctive number.
Subdivision 3. The secretary of state shall forthwith on ~egtstra
such registration, and without other fee, issue a.nd deliver t o lson seaL
the owner of such motor vehicle a seal of aluminum or other
suitable metal, whicb: shall be circular in form approximately
two inches in diameter, and have stamped thereon the words
11
Registered motor vehicle, No.---, State o:f Californ-ia,"
with tl1e registration number inserted therein; whjch seal
shall the1eafter at all ti:tnes be conspicuously displayed on the
motor vehicle, to which such number has been assigned.
Subdivision 4. If the vehicle has been previously regis- 11 \ebicle
tered, the certificate issued thereon shall be returned to the ~~:v~~;~l
secretary of state and in lieu thereof such secretary shall issue r eglsterc:L
to said owner a. 1:egistration seal containing the number of
such previous registration upon payment of a fee of one dollar. Upon the sale of a motor vehicle, the vendor, except a
manufacturer or dealer, shall within: ten days, return to the
secretary of state the registration seal affixed to such vehicle.
Subdivision 5. Every motor vehicle shall also at all times Number
have the number assigned to it displayed on. the back of such ~=~~~e
vehicle in such manner as to be plainly visible, the numbers dis~tar:d0 t
to be in ata.bic uwnerals, black on white background, each not ~~bi!J~.
less than three inches in height, and each stroke to be of a
width not less than half an inch, and also as a part of such
number the abbreviated name of the state in black on white
ground, such letters to be not less than one inch in height.
Subdivision 6. .A manufacturer of or a dealer in motor Mo.nnrac
vehicles shall register one vehicle of each style or type man- ~~~~~~0io
ufac~ured or. deal~ in by him, ar1d be entitled to as many ~~~~~~~le
dupllcate -reglStrat10n seals or each type or style so manu- and I1$ d t
a.s h e may d es1re
on payment of an a dd'1- enttt
e o
f actured or dealt m
clu~licate
tional fee of fifty eents for each duplicate seal. If a 1:egis- en
tration seal and the corresponding nnrnbel' shall thereafter
be affixed to and displayed on every vehicle of such type or
style as in this section provided, while such vehicle is being
operated on the public highways, it shall be deemed a sufficient compliance with subdivisions one, three, five and eight
of this section) until suc.h vehicle shall be sold or let for hire.
Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to apply to a Whe n tot
motor vehicle employed by a manufacturer or dealer for to app y.
private use or or hire.
Subdivision 7. No motor vehicle shall be used or operated P ir.fiUoua
upon the public highways after thirty days after this act ~:m~~r.
takes effect whleh shall display thereon a. registration seal or
number belonging to any other vehicle, or a fictitious registrat ion seal or number.
Subdivision 8. No motor vehicle shall be used or operated !~:1 ~g1~
on the public highways after thirty days after this act takes o~~fatet
effect) unless the owner shall have complied in all respects :es,~ou
52
Case: 14-55077
818
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-1
Page: 10 of 14
STATUTES OF CALJFORNU.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-1
THIRTY-SIXTH SESSION.
Page: 11 of 14
819
..
Case: 14-55077
820
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-1
Page: 12 of 14
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.
except as herein provided, in any way affecting the registration or numbering of motor vehicles or prescribing a slower
rate of speed than herein specified at which such vehicles may
be operated, or the use o the puplic highways, contrary or
inconsistent with the provisions of this act; and all such
ordinances, rules or regulations now in force are hereby
declared to be of no validity or effect; provided, how eve,, that
.B.a.te of
the local authol'lties of incorporated cities and counties, cities
~E;~~a.t~:e and towns may limit by ordinance, rule or regulatjon herebdy loclll or after adopted the speed of motor vehicles on the public hightnances, ways, on conat
.:1~
.
provided.
1 wn t h at sue b orwnancft,
r ule or regu1atwn
shall also fix the same speed limitation for all other vehicles,
such speed limitation not to be in any case less than one mile
in six minutes and on further condition that such incorporated
city and county, city or town shall also have placed conspicuously on each main public highway where the boundary
of such municipality crosses the same and on every main
highway where the rate of speed changes, signs of sufficient
.size to be easily readab1e by a person using the highway, bearsigns on
ing the words "Slow down to - - miles" (the rate being
ft~~~ti.
inserted} and also an arrow pointing in the direction where
t he speed is to be reduced or changed, and al'3o on further
condition that such ordina.n,ce, rule or regulation shall fix tbe
penalties for violation thereof similar to and no greater than
those xed by such local autl10rities for violation of speed
limitation by any other vehicles than motor vehicles, which
penalties shall during the existence of the ordinance, rule or
regullttion supersede those specified in section six of this act,
and provided f1J.rther that nothing in this act contained shall
be construed as limiting the power of local authorities to
make, enforce and maintajn further ordinances, rules or regl.Uation.~ affecting motor vehicles which are offered to the
public for hire.
Subdivision 4. Local author itjes may, notwithstanding
"R$te of
.:peed in
the
provisions of this act, make, .enforce and maillta.in such
-public
pa.rks.
reasonable ordinances, l'Ules or regulations concerning the
speed at which motor vehicles may be operated in any public
park or parkways, but jn that event, must be signs at each
entrance of such park A.Dd along such parJ{way, conspicuously
indicate the rate of speed permitted or required, and may
exclude motor vehicles from any cemetery or grounds used
for burial of the dead.
Civil suits
Subdivision 5. Nothing in this act shall be construed to
f~le~.
curtail or abridge the right of any person to prosecute a civil
suit for damages by reason of injuries to person or property
resulting flom the negligent use of the highways by a motor
vehicle or its owner or his employe or agent.
f:'~u;iateSEC. 5. Subdivision 1. Every person hereafter desiring
~\~~~s:~~- to operate a .motor vehicle as a chauffeur shilll file in the office
tar7e of
of the secretary of state, on a blank to be supplied by such
Btu b y.
secretary, a statement which shall include his name and address
and the trade name and motive power of the motor vehicle
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
THIRTY-SIXTH SESSION.
DktEntry: 5-1
Page: 13 of 14
821
tton seal o 1
such reg.1.:s~1a
an d de)"1ver t o cbe.uJteur.
such chauffeur a badge of aluminum or other suitable metal
which sh all be oval in form, and the greater diametet of
which shall not be more than two inches, a.nd such badge shall
haTe stamped thereon the words: ''Registered chauffeur,
No. - --,State of California,'' with the registration number
inserted therein; which badge shall thereafter be worn by such
chauffeur pinned upon his clothing in a conspicuous place at
all times while be is operating a motor vehicle upon the public
highways.
Subdivision 4. No chauffeur, having registered as herein Sel\1 no~ to
. any 0ther person to Wear auoll1er.
bo worn by
prOVl ed , Shall VO1untar1.lY permit
his badge, nor shall any person while operating a motor vehicle wear any badge belonging to another person, or a fictitious
badge.
Subdivision 5. No 'person shall operate a motor vehicle as Vehlolc
~.... operuted
uottobe
a. -'I.;.Uauffem: upon t h e publ"lC hig h ways a f ter t b"u'ty d a.ys a.1.wl'
this act takes effect, unless such person shall have complied in ~i; 1~h~~~!n
all respects with the requirements of this section.
'
Case: 14-55077
822
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-1
Page: 14 of 14
STATUTES OF CAr.fFORNlA.
d ge or court, an d f rom t h e
of t b e peace, or po11ce JU
amount realized upon such sale, a Rttm equal to the maximum
fine for the offense charged shall be disposed of in like manner, and the surplus, if any, after deducting all expenses
incurred in keeping or sale of such motm vehicle be returned
to such owner on dema.nd, but no such forfeiture and disposition of such security shall in anywise i'mpair the jurisdiction
of such justice of the peace, police judge or court to bear and
determine any such charge made against such owner, or to
inflict, upon conviction thereof, any punishment prescribed
by this act.
'Fees re SEc. 7. The amount of fees received by the secretary of
ceive<\ by
aecretary state, as in this act provided, shall be paid into the state
or sto.te,
treasury, to be paid into the general :fund of the state.
dsspo
slt\ou of.
SEc. 8. There is hereby appropriated out of any money
Appro
in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated, the ~urn of
pri&tion,
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) , for the purpose of
carrying out the objects of this act, to be used by the secretary
of state in the employment of the necessa.ry clerk or clerks;
the purchase of the necessary stationery, books, and posta.,ooe;
for the necessary in.cidental ex.penses; for the purchase of the
necessary seals and badges; for printing, ruling, binding, and
all other work performed and materials used by the state
printing office, to be used during the balance of the fifty-sixth,
and during the fifty-seventlt and tifty-ei~llth fiscal years. The
state controller is hereby di1:eeted to draw his warrant for any
claim against said sum, tbe same having been approved by the
state board of examiners, and the state treasu1'er is hereby
directed to pay the same.
SEo. 9. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent hel-ewith or
contrary hereto are, so far as they are inconsistent or contrary, hereby repealed.
SEc. 10. '!'his action shall take effect immediately.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 1 of 25
AUG 2 3 2014
3
flU!>
~----~~--~=DATE
INITIAL
4
5
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
)NOTICE #2
19
20
21
Defendants
@~Y!
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5~2
Page: 2 of 25
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to regulate the
use and operation of vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; to provide
for the registration and identification of motor vehicles and for the payment of
registration fees therefore; to provide for the licensing of persons operating motor
vehicles; to prohibit certain persons from operating vehicles upon the public
highways; to prohibit the possession or use of a motor vehicle without the consent
of the owner thereof, and to prohibit the offer to or acceptance by certain persons
10
11
parts for motor vehicles, or for work or repairs done thereon; to provide penalties
12
for violations of provisions of this act, and to provide for the disposition of fines
13
and forfeitures imposed thereon; to provide for the disposition of registration and
14
license fees, fines and forfeitures collected hereunder; to provide for canying out
15
the objects of this act and to make an appropriation and to create a revolving fund
16
therefore; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts either in conformity or in conflict
17
18
19
20
21
tt;k( ~
f'/:)/f'f
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
0
FOHTJJ:;Tll
Page: 8 of 25
639
SESSIO~.
~fny
31, llJ13.
Wi
follows:
SEO'riON 1. 'l'l1e word~ nn<l p hrnses nsed in this act shall, f)(Ouifor the purposes of this net, lmles't the same be contl'ary to or tll~.
inconf;istcnt wH.b the contc.."Ct, he construed as follows: ( 1)
"motot vehicle" shaH include nU vehicJt)~ twopelled nthe1wiRe
than by mnsculor power. execpt Ruch vehicles ns .run upon
rails or tracl,s; (2) "nutomohile, shnll iueludc nil motor vebi.
cles exc('pting motorcycles; (3) .,motorcycle" sl1a1l include ull
Case: 14-55077
640
'Ddlnl
tiona.
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
STATCTE.<; OF
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 9 of 25
C.AiiiFOR~IA.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 10 of 25
641
SEC. 2. Fire engines and fire patrol apparatus, police ~e C!Dpatl'ol wagons, municipal or county ambulances and such self :'(e~t!J~
propelling vehicles ns arc used neither for the conveyance ol
persoDs for hire, plPnsul'e. or busin~s, nor for the transportation of freight, such us road rollers, street or road sprinklers
und traction engines. are excepted from the provjsions of this
a<!t. except where otherwise expressly provided
SEc. 3. Every owner of n motor vchic:lc which shall be Avs,llelloporatm.l or driven upon the pul,lic highways of this state shall ~C::J~!
for t'ttch motor vehicle owned, except as herein otherwise ex- trfft n~
prcssly provided, cause to be filed by mail or otherwise with the :en~~~r:/
state t1onsttrer or his duly authorized agent, an application for
registration on a bbmk to be furnished by the state department
of engineering for that purpose, containing, in addition to such
otlter particulars as may be required by the said department,
a statement of the name, place of residence and address of the
applicant, with a brief descrjption of the motor vehicle, including the name of the maker, the nwnbcr, if any, affixed by the
maker, the character of the motor power and the amount of
sneh motor power stated in figures of horsepo'\vcr; a.nd with
such application shall be deposited the proper registration fee
as provided in secti-on seven of this act.
s~o. 4. Upon tbe receipt of an application for registration Applfi'Rof a motor vehicle ns provided in this net, the state tl'eusul"er !!7ft~~~s
slmll transmit the snme to the said department with the en- ~~~r~t em
dot'Scmcut thcrE'On that tl1e fee required by section seven of gtnearJng.
this act lta" been paid to him or his duly authorized agent and
thet('npon U1e Raid depArtment or its duly authorized agent, if
sntisiiccl that the proper fee hus been paid, shall file such applirnt.ion nnd shnll nlphnbcti~nl.ly, and also numerically, register Veblrlt's
such motm vehicle or vehicles with the name, residence and registered,
busiucss nuclrt>S.C~ oi the owner, mauufactn.rer, or dealer, a.s tllc
cnse mny be, together with the facts stated in such application,
in a book Ol' on index cards to be ltept for the purpose under a
distinc1 ive Dllmbcr nssigoed to Rltch motor vehicle by the said
deparhucnt or its duly authorized agent, which book or index
card51 shall be open to inspec:tion by the public during reasonable busines.CJ hours.
S1ec. 5. Upon the filing of such application and the pay- "Ntmlber
ment of the fees provided in this act, the said department or its ~!;.~;~cb
dul.v authorized agent shall assign to such motor vehicle a
distinctive number, nnd shall issue and deliver to the owner or
applicant a seal of aluminum, or other ~nitable metal. in such
form M may be selc<'ted by the said department, not les.~ than
two iuc~hcs in its shortMt diameter, having stamped thoreon the
word~ "Ht~gistered )I otor Vehhle No. - , Cal., 19-, '' With soat.
the registration nun1ber and the year for wnicl1 such seal is
iR~ued inserted ther~in . the form of which scnl shnll be unifortn
for any 011e year, and may be altered by the said deportment
from yeur to year; 'd1ich seal sbnll thereafter at all times be
<'Onspicnously displ~yed on tl1e motor vebi<'lc to which the
number has been assigned; provided, furtluw, that in the event Duplicate.
41
Case: 14-55077
642
Annual
n;!~ru-
Fees.
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 11 of 25
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 12 of 25
POB'l'IE'l'H SESSION.
Case: 14-55077
644
RcfUIGl to
register
unsafe
maeh.incs.
power.
Etpl~ion
~ri~on:
General
dlstln-
gulshJo~r
mark for
dealers.
!<lot 1"-
pJicabte to
nonrl'Sf
dents.
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 13 of 25
Si'ATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.
ment shall furnish without charge to every person whose automobile is registered as aforesaid, who shall apply therefor
two number plates of suitable design, each number plate to
have displayed upon it the register number assigned to such
vohiele, and one numbet plate of suitable design shall Jikewi~e
be furnished by the said department for every motorcycle.
If the said department shall determine at any time that for
any reason a motor vehicle is unsafe or improperly equipped
or otherwise unfit to be operated, it may refuse to register such
vehicle, and said department may fo1 a like reason revoke any
registration alr~ady recorded. 'fhc horsepower of every automobile sought to be registered shall be determined by the said
department, and such determination shnll be final and concluJive. The registration o every motor vehicle shall expire at
midnight upon the thirty-first day of December in each year.
S::sc. 9. Every manufacturer of or deal~r in motor vehicles
may make application to the state treasurer or his duly authori1..ed agent, by mail or otherwise, upon a blank provided by the
department of engineering for a general distinguishing num~
ber or mark, instead of registering each motor vehicle owned
or contro1led by him, and with such application shall l>c
deposited the proper registration fee, as provided in section
seven of this net; and the said department m.'ly grant the nppl ieation, if satisfied of the facts stated in tl1e applicationt nud
issue to the applicant a certificate of registration containing
the name and business address of the applicant and the general distinguishing number or mark assigned to him, and made
in such form and containing such further informntion as the
said department may detern1ine; and nil :motor vehicles own<'.i
or controlled by such manufacturer or dealer shall be regarded
as registered under such general distinguishing numbe-r or mark
nntil sold or let for hire or loaned for a period of more tlum
ten B\1ooes.c:;ive days. The said department shall ful."nish transportation charges to the address of any applicant within the
state prepaid, without charge to every manufa<"turer o.f or
dealer in automobiles whose vehicles are registered in accordance with the provisions of this section :five pairs of number
plates of suitable design, the plates to lmve displayed 1.1pun. tbem
the register number which is as.~igned to the motor vehicles of
such manufacturer or (ll'nlnr, 'Yitl1 a different letter or letters
or mark on each pnir of nn.mbe1 plntcs.
SEa. 10. The provisions of this act, whether hereinbefore
or hereinalter contained, relative to registration and the display of registration or license numbers, sball not apply to n
motor vehicle owned hy a non-resident of this state who is
only temporarily within tl1is stnte, other than a fotcign corporation doing business in tlJis state; provided, that the owner
thereof shall have eomp1ied with the pl"ovisions of the law of
the foreign country or state of his residence relative to moto'l"
vehicles and the registration and operntion thereof, nnd shall
conspicuously display upon said motor vehicle, while operate<!
upon the public high,vays of this state, his registration num-
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
FORTIETH SESSION.
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 14 of 25
645
Case: 1~55077
646
Oo motor-
eycles.
Mw.l8,
rtc,, on
t,irl'.ll.
Ohaln11.
ltnftlem,
ate.
Intoxfcnted
drivers.
Owner's
ronaent.
Chaurrenrs
muat be
llecoscd.
OJ"'Prntlou
on hlghwuy,
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 15 of 25
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
FORTIETH SESSION.
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 16 of 25
647
travel on tlte right hand sid~ of such highway. When two v~hiC'les
vehicles arc passing each other in opposite directions they ~f.a~~Ftc1n
shall have the ri~llt of way, and no other vehicle to the rear d rc.:tlnnf'.
o.f either of such two vehicles shall pass or attempt to pass
such two vcllicle.~, and on all occasions the driver or operator
of nny v~hic]c, in or upon any pnb1ic highway shall travel
npon the rigltt half of sneh highway when the road ahead
on the left-lHmcl side is not clear and unobstructed !or at
least one hnndred yard~. nnd for the purposes of this section
tl1c te1m "vehicle" Rhnll include every wagon hack coach "Whic-JC'''
. h-can,
-+
b'1cycl,c, tr1eyc
1'e, aut'omob'l
carlJnge>,
omm'bns, pus
1 e,'di!Jluo<l.
sleigh, or other conyeynnce, except baby carriages, railroad,
street and inte1urbnn railway cars, in whatever mnun<-r or by
whntcver foJcc or po\Ver the Sttme may be ridden, driven or
propelled, whicl1 is or may be used for or adapted to ple118nre
riding or the transportation of passengers, baggage, mcrchandi<~e Ol' freight: upon the highway.
(b) Vehicles proct-edin~ in opposite directions shall pass
cuc:h other to the I"ight, gidng as nearly ns possible 011e half
tlle l'ond to ench.
(c) Vehicles ovcrtoldng other vehicles proceeding in the l'nl!,.tug
~nme direction shall pnss to the left thereof and shall not again ~'h::~.~o.
drive to tl1c right until ren."ona1J1y clear of sneh overtaken
vehicle.
(d) It shall be t1lc d11iy of the driver, rider or operator of a Tllth ..,,
vehicle about to be oyertnken to give way to the right in favor ~~~~~.
of the overtaking vehich, on suitable and nudihlc signal being
given by or on beb~lf or the opelator, driver or other person
in cbargoe a11d control of such overtaking vehicle if sncb ovcrtaJdng vehicle he a motor vehicle.
( o) Excepting where conttullnd by snch traffic or<linRnee.~ or M lntc-rrc~loUons ewtetcd ly Joenl authotif.i~..s ns me permitted under~::~~~~~
tl1is act vehicles approaching an inte1'8ecting road, street or
highway sht\11 be 11mler control by t1JC operntots thereof sons to
permit tho 'ehicle on tl1e rigl1t oi the vcbielc approaching to
first cross such intersecting road. street or highway.
(f) It shall be the duty of the pe1~on operating or in charge l-ll:n!'' "r
<f an o,ertaking vehi('le to sound andible and suitable signal ~:.,:;:~::::
before pnssin~ a vehicle ptocectling in tl1c same direction.
(g) .AU vel1icles appro~ching an inteTSection of a street. road Tumln.:
. t
}
. t en t10n of turmng
.
tl1Cl'eat s h-11
t urn- .!!t'<'Uons.
nt lntc>ror h 1~r1wn~,
Wit
1 t 11e m
All m
ing to the tight keep to the 1iJr11t of the center of such intersection and in turning to th~ left ~hall rnn to and beyond the
center of ~melt iuter!'ieetion. pnssing to the rigltt thereof before
tmning Rneb vehicle toward the left.
(Tt) In all passing and overtaking such assistance shall be Prf'Cautlon
giYc.m by the occupants of each vehicle respectively to the othe1 ~~:t~s:n
HB tlte circumstances shall reasonably demand in order to ia~t hon~ea .
obinin clettrmacc and nYoid accidents; every person haviu~
eonhol or charge of any motor ,,ehicle or ot.hcr vehic1c upon
any pnl.Jlie higbwny and approacl1ing any vehicle drawn by a
horse or horses, or any horse upon which any person is riding,
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
648
ID: 9224533
STATUTES Olr
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 17 of 25
CJ\LJli'Oltl\~A.
\"l.!hfrlt-J. to fllong and upon any public llighway shall keep such vel1iele
1
t aerfgbt. n~ clos('}y os prncticnbJe to the right hnnd bonndnry of the
hhrhway, allowing more .swiftly..moving vehicles reasonably
free passage to the left.
'l'nrn l n~ .
(j) T11e person in c1unge of any vehicle in or upon any
f.lOJIJifng,
pn
blic highway shaU, before turnin~. stopping ol' changing
tt., on
hlghwo7.
tlte eoursc of such vPhiclc, and before turning such vehicle
when stnrtin~ the Rame, nrst see tbnt tlterc tS sntlicient space
for such movement to be mndc in ~afety. 11nd if the movement
or operation of otl1er ''ebicle.~ moy reasonably be affected by
such turning, stopping o1 rlumgin.g oC co1n-se, ~hn11 give plainly
visible or audihlo signnl to t'he persons OJ.)Crn.ting, driving or
in charge o:f such vehicles of his intention so to turn, stop
or clta.nge l1is course.
Paasto
(k) In pns.c:;ing rnilronrl. interurban or street cnrs operntt'd
treat mrs. in any city, town or village in this state, vehicle.lj shall he
operated with due cnre ond caution so thnt tl1e safety of pnssengers alighting from or boarding such car Rhall be protecaten.
and for that purpose said vebicl<' shall be brought to n full
stop if reasonably ncccs.qnry to attnin the objects of this subdivision.
!\rotor
( l) Every motClr vehicle when movin~ in defiles, canyons or
veblclcs an
moUDtnln mountain passes where the curvature of the rond or hi~hwny
r.a:ad.8.
prevents a clear view for a distance of one htmdred ynn.ls shall
be held under control and not permitted to coast and the
operator thereof in approaching curves shall give a warning of
his appronch with frequ('nt blast!'~ or strokes of horn, bell,
whistles, gong or othe1 adequate signaling device. and upon
all curves to the right shall keep to the inside of said curvtand upon all curves to the left shall keep to the outside of
said curve.
Pollee
~::~:
rlnC's;..t~i'
.:r~1177
'l'n<'tl on
e~~aii)I)S .
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
FORTIETH SESSION.
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 18 of 25
649
engines, road rollers and to other self-propelling vehicles, excepting fiB in this article specifically excepted, where used
neither for the conveyance of persons for hire, pleasure or
business, nor for the trmsportntion of freight.
SEc. 21. In case of accident or injury to person or prop- rn caa~ of
erty on the pnblic highways due to the operation thereon of acddcnt.
any ' 'ehicle the person operating, driving or otherwise in control of the same shall stop, and upon request of the person
injured or whose property has suffered injury, or any other
person present, shall give such person his uRine 11nd addl"ess
and the registration number of hts ve'hi~le if it be a motor
vehicle and if such person op~rp.ting, driving or otherwise in
control of Ruch vehicle is not the owner thereof, his license
nnml>er, if he is an operator or chRuffettl', and the name ftnd
address of the owner of such vehicle.
SEo. 22. (a) No races or contests for speed, whether on n ~omllrl
bet or wager or otlterwise. sball be Jtcld upon any public higl1- ~~ut
way within this stnte without the permission of the proper 8J~rmf
authorities of the state, county, city and c011Dty, city or town, on.
having jurisdiction over such portion of tbe highway as is
intended to be nRcd for snch race or conte.4:Jt. and unless Much
highway is fully and efficiently patrolled for the entire disbmce
over which such rnte or !ontcst for speed is to be held.
(b) Every person operating or d1iving .a motor or other Rate nt
vehicle on the public highways of this state ,;hall operate or l!Jloocl.
drive the same in a careful and prudent mnnner and Rt a rate
of speed not grenter than is reasonable nnd proper, bnving
regnrd to the traffic and m~e of the l1i~lrn-ny, nnd no perROn
shall operate or drive a motor or other vehicle on a public highway at such rate of speed as to endanger the life or limb of any
person or the sRfety of any property; p1ovided, thnt it shaH be
nnlawfnl to drive at a rate of speed in execs.~ of thi'rty mi1eR
nn hour; and fJrovided, fnrllter, that in nny event no person
shall operate or drive a motor or other vehicle on any pnhlir
higltway where the territory contiguous ther~t.o is eloscl~r built
up, at a greater tate of speed than one n1ilc in three niin1.1te..s,
or in the bu<Jincss district of nny incorporated city o.nd ~ounty,
city or town, at a greater rate than one n1ile in four minutes,
or nt a greater rate of speed than one mile in six minutes wl1cre
the operator's or C'hauffen.rs view of the road traffic is
ubstructed either upon approaebing an intel'Seeting way, or in
traversing a crossing or intersection of wnys, or in approaching
or traversing a bridge, dnm, trestle. causeway or viaduct. or in
going around corners or o. eurve in n stteet or highwny.
SEc. 23. The state engineering department may suspend or sua11Cn~
revoke the regisb~tion of any motor vehicle or the license ~~~~:trun
issued to any person tmder the provision,c; of thiR act, aftel' clue ~::~~1
hearing, for any enm~e which it may deem ~mffic.ient. and may Clllhle. or
order the seal and uumber plate or li<'ense to be delivered to it
'vbencver it appears 11pon hearing that the holder tltcrcof 1s an
improper or incompetent person to operate motor vchicl~s, or
is operating a motor vellicle improperly or so as to endanger
Case: 14~55077
650
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 19 of 25
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.
the public; nnd neither the registration seal nor the lieense
Rbnll be reissued un]ess, nftcr a hearing, the said department
determines that the operator or chauffeur should again be permitted to operate.
~Pt)Ut-a
SEc. 24. .A.pplicntion to operate motor vehicles may lJe
t~~u. etc., mode by mnil or othrrwiRc to the state treasurer upon blanks
or II<U!IIsc. prepared b.'" tJ1e state department o engineering. The fees provided in section seven slmll accompany the application. To each
person shall be ns.~ignecl some distinguishing numbcr or mmk
and the licenses; issned shall be in such fonn ns the said department may determine; they shall contain the distingui.~hing
number or matk nssifmed the licensee. his name. place of residence un<l n.ddre.~~, nntl a brief descl'iption of the lit'enscc for
1ba pni'poscs of iclcmtifi<>:ltion; nnd sueh othe1 infonnntion n.q
OhAufthe said department sh~U deem necessary. Special licens<'s
fcur'll
shn.ll
be issued to diEmtieurs, but no such license shall be is.c;ned
lk~e.
etc.
to nny person less than sixteen years of age. Every person
lirem;ed to operate motOI' vclticles ns aforesaid shall endorse his
nsmtl signat1n-e on the mnrgin of the license in the spnce pl"ovided for the purpose, immediately upon the receipt of aaid
lict>nse. and Stl<h license shall not be valid until so e11dol'Bed.
'l'he license issued to chnuifcurs Rhall be valid for one yenr only
ltntlge.
i.tom the date of i~te. The said depaTtmcnt sbaU furniRh to
c\ery elmuffeur ~o li(ellSed a suitable metnl badge with the distinguishing nnmher n..,signed. to him stamped tlleteon, without
extra clmrge t11crcfor. su~h bndge to lmvc stantped thereon the
words "R.('gjstered Chauffeur No. ----.-- Cal." with the said
license number inserted tl1erein. 'rhis badge shall thereafter
be wom hy sueh chauffeur, affixerl to his clothing in a conspi~uous place, . nt nll timeR when he is operating or d1iving a
motor \chiele upon the public higb,vny, but shall be valid only
for a perinrl of one yeRr from the dntc of issunnce. In case of
the los.Cj of such bndge a llupliC'ntc will be is.~ued hy the said
clepartment on tbc ~cndin~ of an a.ffidaYit showing the fact of
los.C) and on pnymPnt of a fee of one dollar ($1.00) to the state
trt'aRurer. .An npplicnthm for the annual renewaJ of tt clia.uffeur's license sJ1all be. accompanied by the proper fee re<Jnjred
by this act.
Register
S.Ec. 25. Upon
the rcct~ipt of an applicntion as provided in
n[ llll(lleal?
thna.
R<wtion iwcnty-Lonr of tl1is net tl1c department of engineering
shall tllcrct1pon file 1he snmP, and register the applicant in n
book or on index cnrd<J wbieh shaJl be kept in tlte Mtmc manner.
subject to public inspcctioJI. as the books or index cal'ds for
tlJ<:' registration of motor vebieles.
t:<~c nf
S.~~:c. 26. No person sha11 nRc a fi(fitions name in n!)plying
tll'tltlous
uume,
for ~mch <!hnuff<"nr's license: uo.r shnll au)~ chanifcnr. licensed
rtr . Jlrons herein providell, voluntarily permit any other person to
hlblt.cd.
possess or use bis license, or badge; nor shnll any pe1son while
opcrnting or driving a mott.1r Yehile n~e or posses., nny license
or had~e belonging to another pm"Son, or n. fictitious license or
bndgc.
SEc. 27. No person slu1ll O})ernte or drive a motor vehicle
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
FORTlE'l'll SESSIOX.
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 20 of 25
651
upon a pnblic highway of this state after the thirty-flrat day of Persons
December, 1913, unless such person shall bnve complied in all ~oe:~;ln~r
rcspe"ts with the requirements of tllis a4!t; proviclerl, however, ~~~~'!:,m
tlmt a non-l'esident operator or chuuffeur who has complied J,Jy with
- 11 t b e proviSions
ttct nftc~
w1t
of t11e country or stat a of b'lS rcs1.dence DONlUlher
relative to the operation of motor vehicles, shall be exempt from :n, tm.
license hereunder for a period of tluee months; provided,
furi1tcr, that when operating a motor vehicle he shall wear n
badge assigned to him in the counn-y or state of his resitlt'ncc.
SEc. 28. Any pel'Ron who shnll drive or operate, or en use Unouthor
l.~ hway Wl'th'm of
(/W IISO
to t.ue d r1ven
or operated, upon any publ'lC ~ug
vchrrro
the state, any motor vellicle not his own, with or without n felony .
intent to steal the sam~, in tl1e absence of the owner thereof
and without such owner's consent, shall be guilty of a felouy;
ptovided. ltowever, that this section shall not be applicah1c to
motor vehicles, the iair value of wl1ieh at the time of
the commencement of saeb unnutl1orized nse is less than three
hundred dollars.
SEc. 29. Any pel'BOn who, with or without intent to steal, Unoutho"f
shall drive or operate, or cause to be driven or opct"nted, ~~~~To011
upon any public highway within this state, any motor vehicle r;~.r~1~~c;:
not his own, of a fair value, at the time of tl1e commence- tnmdrod
. ed use, of less tb;m three hun d rcll llol - dtuJsdcullttl'll n
mcnt of such unauth or1z
lnrs ($300), in the absence of the owner thereof and Jncnnor.
without such owner's consent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Smo. 30. (tJ) Any person who shall. individually or in ~rca~~ ~~.
. t"Jon W1't:b one or more others, w1')fully brea1c, lDJnre,
.
tnlur ng,
assoc1a
otc.,
tamper with or remove any part or parts of any motor vehicle. ~C::.'~~...
for the purpose of injuring, defacing or destroying such mennor.
vehicle, or temporarily or permanently preventing its useful
operation, or for any otber purpose against the will or witbont the cons(\Ilt of t1te owner of such vellicle, or who shall
in ony other manner wilfully or malieiouRly interfere with
01 prevent the :running or operation of such vehjcle, sl1all be
guiltv of a misclcmennor.
(b) Any person who shall, without consent of the owner, Gettlnc
or person in elmrge, of a motor vehicle, climb upon or into ~~eto
such vcnicle, "'hether the same llc in motion or at rest: or ~~i~;;!~h
who, whiJe RUCh vehicle lS at rem and unattended, RlJnll sent misnttempt to manipulate any of tl1c levers, th~ starting crank. demconur.
brnke~. or mechani~m thereof, or to set snid vehicle in motion
shall be f!Uilty of a misdMneanor.
SEC. 31. No clumffcnr or other person having the care of a Ollnuttt!ur
motor vel1iclc for the owner ~hn1l re<'eive m take, direct.]y or f:c~~~~cl
indhcctlv, without the written consl'nt of snell OWD(\r, any ~M~g
bonns. dil'cotmt or oth(\r cnnsidcrntion for suppliE."s or pnrts ,.,c:~;~~~~~
furnished or pnrcba~ed for such motor vehicll', or on any te.
work or Jnbor done tllt'l'eOn by otbers. or 011 thl' pn rchase of
n.ny motor vehicle for ltiR employer; and no pCtn:on fum isbing
such supp1il'S or pnrts. wol'k or lnlJor, or solling an)r motor
Vl'hicle shall give or offer nny such chauffeur or other perRon
Case: 14-55077
652
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 21 of 25
Peon ltv
for violat--
l'n'lllo
I 'Rtf'llll:nt
In lll'Pih'lltfon.
'Pt'l~t~ltr
for drn-
ln: \'t:hiC'lo
\\1tllol
iuto:d-
cn1.el.
o" nerF
)11'11111t7
for violat-
ln.: Rec-
Uou U .
Pcnnlty
fc or v lolntln~r IJIO~on 21.
SEc. 32. Excepting as in this net otl1erwisc expressly providcll, any person violntil1g Rny of its provi~Jious shnll be
deemed guilty of a mis<lcmcunor, and upon conviction thereof
unless in this act ot1H~rwise expres.'3ly provided, shall be punishable by a fine not cx:cecuing one hundred dolhrrs, or by imprison:m.ent not exceeding thil'ty days, or both, for the first offense; nnd plmishablc by :fine of not less tl10.n fifty dollnrs nor
more thnn one hundred dollars, or imprisonment not exccedin~
thirty dnys, or both, fot a second otfcn~; and punishable by
a 1iue of not leli's than ouc hundred dollars .nor more than
two hundred ancl fifty clolltJrs, or imprisonment not exceeding
thirty dnys, or both. fol' a thitod or Ruhs<.'q uont off'(\nsc.
SRc. 33. AII.v person violating any of the provisions of
~Jeetion 28 of this act shall, on conviction thereof, be punic;h-
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
PORTIE'rH SRSSION.
DktEntry: 5-2
Page:
22 of 25
0
653
Case: 1~55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 23 of 25
STA'l'UTES OF CALINBl!UA.
si:< months, and thereafter the controller shall draw his warl'ant upon tl1c motor vehicle fund in favor of the county treasurer of cm:h county for the amount to which such county is
entitled. Any unexpended balance of money heretofore appropriated for the purpose of carrying out the objects of an act
entitled ''An net to regulate the operation of motor vehicles
on public highways, and making an appropriation for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this act," and all acts or
parts of acts aruondatory thereof, shall be placed under the
control of the state department of engineering and the state
controller shall transfer .said money to said ''motor vehicle
Reoord3
fund,'' and all 1l1cords now fllcd in the office of the secretary
~t ~~ of stnt.e by renson and by virtue of said last named act, shaH
~r:t'eof
upon the taking effect of this act he turned over by tbe secrettun~d
tary of state to the state tr('asurer, and snch portion thereof
~~:tu~- as may be deemed necessary by tbo state treasurer shall be
tu~-: rtcJlurt- retained by him and tho rcmaindor delivered to the department
mcnt.
f
.
.
f .
o engmeermg .or 1ts use.
!'in.e rnt(l
SEc. 36. .Any and all flncs or forfeitures ('Ollccted by or in
~~~~~ood any court for violation of any of the provisions of this act,
flmda.
- whether hy n justice of the peace, police court, <:;ity recorder's
court, city justice of the peace, or otherwise, shall be paid to the
treasurer of the county or city and county, in which Ute court
is held ; whorcupon t11c trea!>urcr of the county or city anu
county, o.t intervals of not greater than once a month shnll
place such moneys in a fund to be called the "county good
rond.~ fund," or cccity and county good roads fund," as the
;asc may bo. which shall be used by the high,vay conmli.ssion
c.1f the county or city and connty, as the case may be, or by the
hoard of snpervjsors of the county or city and county, a.~ the
case may be, if in su('h county or city and county, there shall
be no highway commission for the construction, improvement,
runintenru1ce and repair of such roads as shall be designated
by sajd highway commjssion or board of supervison, as the
case rnuy be, witl1 regard to the proper and just distribution of
the benefits uf this a<:t throughout the county or city and
(ounty.
&oord of
Sll!c. 37. A full record sball be kept by every justice of the
:ie~no pC'nce or police judge or court in this state of every <:nse in
Fcl'iec<:r- whi~h a perHon is charged with a violation of any provisions of
z::~rt.''nrt- this net or of any otbcr act relative to motor vehicles or to the
operation of such v~hicles, nnd an abstract of such record
slwll be sent forthwith by the justice of the peaco, or policP
jnuge or court to tlte state depnrtmcut of engineering. Said
abstrar:tc; sltall be made upon forms prepnred by the department, which shnll be obtained by the justice of the peace, or
po1i<'e judge or court from the county clerk of his county, aud
shall indude all necessary information as to the partit>.s to the
f'ase, the names of the offense, the dnte of the hearing. tl1e plea,
t.hc judgment, the result, the 11rnount of the fine or forfeiture as
the cnse nHlY l>c, and every su~h abstract shall be certified by
tho ju.c;ti~e of tl1o pOil<'e. poli:c Judge or elcrk of snch police
Case:
1~55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
FO&TlET.H SESSION.
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 24 of 25
655
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-2
Page: 25 of 25
S'i'.A.TUTES OF CALIFo~A.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-3
Page: 1 of 10
~ E C E I V E D
.,
ER CI..EAK
MOLLYC. OWVO"' Al.P!!A\.8
u.S. COURT r "" c;;n
/;U;j
1. 8 20\4
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #3
19
20
21
Defendants
@~W
Case: 14-55077
ID: 9224533
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-3
Page: 2 of 10
Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
-t
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
- . -
~.
10: 9224533
* ,J ' -
DktEntry: 5-3
. ..
.,.
.:J -
4'
'
...
. . . . ... ...
--~
Page: 8 of 10
Westlaw
139 P. 684
167 CaL 294, 139 P. 684
(Cite as: 167 Cal. 294, 139 P. 684)
Supreme Court of California.
Ex parte STORK.
Cr. 1843.
Feb. 24, 1914.
In Bank. Application of Charles Stork for a writ of habeas corpus. Writ discharged, and petitioner
remanded.
West Headnotes
Licenses 238 :=>5
238 Licenses
2381 For Occupations and Privileges
238k2 Power to License or Tax
238k5 k. States. Most Cited Cases
The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license
tax.
Automobiles 48A
~132
48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Akl32 k. Constitutional and statutory provi sions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k81)
Statutes 361
~1654
36 1 Statutes
36 1XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
36lkl636 Particular Laws as General or Special; Validity
361kl654 k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k81)
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
.. ---- .J -
- ~ -- ---- - -- u - - J; -
DktEntry: 5-3
- -
--.. -- - - - - --...- -
Page: 9 of 10
Dividing as does St.1913, p. 639, drivers of automobiles into two classes, one, professional chauffeurs
and requiring them to obtain a license and pay an annual license fee, the other embracing all others, who are
not required to secure a license or pay a license fee, does not constitute special legislation.
HENSHAW,J.
Petitioner, a chauffeur, who refused to pay the annual license fee of $2 exacted by the provisions of the
Motor Vehicle Act (St. 1913, p. 639), suffered arrest, and has sued out this writ of habeas corpus under his
contention that the portion of the act exacting a chauffeur license fee of $2 annually is unconstitutional.
The sole contention in this regard is that the Legislature, without reason and warrant, has made an
arbitrary classification whereby chauffeurs or drivers of motor vehicles for hire are required to pay a license,
while all other drivers of vehicles are classed as 'operators,' and are not required to secure a license or pay a
license fee. Conceding his construction of the law in this respect to be sound, is the division by the
Legislature of drivers of motor vehicles into the two classes indicated and the exaction of a license fee from
the one and not from the other class so unwarranted and arbitrary as to compel a declaration from this court
that it is unconstitutional special legislation?
That the occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation and therefore permitting a regulatory
license fee is beyond question. 'When the calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires
a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and
imposes conditions upon its exercise.' Minneapolis, etc., Railroad Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 29, 9 Sup. Ct.
208. 32 L. Ed. 585. That the occupation of a chauffeur is of this character may not be questioned and has
been decided. State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. 517, 102 S. W. 483, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601 , 120 Am. St. Rep. 671,
11 Ann. Cas. 725; Christy v. Elliott, 216 Ill. 31,74 N. E. 1035, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 215, 108 Am. St. *296 Rep.
196, 3 Ann. Cas. 487. There are unquestionable elements of similarity, even of identity, between the driving
of an automobile by a professional chauffeur and the driving of a like vehicle by a private owner, designated
in this act as an 'operator.' Thus it may not be gainsaid that the ignorance of the one is as likely to result in
accident as the same ignorance upon the part of the other. The recklessness of the one is as likely to result in
injury as the recklessness of the other. It is equally dangerous to other occupants and users of the highway
whether the unskilled or reckless driver be a chauffeur or 'operator.' All these matters may be conceded, and
yet there are others of equal significance where the differences between the two classes of drivers are radical.
Of first importance in this is the fact that the chauffeur offers his services to the public, and is frequent1y a
carrier of the general public. These circumstances put professional chauffeurs in a class by themselves, and
entitle the public to receive the protection which the Legislature may accord in making provision for the
competency and carefulness of such drivers. The chauffeur, generally speaking, is not driving his own car. He
is entrusted with the property of others. In the nature of things, a different amount of care will ordinarily be
exercised by such a driver than will be exercised by the man driving his own car and risking his own
property. Many other considerations of like nature will readily present themselves, but enough has been said
to show that there are sound, just, and valid reasons for the classification adopted. The argument of the peril
attending the public at the hands of the unlicensed operator driving his own car is not without force, but it can
only successfully be presented to the legislative department, and not to the courts.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
- -~ - -- -~
DktEntry: 5-3
.. - .:;, -- ....- - - -
In conclusion it may be said that, while on reason we hold the classification to be sound and the license
fee therefore legal, no case where any court of last resort has taken a contrary view has been called to our
attention, while, besides the intimations in the cases above cited, this precise conclusion was adopted by the
Court of Appeals of Maryland in Ruggles v. State, 120 Md. 553, 87 Atl. 1080.
*297 Wherefore the writ is discharged, and the petitioner is remanded.
We concur: SHAW, 1.; ANGELLOTTI, J., LORIGAN, J.; MELVIN, J.; SLOSS, J_
Cal. 1914
Ex parte Stork
167 Cal. 294, 139 P. 684
END OF DOCUMENT
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
...-
Page: 10 of 10
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
Page : 1 of 13
. tlURl' OrA~P-~~
AUG 2 8 201~
Fll!O-- - - - - - -
4
5
DktEntry: 5-4
tO: 9224533
~----~---~==DATE
INITIAL
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
Plaintiff- Appellant,
12
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #4
19
20
21
Defendants
ORIGINAL
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-4
Page: 2 of 13
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to impose
license fee for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation
upon public streets, roads and highways in the State of California by moto
vehicle; to provide for certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the
provisions hereof and for the disposition of the amounts collected on account o
such licenses; to make an appropriation for the purpose of this act; and to repeal all
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-4
Page: 8 of 13
State of California
Secretary of State
JUL 1 7 2014
&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP09113643
Case: 14-55077
ID: 9224533
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-4
-1-
of__~------A. D.
1925,
___
at../l..:'_~_o'clock~.:.M:.
Page: 9 of 13
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10:9224533
DktEntry: 5-4
-3 CHAPTER ':f_t_~
.A1~
act to impose a license fee fot the ttanspO?tation of persons ot ptopetty fot hi1e ot c01npensation upon public
st?'eets, toads and highways in the State of Cal-ifornia by
rnotor vehicle; to ptovide for certain exen1tptions; to 1WO
vide for the enforcement of th~ ptovisions hereof and fot
tltc disposition of the amottnts collected on accmmt of such
licenses; to make M" a1Jpropriation for the ptwpose of this
act; and to repeal all acts or pa1ts of acts in confl-ict hetewith.
Page: 10 of 13
-4-
rl
4--
rl
rl
(l)
0>
ro
CL
~
'
~
.......
l!)
w
.......
~
0
(Y)
(Y)
l!)
o;:t
N
N
(J)
::!i
O'
ex>
ex>
1'1'-
L{)
l!)
I
.;:t
rl
m
ro
or
(Y)
6-
N
.-I
.OJ
OJ
ro
0.
~
I
lO
::
0
('t')
('t')
lO
~
N
N
en
ti
Said board shall charge and collect from such operator the
cost to the state of the ma.nnfactme and delivery to said board
of such emblems and actual costs of,mailing to licensee if not
~alled .for. 'l'here is here-by -apJ)ropriated out of any moJH~Y~
111 the motor vehicle fuel fund, not otherwise appropr iated,
the sum of five thousand dollars for the purpose of designing,
preparing and securing such emblems; said money to be
expended by said board on warrants drawn in the manner
provided by law, and saic1 amount to be a revolving fnnd . into
which shall be paid from time to time as they are collected the
amounts received flom operators o.f motor vehicles .for said
emblems a11d the legislatme may from time to time "ithc1raw
rom said fund snd1 amounts as it may deem proper; JJrovi(led,
that said fund sl1all not be decreased below the sum of :five
thousand dollars. There is also l1ereby appropriated ont of
said motor vehicle fuel fnnd the sunr of t>\enty thousand
dollars annually, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to
be used by the state boa.rd of equalization to carry out the
provisions of this act.
l
:'
t{'
-'ineglect Ol' refuse :for the period of thirty days next succeeding the end of any quarter of ~ ?a.lendar year to ~ay the
license fee hereby in:posed, the cltv1~10n of ,moto~ vel~1eles of
the department of finance of .the :5tnte of Cah~orn!a shall
upon written complaint of srud board of eqnalttatiO~ and
upon ten days notice to SD;Ch -operator, suspertd, u.utJl ~hl'
payment of said license fee IS made, ~Y and all reg1str a;t10n
certificutes held by such operator for any motor v~hicle~
employed by him or it in the .business ~f - t~ansportat10n.
perso:p.s or property upon the h1ghways of thxs stat1J for lure.
S.Ec. 8. All snms paid to tbe state controller ~md~r aucl
hv Yirtue of this act, shall be deposited by lum m the
~t'<lte treasury to the credit of the motor vehicle fuel .fund,
snb,jrct. to the provisions o section six l1ereof and the bal1mce~ thl:',reof shall be applied and the same axe hereby
apprornjatecl oue-half to the State of On~ifor.nia to. be .devoted
exclusivelY to the maintenance :;md repa1r of pubhc h1g~ways
within this state the remaining one-hal shall he apportwned
mnon"' the respe~tive coi.mties of" this state, in the propbrtion
th::tt the number of motor vehicles registered within such
county for the preceding calendar year bears to th7 tot~l
number of motor vehicles registered in the State of Cahforma
1mcler the motor vehicle net of such state for the p1eceding
-yeur, and sneh sums so paid to said cou~tieR shall be ~lev~ted
e,xt~lnsiYelv to tl1e maintenance and repa1r of the public 1nghwaYs witliin such county; p1'ovid6d, that from any sums found
to he dne to any county under the' provisions of th~s ac~ there
shall first be deducted the tot.1.l of all county and c1ty licenses
eoliectecl in such county from the operators c-overed b y the
proYisi:ms hereof and any county, and city and county or city
taxe'; t'ollet~ted upon the operative property of such operators
within snch county. All such sums so deducted shall revert
to the 1onnties' portion of the motor v~hic~e fuel .fund 3;nd
shall be apportioned to the several counties ~o tbe propot'twn
ht'tein provided.
.
SEJc. !l 'rhis act shall not a11pl,v to hotel ~mssrs nteet1~1g
train~ or boats. no1 to tilxicabs, drays, transfer vehicles and
other like cit,r motor vehicles operating within illcorporated
r.itiN> or tow1;s or the usual transfer delivery zone ad,iaccnt
t11ereto. nor ,o;haJl it apply to snch vehicles operating between
incol'porated c.itil.'\s or towns wl1ere no portion of any statE' or
rcnmt~ higlrwny is ttavprsed in said qperntiou.
SEc. ~H. KotJum~ ill this a{t shall he constmetl to apply
io nor to -levy a Uce~se npon that part of the gross income fNlll
tl1e operation of any 1notor vehicle earned OJJ. account of
t.:fll'l'Yiug United States nu1il or parcels post under mw COlltraci: with the United States gov~rumeut e.nterecl into pr ior to
thP fir:t;t. clay ef l\Ta.' nineteen 1nmclre(1 twm1ty-tive.
SEc. lO. A11. actc:; and parts of acts in conflict hele~ith
?f
'
! '
Case:
28/2014
10:9224533
DktEntry: 5-4
Page: 13 of 13
-8-
"
Gove1'nm
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
Page: 1 of 21
AUG 2 8 l lWt
FILED
DOCK:-ETEo----- -
4
5
INITIAL
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bilde
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #5
19
20
21
Defendants
@ffJW
Case: 14-55077
To all
08/28/2014
parties~
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
Page: 2 of 21
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to amen
sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of an act entitled "An act imposing a license fee or tax
for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation upon the
public streets, roads and highways in the State of California by motor vehicle and
providing that this act shall take effect immediately," approved May 15, 1933; to
add sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) 12, 15 and 21 to said act; to renumber and amend
sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 of said act; to repeal sections 10 and 15
10
11
persons or property upon the public highways by motor vehicle and providing tha
12
ediate.;l~ _ / )
13
(/~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
Ch. 679]
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
FIFTYSECOND SESSION
Page ~
1919
CHAPTER 679.
A-n act to amend sections 1, 2, 31 4, and 1,1 of an act e11.titled ~tat9 t9as.
"An art imposing a Licer~se fee or tax for the transporla- ~"~~~~.;d
tion of persons or property fot hire or compensation upo1\
tha pnblic streets, 'toads and. ltiohways in the State of Califorma by moto1 vehicle and provitling that this act shall
8 of 21
Case: 14-55077
1920
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
STATUTJ:S OF CKLIFORNtA
Page:. 9 of 21
[Ch. 679
1~37.
Tn effect 1mmedately 1
ms.
ll 928.
DPftlllLIOM.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
Ch. 679]
10 : 9224533
FJFT1-SECOND SESSION
DktEntry: 5-5
Page: 10 of 21
1921
Case: 14-55077
1922
:'\umber
rll~ts or
embi~Jns
StAts 1933,
930
.
T~1
oh gross
rcel,Pt9
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
STATUTES OF CALTFORNJA
DktEntry: 5-5
l Ch.
Page: 11 of 21
6'79
Case: 14-55077
Ch. 679]
08/28/2014
10:9224533
FJ1i"IY-SECON"O SESSION
DktEntry: 5-5
Page: 12 of 21
1923
The board for good caus~ may extend for not to exceed ten
days the time for making any return and payment required
hereunder.
SEc. 6. Section 6 is hereby added to the act cited in the New sechon
title hereof, to read as follows :
Sec. 6. Any operator failing to pay any tax, except taxes o~hnquenc)
determined by the board under the provisions of sections 7 and \~~:;:;t nod
8 hereof, within the time required by this act shall pay in addi
tion to the tax a penalty of ten per cent of the unpaid amount
thereof, plus interest at the rate of one-half of one per cent a
month, or fraction thereof, from the date at which the tax
became due and payable until the date of payment.
SEO. 7. Section 7 is hereby added to the act cited in the Xe11 sN:uun
title hereof, to read as follows:
Sec. 7. If the board is not satisfied with tb.e return and A~dltlo4
payment o tax: made by any operator, it is hereby authorized 5ellsmen
to make an additional assessment of tax. due from any sueh
operator ba.c;ed upon the information contained in the re-turn or
upon any information in its possession. .All additional assessments shall bear interest at the rate of onehalf of one per cent
per month, or fraction thereof, from the twentieth day after
the close of the month or months, as the case may be, for
which the additional assessment is imposed until the date of
payment. If any part of the deficiency for which the addi- Puottl~s
tiona! assessment is imposed is due to negligence or intentional
disregard of the act or authorized rules and regulations, a penalty of ten per cent of the amount of the additional assessment
shall be added, plus interest as above provided. If any part
of the deficiency for which the additional assessment is imposed
is due to fraud ox- an intent to evade the tax, a penalty of
twenty-five per cent of the amount of the additional assessment
shall be added, plus interest as above provided. The board
shall give to the operator written notice of such additional NotJoe
assessment. Such notice may be served upon the operator
personally or by mail ; if by mail, service shall be made in the
manner prescribed by section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure and addressed to the operator at his address as the same
appears in the records of t.he board.
For the purpose of the proper a.dministration of this act and
to prevent evasio.n o the tax hereby imposed, it shall be pre.
smned that the g ross receipts from all operations of operators
are subject to the tax hereby imposed until the contrary is
established;
SEc. 8. Section 8 is hereby added to the act cited in the Ntii'Sut~o,n
title hereof, to read as follows:
Sec. 8. If any operator shall fail, neglect or refuse to tile l'a~ure 1' 0
a return within the time required herein, the board shall make m ere IIIII
an estimate of tbe amount of the taxable gross receipts of such
operator for the month or months for which such operator
failed to make a return aud upon the basis of such estimated
amo1mt shall compute and assess thea tax payable by such opel'
ator, adding to the amount of tax so determined a penalty Penalltes
Case: 14-55077
1924
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
STATUTES OF CALTFORNTA
New see~.1on
P~UI.lun
08/28/2014
for
reassCJ~S
Jnel)t
HeamiS
Order
Dcllll!!llefl<Y
penalt1.
New section
Nohce or
add I!lOIIII
tax
Stds 1933,
p 935
Rnoeaflon
ol lttense.
Page: 13 of 21
[Ch. 679
equal to ten per cent thereof. All such assessments shall bear
htterest at tlie rate o one-half of one per cent per month, or
fraction thereof, from tl1e twentieth day after the close of the
month or months. as the cnse may be, for which such assesst-nents are imposed until the date of payment. If the neglect
or refusal of an operator to file a return as required by this
act was due to fraud or au intent to evade the tax, there shall
bt- added to tl1e tns. n. penalty equal to twenty-five per cent
thereof in addition to the ten per cent penalty as above provided. Ptompt.ly theteafter the board shall give to the delinQltent written notice of such estimate, tax and penalty, the
notice to be served personally or by mail in the same maunel'
as prescribed for service of notice hy the provisions of section 7 hereof.
SEc. 9. Section 9 is ht>reby added to the act cited in the
title hereof, to read .as follows:
Sec. 9. Any operator against whom an assessment is made
by the board uude.r the l)rovisions of section 7 or 8 hereof may
petition for a reassessment thereof within fifteen days after
the date of mailing tlle not.ice thereof to such operator. If a
petition for reas&e~..,ment is not filed within sad fifteen day
period the amo1mt of the assessment become.<; final at the
expiration thereof.
If a petition for reassessment ig filed 'vithin. said fifteen day
period the board shall reconsider the assessment and, if the
operator has so requested in his petition, shall grant said operator an oral heRring aucl shall give the operator ten days notice
of the time 11.nd place thereof. The hoard shall have power
to continue the hearing rom time to time ac;; may be neces<>ary.
The order or decision of the board upon a petition for
reassessment shall become final fifteen days after the date of
mailing the notice therPof to such operator.
All asses.c;ments made by the board under the pl'ovisions of
sectjon 7 or 8 hereof shaH become due and payable at the time
they become nnal and if not paid when due and payable there
shall be added thereto a penalty of ten per cent of the amount
of the tax.
Any notice requhed by this section shall be served personally or by mail in the same manner as prescribed for service of notiee by tlJe provi~ions of section 7 hereof.
SEc. 10. Section 10 is hereby E~dded to the act cited in the
title hereof, to read as follows:
Sec. 10, E:x:eept in the case of a fraudulent retum or neglf'ct or refusal to malte a return, e'ery notice of additional
tax- proposed to be assef.l-.ed hereunder shall be mailed to the
operator witl1in three years after the rt>turn of such operator
was filed.
SEc. 11. Section 11 of the act eit.ed in the title hereof is
hPreby amended to read as follows!
Sec. 11. Whenever any operator licensed hereunder fails
to comply with an;v pro'Visim1 of thi~ act or any rule ol' regulation of the board prescrihed nnd adopted under this act, the
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
Ch. 679]
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
FU'TY-SECOND SESSION
Page: 14 of 21
1925
l'.
or motor
1ng
\H'ltten
not1ce
u:om t h e b oard t h at t )1e 1tcense
of an opera- vetuete
tor 1H1J> been revoked by the board or 1:h.at an operator has regtSttnllon
failed, neglet>ted or refused to obtain the license provided in
section 2 hereof shall su<>pend forthwith the registration of the
motor vehicles specified in such notice of such operator and
shall cause to be removed from such motor vebjcles aU number
plates ot emblems is.<;neii by said depart.ment for display upon
such motor vehicles. Thereafter it shall be unlawful to
operate snch motor vehicles upon the pnblic highways of this
St.ate until the operator h ~s f,tlly complied with tlte provisjons
of this act and a ecrtincate to that effe<'t has been issued by
the board to the Department of l\Iotor Vel1icles and the registration of the motor vehicles of such operator has been restored
by said clepartment.
'l'he license ot an operator shall be rejnstated by the board Rclnslnlt
followin!? the revocRtion of such licenc;e when the amount of ~~~~e~~ etc
license tax assessed hereunder and interest thereon together
with all penalties have been paid and the pro11isions of this
act have been fully complied with by such operator and a fee
of five dollars has been paid to the board for such reinstatement. The registration of the motor vehicles of such operator
and the number plates and emblems removed therefrom shall
be restored by the Department o Motor Vehicles upon the
ic;smmce by tbe board to said depa ttment of a certificate to the
effect that tl1c OJlerator bas fully eompl ied with the provision_s
of this act and the pa.yment to said department of a fee of five
dollars for the restoration of the registration of each motor
vehicle.
If the regi<>tration of an~ motor vehicle lu1s been suspended
as provided herein, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall
not thereafter reregister such motol' vehicle or transfer the
regi<>tration of ownership thereof upon the records of the
department unt.il Ruch time as tJ1e board has issued to said
department a rertincate to the effect that tl1e operator has
fully complied with the provisions of this act.
Transfer by the Department of Motor Vehicles of the regis- Transrer 01
tered ownership of auy motor vehicle licensed hereunder may lehtcle
be effected only aftel' a certificate of license ta..'t clearance has
been issued therefor by the board. Such certificate of license
ta..'l: clearance shall completely e:rtingnish the lien herein provided in the motor \'chicle described therein.
If the operato1 of any motor veJ1icle L'> merely the registered Payment<-~
owner thereof, and the legal owner of record reposse<>ses snell ~~n~~ ~;~:~~ 1
motor Yehicle and pays the !nll amount of tbe license tax 'clncle
of the time and place o the hearjug to show
ns'ie.<><>ed hcre1mcler,
Case: 14-55077
1926
Ot!I JID)"
'"~"' e1~
t:JeiJ1l qr
rerunll
't A\e~ 1u
t\CHS of
1
oer ctnL
tl(r~s
lfCroJ)Is
RN:Otcry of
r:f'fotl(I(IUS
r~fun.is
CanC#II~hon.
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
Page: 15 of 21
[Ch. 679
Case: 14-55077
Ch. 679]
08/28/2014
10:9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
Page: 16 of 21
1927
Case: 14-55077
1928
;..;ohce to
lftpayec's
debtors
Collcotlon.
Seizure
3nd sml~.
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
STATUTES OF OALlFORNIA.
Page: 17 of 21
[Ch. 679
remain until said ta:!:es and all penalties and 1nterest accruing
thereon are paid, or the property sold for the payment thereof.
The lien created by the provisions of this act shall be paramount to all private liens or encumbrances of whatever character, and to the rights of any holder of the legal title, in
or to any vehicle the privilege o operating which is subject
to the license tax imposed hereunder.
In the event. that any operator is delinquent in the payment
of the license ta.x herein provided, the Controller may give
notice of the amount of such delinquency by registered mail to
all persons having in their possession, or under their control,
any credits or other personal property belonging to such operator, or owing any debts to such operator, at the time of receipt
by them of such notice, and thereafter any person so notified
shall neither transfer nor make other disposition of such
credits, other personal property or debts until the Controller
shall have consented to a transfer or disposition, Ol" until
twenty days shall have elapsed from and after the receipt of
such notice. .All persons so notified must, witl1in five days
after receipt of such notice, advise the Controller of any and
all such credits, other personal property or debts, in t.heir possession, under their control or owing by them, as the case
may be.
Whenever any operator shall be delinquent jn the payment of the license tax, intetest or penalties herein provided
the Controller may proceed forthwith to collect the license
tax, interest or penalties due from such operator in the following manner: The Controller may seize any property, real or
personal, subject to the lien of said license ta~ interest or penalties and thereafter sell at public auction such property so
seized, or a sufficient portion thereof, to pay the license tax
due hereunder, together with any interest or penalties
imposed hereby for such delinquency, and any and all
costs that may have been incurred on account of such seizur e
and sale. Notice of such intended sale and the time and
place thereof, shall be given to such delinquent operator
and to all person<:~ appearing o record to have an interest in
such property in writing nt least ten days before the date set
for sucb sale by jnclosing sucl1 notice in an enve~ope addressed
to said operator nt his last known residence or place of business in this State if any, and, in the case of any person appearing of record to have an interest in such property, addressed
to such person at the last known place of residence, if any,
and depositi11g the suroe in tbe United States mail, po.sta.ge
prepa,id, and by publication for at least ten days before the
date set for such sale in a newspaper of general cireulation
published jn the county or dty and county in which the property seized is to he sold; provided. however1 that if there be
no newspaper of gene1ai circullltion in such county or city
and county, then by the posting of such notice in three public places in such county or city and county ior said ten-day
period. The said notice sllall contain a description of the
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
Ch. 679)
10:9224533
PJF'TY-SECONO SESSTON
DktEntry: 5-5
1929
Page: 18 of 21
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
1930
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
STATUTES OF CALTFORNfA
Page: 19 of 21
[Ch. 679
as follows:
Case: 14-55077
Ch. 679]
08/28/2014
10:9224533
FIFTY-SEC'O:\'D
SESSIO~
DktEntry: 5-5
Page: 20 of 21
1931
Case: 14-55077
1932
08/28/2014
10:9224533
DktEntry: 5-5
STATUTES OF OALJFORNIA
Page: 21 of 21
[Ch. 679
~ty. UtS7 n:;ions of the act cited in the title hereof with respect to the
operations of operators duriu,g the month of 1\-Iay, 1937, shall
be paid to the Controller in accordan(;e with the provi-,ions
of settiou 5 of said act as such provisions exi.c;ted on January
1, 1937, anything in said act or in this act to the contrary
uotwithstantling.
colleetion or
SEC. 28. All taxes assessed against operators prior to July
:!:::l~;10 , 1, 1937, pursuant to the provisions of tlle act cited in the title
to 1" 1Y
hereof, as those provisions existed on January 1, 1937, and
l, 1931
remaining unpaid on Jt1ly 1, 1937, shall be collected by the
Controller under the provisions of said act as amended hereby.
011~rBtlla
SEa. 29. The amendments to the act cited in the title hereof
dnte
effected by this act shall become operative on July 1, 1937,
except that the amendment hel'eby effected to section 2 of
the act cited in the title hereof shaH hecome operative on
October 1, 1937.
SEc. 30. This act, inasmuch as it provides for a tax levy
for the usual current expen~es o the State, shall, under the
provisions of section 1 of Article IV of the Constitutiou, take
effect immediately.
StAts 1933,
''
936
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-6
tO: 9224533
Page: 1 of 19
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
Plaintiff- Appellant,
12
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #6
19
20
21
Defendants
ORIGINAL
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-6
Page: 2 of 19
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to add Part 4,
comprising sections 9601 to 10501, inclusive, to division 2 of, and to add section
50010 to, the revenue and taxation code, thereby consolidating and revising the
law relating to taxation and the raising of revenue, including the provisions of"
act imposing a license fee or tax for the transportation of persons or property for
hire or compensation upon the public streets, roads and highways in the State o
California by motor vehicle and providing that this act shall take effect
10
immediately," approved May 15, 1933, as amended, and repealing acts and parts o
11
C ;f:.f
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?/(}5(/Cf
I
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-6
Page: 8 of 19
State of California
Secretary of State
JUll 7 2014
&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP 09 113643
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-6
Page: 9 of 19
.,
"
. ..
1 . ~
... : ..
lI
Passed the Assembly March 4, 1!)-11
'I
:!
;!;i
,I
-----------~
[
I
' i
;I
l
--tl
/9______ _
day
of~-~----,
1941,
~t
aL-~---o' cl~ckM.
ll
:j
II
"'i
,1
. :I
.,];
:;u
. ll
' il
'I
I
.;.-::.
~}~~
::.11
. 'i
if
LICENSE TAX
CH.AP'I'ER
1.
\ 7 ehic1e
'
;
;
'
I
'
-4--
-5-
9604. "Person" includes any mdividual, fum, copartnership, joint adventure, association, corporation, estate, trust,
business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combina.tjon acting as a unit.
9605. ''Motor vehicie" includes any automobile, truck,
t1actor, or other self-propelled vehicle used for the transportation of persons or property upon the public highways, otherwise than upon fixed r ails or tracks, and any trailer, semitrailer, dolly, or other vehicle dJ:awn thereby, not exempt from
registration fees under the laws of this State,
9606. . ''Gross receipts'' include all receipts from the operation of motor vehicles entirely within this State and a proportion, basetl upon the proportion of the ulll.eage within this
State to the entire mileage over which such operatiol1S esteud,
of the receipts from the operation of motor vehicles passing
through, into, or out o this State, or partly within and partly
without this State. ''Gross receipts'' as 4pp1ied in connection with operations under lease or rental agreements include
such amotmts as the board under such rules and regulations
as it may prescribe determines to be reasonable compensation
for the transportation services rendered by the operator.
9607.
Vehicles.
C:a.A.PTER 2.
IMPOSITION OF TAX
-g
00
N
3.
0
1-'
~
q
<.0
N
+::.
(J'1
1J
~
('!)
1-'
1-'
0
-7-
.Article 2.
Emblems
Reinstatement of License
(X)
......
.j:>.
0
(()
N
N
~
(J1
w
w
-9-
Oa.APTER
4.
DETERl\11NA.TIONs
o(X)
--N
(X)
.)::...
0
(!)
N
N
-10-
-11-
tor for the month or months for which the operator failed to
malte a return. Upon the basis of this estimate the board
shall compute and determine the tax payable by the ope1ator,
adding to the amount of tax so determined a penalty equal to
10 per cent thereof.
Redeterminations
9951. Any operator who fails to pa.y any tax., ex~ept taxes
determined by the board under Articles 2 or 3 of this chapter,
within the time required shall pa:y a pe~~lty of 10 per cent
of the unpaid amount of the tax, m addttlon to the tax, plus
interest at the rate of one-half of 1 per cent per month, or
fraction thereof, from the date on ''Vhich the tax became dne
and payable until the date of payment.
CHAPTEE
5.
CouL'EOTION OF
Tax
-0
co
N
co
1--1
~
q
tO
N
N
U'1
w
w
m
::J
CJ1
I
C1l
-12-
-13-
Article 4.
10121. Whenever an operator is delinquent in the payment o~ any amount dne under this part, the Controller may
forthWlth collect the amount due from the operator in the
10122. Notice of the sale and the time and place thereof
shall be given in writing to the delinquent operator and to all
persons appearing of record to have an interest in the property at least 10 days before the date set for the sale. The
notice shall be enclosed in an enveloJ?e addressed to the operator at his last known residence or place of business in this
State and, in the case of any person appearing o record to
have an interest b the property, addressed to the person at
his last known place of residence. It shall be deposited in the
United States. mail, postage prepaid. The notice shall also
be published for at least 10 days before the date set fo~ the
sale in a newspaper of general eirculation published in the
county in which the property seized is to be sold. If there is
no newspaper of general circulation in the county, notice shall
be posted in 3 public places in the county 10 days prior
to the date set for the sale. The notice shall contain a description of the property to be sold, a statement of the amount
due, interest, penalties, and costs, the name of the operator,
and the further statement that unless the tax due, interest,
penalties, and costs are paid on or before the tim~ fixed in
the notice for the sale, the property, or so much of tt as may
be necessary, will be sold in accordance vvith law and t he
notice.
-0
co
N
co
N
0
p
R
co
N
N
Ul
(1.)
(1.)
1J
~
C1)
......
U1
-14-
-15-
amount due, interest, penalties, and costs, the name of ' the
operator, and the fw:ther statement that unless the tax due
interest, penalties, and costs are paid \~ithin 10 davs th~
motor vehicle will be sold at private sale.
10125. At .any sale the Contr'o ller shall sell the property :in
accordance mth law and the notice and shall deliver to the
purchaser a bill o.f sale for the personal property and a deed
~or any real property sold. The bill of sale or deed vests title
m the purchaser. The unsold portion of any property seized
may be left at the place of sale at the risk of the operator.
10126. If upon any sale the moneys received exceed the
amount of all license taxes, interest; penalties and costs due
the State from the operator, the Controller shall return any
excess to the operator and obtain his receipt. I for any
reason t~e rece1pt of the operator is not available, the Controller shall deposit the excess moneys with the State Treasurer, as trustee for the operator, subject to the order of the
operator, his heirs, successors, or assigns.
Article 5.
Miscellaneous Provisions
6.
Article 1.
10254. If the total ta~es and licenses paid during a calendar year in which due and payable to this State or its political subdivisions, including municipalities, by an operator
11pon or on account of the operations of his property used
exclusively to produce gross receipts from his operations taxable under this part exceed 2 per cent of such gross receipts
:from his operations during the year, the amount of excess,
not exceeding the amount of license taxes paid under this
part during the year, ' is subject to refund or credit. There
shall not be included in the computation of the total taxes and
licenses paid by the operator any State taxes or licenses w~ah
are imposed on or according to, or measured by, gross rece1pts,
pay rolls, or net income, or imposed with respect to motor
vehicle fuel.
10255. No credit or refund shall be allowed unless the
operator files a verified claim therefor with the board within
90 clays after the close of the year in which an excess was paid.
10256. The board sllall examine tile claim and, if it . is
satisfied that a 1efund is due, shall certify to the State Board
of Control the amount thereof. If approved by the State
Boatcl of Control, the amount shall be credited on any taxes
then due from the operator under this part, and the balance
shall be refunded to the operator, his successors, administrators, executors, or assigns.
Article 2.
-0
(X)
(X)
....0+::.
0
(0
N
N
+::.
U1
w
(J1
I
0)
lJ
Ill
(0
(I)
....
m
0
....,.,
-16-
-17-
Cancellations
7.
AD'MlNlST&ATION
1040~.
8.
D rsTRtnUTJON OF PROCEEDS
()
Ill
(/)
Cl)
i--1.
~
I
(Jl
(Jl
0
-J
-J
-0
co
N
co
q
<!)
N
N
~
(Jl
w
w
! '
I !
i'
08/28/2014
I
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-6
Page: 18 of 19
,,
'
'
j
.r
:]
l
'
I'
~ .i
l :j
9.
VroLATlONS
,~j?
Case; 14-55
QS/28/2014
I
th~
Page: 19 of 19
Slit~
-20i
MAR 19 1941
.,
..!:;)-
11i
o'clc;ockM.
Secret'iry of State
J'
!
I
I
I
:i:
I ~~
'
.'
}:
r.
:I
(
-&_8:~
I,
'
:1
f'
'
11
lt~
' .,
'
'
:hl
'
>.
:1~.: I
'
'
..'
...
\:!~
/_~-- -- -- -, 1941
}
i
I
I
:I
. :::~:
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-7
Page: 1 of 11
2
3
FILED- -- - - - _
_..
OOCKE.'TEO,--":":oA'f~E-- IQriiA(
4
Appellant in Pro Per
7
8
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Defendants
NOTICE#?
ORIGINAL
21
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-7
Page: 2 of 11
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the following California legislative act entitled, ''An act to add Sections
69.1
and 69.2to
ce c]:
~de/f-&
to drivers;;;;;;o/
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 9224533
DktEntry: 5-7
Page: 8 of 11
State of California
Secretary of State
JUL 1 7 2014
&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
iG OSP 09 113643
------~-~
/Jl-1!---
day oL ___
Ji2_~----
3_o 'clock.
1957, at _ __
-------.~te
-~~-tflvf~------Secretary of the Governor
Page: 9-of 11
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10:9224533
'
'~
-3-
An Mt to add Sections 69.1 and 69.2 to the Vehicle Code, r-elating to drivers' licenses.
The peopLe of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 69.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
69.1. ''Driver's License." ''Driver's license" includes
both an operator's and a chauffeur's license.
SEc. 2. Section .69.2 is added to said code, to read:
69.2. "Original Driver's License." "Original driver's
license" means the first driver's license issued a person under
this code.
DktEntry: 5-7
Page: 10 of 11
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
I
Page: 11 of 11
-4-
MP..Y 2 1 '957'
llpp,oved--~----~-----,1957
--
.. -
- -
--
o - ._. o
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 1 of 29
3
4
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #8
19
20
21
Defendants
ORIGINAL
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 2 of 29
Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the following California case law entitled, "Bacon Service Corporation v.
Russ" (1926).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
'ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 8 of 29
State of California
Secretary of State
&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
Sec/Stale
F01111
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-8
10: 9224533
Page: 9 of 29
Bacon
v.
S. F.No . ll,419
/ "'
~ \.
It~
o~mmon
motor vehicles
routes.
;~\l:~:l._c
1,:. ,~ .i).
governing the u.se of the public highw.@Ytfoqy motor veh'ioles in; Fresno
county .
-'
'
'"
an act entitled
11
;lj...
'
...
veh icle; t o provide for cert ain exemptions; to provide for the enf orcement of the provisions hereof and for the dispositi on of the
amounts collected on account of such
license ~ ~ ~ .
" approved
Case;
14~ 55077
DktEntry: 5~8
10:9224533
08/28/2014
Page: 10 of 29
-2-
By stipulation the
oe.u~:>e
was submitted to
the trial oourt on the facts alleged in the compl aint and on the
issues of law raised by the answer .
WaJi
void. in its
highw~s
for the
Section 1
The term
11
tran~ portation
define~
of persons
The term
11
gross receipts
~rom
operation 11 is
~d
Case;
14~ 55077
10:9224533
08/28/2014
DktEntry:
Page: 11 of 29
5~8
- 5-
pub~ ic
within this state shall apply to and secure from the board
~uch
paym~nt
ed from said four per cent of the gross receipts the amount of
a~
,..-
count~,
or city
end county in this $t ate upon any of the property actually used and
necessary in the opera:tion of such II!Otor vehicles for the transportation of persons or property and upon such payment said state controller shall issue a rece ipt, in duplicate , to such ap,plicant .n
It i s provided in section 7 that any operator using the
public highways o:f the state for the traneports:tion of persons or
vrcperty for hire either as a public or private carrie r without
fiiat obtaining the license and ma.kling the return of gross receipts
provided f or iB guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine
or imprieoDDJ3nt or both.
who~e
hire on the
~mount
pub~io
of such
highw~s .
~ioense
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-8
10 :9224533
Page: 12 of 29
-4-
but it has refused to COII1.PlY with the requirements of the law because
of ita 6lleged inval i dity resulting fram oertain exemptions included
in sections l, 9 an d 10 of
t~e
aot.
shall not apply to taxicabs, drays, transfer vehicles and other like
city motor vehicles which do not run .over regular
r~JPutes
nor shall
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 13 of 29
-6-
~t
e~olusively
tention might be given in the first instance to the efect of section 21 of article 1 in the light of the provision of section 11 Of
the act in question.
An
oovious
and
e~amination
which to maintain and repair the public highways of the state outside of incorporated cities and that such revenue was to be obtained
by the imposition of a lioenae or privilege taz on the business of
opera. ting motor vehicles for hire over such public highways.
act is not a police measure in any sense.
taJt for revenue purposes onJ.y.
The
It contends
~ehicles.
ohQr~
The
Case:
14 ~ 55077
08/28/2014
10 :9224533
Page: 14 of 29
DktEntry: 5-8
- 6-
~ ublic
school
e~ense .
To
It
is easily conceivable that the :t.egislature had in mind that ey relie ving such operators from a state license l tax cheaper transportation for a public purpose would thereby be had. .
An instance of a
jection t o the classification of motor vehicles so operated at public expense apart from those operated for hire by p r ivate individuals,
associatione and corporationu .
The next exemption applies to those who use said public
highw&ys for the tra.n sportation of their own property or e mployees
or both and t o thos e who
or compensation .
tr ~msport
ope ~ste
motor vehicles
f or t he transportation of persons or property for hire enjoy a diffe re nt and more e:xtensive use of the public highw&l's.
by enabled to engage in bus iness on the public highways and., to pro vide for themselves a li1elihood particularly because of the e:xistence
such
~ransfer
fur ther exemp tion of hotel buses meeting t r ains, cars or boats were
intended to apply to those who are engaged in the busines s of opera-
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 15 of 29
- 7-
ting such motor vehicles for hire within the limits of incorporated cities .
As suoh
the~ ma~
be
prope r l~
so separately
municiP~lities
clase~fie~
maintainable directly at the expense of the a tate but from mUilD:cipal revenues derived f rom the eJCer oise of municip!U, powers of
license ann taxation, and it must be assumed thet the legislature
had this distinction in mind in limiting the license to the use of
highways maintainable by the state and for whose maintenance munioi
palities are not responsible .
In providing for the exempti ons heretofore considered we
are of the opinion that the le gisla tu1e has not acted a r bi t r aily
nor wi thout ranson in making such classifications .
We do not in-
gene ~al
provisions
di~t inotion
of
mun icip~litiea
Case: 14 ~55077
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-8
10 : 9224533
~rom
classification having no
b~sis
It is difficult to perceive
how this ellemption may be JUStified when it relieves from the burden of the license
ta~
bU.Siness outside of municipalities ana. who perchance may have acquired a government contract for the carriage of mail from which
they uerive at least fifteen per cent of their gross r eceipts .
Under this eJtemption the entire revenues of such operators derived
from business exclusive of mail contracts- ana which may be as much
as eighty-five per cent of their gross receipts-are relieved from
the cieduotion of four per cent license ta:x while a like percentage
of the gross receipts of those operators of the same class having
no mail contracts are subjeqteti to the ta:x
justifiable basis for the distinction.
We see no legally
statute does not merely exempt. the mail contract revenues from the
license tall of four per cent but e:xempte the entire revenues of
such operat.ors from the requirements of the act.
In furthe r
?o
We feel no hesitancy
Page: 16 of 29
Case: 14-55077
10:9224533
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 17 of 29
- 9-
e~emptions
will.
114
e~reaaion
of the legislative
C~l.
whioh are invalid ar e to be r egarded aa the condition or consideration upon which others were enacted , and it is evident that the
legislature would not have enacted the statute exoept in its entirety, and did not intend that
any
invalid .
~ntire
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 18 of 29
provi~ns
enact ~
be carr ied into effect by upholding the act and disregarding such
subsidiary provisions, that purpose will not be defeated by an unconstitutional provision contained in a subordinate
act ."
~ection
in the
It cannot
The pro-
The
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 19 of 29
p~pose
the purpose of indi Cl;lting to the court, when required to pass upon
the constitutionality of the act or of any portion thereof, and to
apply the rules of
~aw
i:il
..
But
e~p~ession
It is
may rightly be conaidered by the court as a declaration of intention on the part of the legislature that i:n so
1'a~
power a separable invalid portion of the act should not detroy the
whole.
It is next contended that the second sentence of section
11 to the effect that the legislature would have passed the act end
08/28/2014
Case: 14-55077
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 20 of 29
- 12-
11
1rreapective'~
~s
The
that the legiSlature would have adopted the sot with the invalid
portions excluded if it had known that the inclusion thereof was constitutionally unauthorized, thus evidencing an intention which ot he r. wise might not have bean apparent on the faoe of the ao t , and indicating a purpos e to avoid if possible a determina tion by the court
that it could not be said from the language of the act whether the
legislature would have enacted the statute with the i nval id portions excluded.
tions should be held invalid it was the intention o.f the legislature
that the operators whose exemption was attempted should be subjected
to the gemral requirements o f the ac t.
tion 11 was involved in the Motor Vehicle Aot of 1913 and was given
its
props~
Cal . 282, where it was said: " Similar sections have be en subjects
of interpretation in other states anq it seems to be the consensus
of belief that they impose upon the courts the duty of support i ng
the legiSlative will as far as possibl ?' (Citing ctlses) . ~'.
When the
operat i~
ture so to be .
The
en~c t mant
have a s sumed had the unlawful exemptions originol!y not have been
included therein.
st~empted
.,
ase: 14-55077
10: 9224533
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 21 of 29
- 13-
privile~s b~
the~
the provisions
quiring
o~
uniformit~ .
cat i on of approved r ules of constr uct ion. having in mind that the
power of the oourt t o d eolar e a s t atute uncons t itut i onal i s one of
the utmost de l icacy i n its e xe r ci se and shoul d not be asser te d t o
str ike down the statute unless there is no proper basis fo:r its
reoohoil iation with the organic law ( S. & v. ~. ~ co . v. City of
Stockt on. 41 Cal. 147 , 159 ; tdatter of Application of L.iill e r, 162
Cal . 687) .
It
I t llllilY be grant-
~ tiole
from the
I and that
A careful consid-
eration of the deo iS ion in that oa.ae in the light of the terms of
the statute then before the court discloses that the conclusions
.:. " " l!!C..:
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry. 5-8
Page: 22 of 29
-14-
there reached are not c ontrolling in the present case nor are they
inconsistent with the rules applied in this controversy.
The
of
i~rigation
districts in countie s
throughOut ~
The
~ct
then
~barter
prior to June
4~
~ireot ors
1916, or within
provided for
~r
natural,
~d
Further -
more , there were in that case valid r e asons for concluding that the
exceptions in the act were
materi~l
considerations or conditions
attending the favorable vote on the entire measure in the legislature ana tha t without the e:xeeptions tbe statute would not have
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10:9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 23 of 29
-15been adopted .
the ~ame
saril~
were conferred b;y the general terms of the sat and the disabilities
or burdensome conditions were imposed upon the municipalities included in the
declared void.
e~e aption
properl~
court h&d under cons ide ration the real estate brokers' lieense law
of 1917.
from the insurance commissioner or the bureau of build ing aDd loan
supervfsion a eertif'i cate o authority or license to do business
within this state .
e~emp
tiQn were invalid and sepa.rable the balance of the act should, stend
or that the legislature would have edopted the statute with the
inve.lid exemption omitted.
It is contended by responde-nt that Hill v. Wallace , 259
u. s.
pect might be conceded if it were here determined that the valid and
invalid port.ions of the act in question were inseparable .
federal trade sot of Congress
sideration in that
unenforceable .
cas~ ,
ap~roved
The
that the inva lid portions were so interwoven with the other regulations conta.ined in the act
as
A similar
s~ving
cl ause
was considered in an Alabama ease concerning which .it was he.ld that
10 :9224533
08/28/2014
Case: 14-55077
DktEntry: 5-8
Page 24 of 29
- 16-
J2
u. s.
286 , it was said that such a saving clause was "not an in-
ol~use
u.s .
oonsia er et i on .
al terms of the act were denied the equal protection of the law and
the whol e statute must fall for the r eason "that the legislature
would not have entered upon or continued the policy indicated by the
statute unless agriculturists and livestock dealers were e:xcluded
from its operation."
involved.
u.s.
~Y
Likewi!ie
in that case the effect of a saving clause was not be:fore the court .
Lewis '
Respondent relies on a statement in ..Sutherland on Statutory OonstrtLction (vol . 1 , 2d ed . , sec. 306) where it is said ; "I:f ,,
by striking out a void e:xception, provi.s o or other :restrictive
olause ,,tbe remailllder, by reason of its generality, will have a
broader scope as to subject or territory, its oper ation is not in
Case: 14-55077
10:9224533
08/28/2014
Page: 25 of 29
DktEntry: 5-8
- 17-
The -foregoing is
~;~.s
rel~tes.
of the rules applied in the present oase and we find none of them
when properly considered oompelling a conclusion contrary to that
at which we have arrived .
Cases froro other jurisdictions, cited by the appellant,
declare the e ffectiveness o:t such a saving clause in proper cQses .
In N.
~.
tht! r~ of
:we,
148 N. w. 293 , it wss held that under such tl saving clause the rule
is that i f a part of a statute be unconstitutional the remaining
portions .must nevertheless be sustained if enough i.S left to constitute an enforceable law .
f.AS
applied in this state see 5 Oal. Jur . 643 , 648, and sup-
Case. 14-55077
10 : 9224533
08/28/2014
Page: 26 of 29
DktEntry: 5-8
-18-
trea~ u~
and cred-
one- half of said o ol lections to tlle state to be devoted to the maintenance and repair of public highways .
1.s
ap-
It is
~intenanoe
legisl ature would seem to be fully authorized by section 26 of article IV of thH constitution which provides that "the legislature
shall have the pov1er to e eta blish a system of state highways, or to
deolare any road a state highway , and to pass all l aws
neoca~ary
or
proper to oonetruot and maintain the sa!IS , and to exte:nd aid for t he
construction and maintenance in whole or
i~
way."
167.)
respondent~
are
not in point for the r eason that the license taxes there involved
were requi red to be paid into the county treasuries and were imposed
end made available for expenditure for county purposes in the absence
of oonetitutional a.uthority or a general: law authorizing the county
autporities to impose the same .
Case: 14-55077
10:9224533
08/28/2014
Page: 27 of 29
DktEntry: 5-8
- 19of that portion of the act which requires the license tax to . be I pa
id
,
into the state
tre ~sury
lo7 _eat.
~saeesed
ta:xed at the rate of one per cent eaoh year exclu.a ively for the purposes of the state .
ta~
collected
..i
the alleged franchis e of the respondent as contemplated by the section of the constitution referred to is a property tax on an ad
valor em bas is and is n ot in any sense a l i oense t ax for the pri vilege;; of oarrying on a business s uch as the. act he:re involved intended to impos e.
We therefore conclude that when
exemptions are excluded from the act as being obnoxi ous t o s e.ction
21 of article I of our state constitution the remainder of the act
is a completely enforceable statut e as to all operators engaged in
the business of using the :PUblic highways of the state outsi de of
municipalities for the transportation of persons or property for
hire inclu.di ng those unlawfully exempted and that the remainder of
said act violates no provision of the state or federal coiJStitutiona
invoked by the respondent .
The act 1lere under consideration waa repeale d by se ction
ll of a simila r act apprtlved May 23, 1925 ( Stats . 1925, p . 833) .
as
Inasmuoh"~t..alinrights ,
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-8
Page: 28 of 29
be~Neen
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-9
Page: 1 of 15
3
4
5
FILED----- - - -
OOCKETED'---;:::-:DA~:TE:-- -"!I'!'!!!:NIT!!"l":IAL~
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #9
19
20
21
Defendants
@(ft)W
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-9
Page: 2 of 15
Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
(1926).
II
Ex parte SCHMOLKE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
II
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-9
"""
Page: 8 of 15
West law
248 P. 244
199 Cal. 42, 248 P . 244
~73
48A Automobiles
48Alll Public Service Vehicles
48AID(B) License and Registration
48Ak73 k. Constitutionality and validity of acts and ordinances. Most Cited Cases
'
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-9
.:.J
.. &
:
Page: 9 of 15
361 Statutes
361 XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
36lk1636 Particular Laws as General or Special~ Validity
361kl654 k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 36 lk72)
Exemptions of operators transporting persons to and from public schools, and those not transporting for
hire, from motor vehicle tax, are valid. Motor Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act, 1, St 1925, p . 833,
1; ConsL art. 1, 11.
Statutes 361
~1654
361 Statutes
361 XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
361k1636 Particular Laws as General or Special; Validity
361k1654 k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Fonnerly 36lk74(l))
Exemptions of vehicles operated within city limits from motor vehicle license tax held valid. Motor
Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act, St.l925, p. 833, 4, 9, Consl. art. 1, 11.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-9
.:.J ._
....
Page: 10 of 15
~73
48A Automobiles
48Aill Public Service Vehicles
48Alli(B) License and Registration
48Ak73 k. Constitutionality and validity of acts and ordinances. Most Cited Cases
That concerns transporting own matelials added cartage of price held not to require inclusion in
classification of those engaged in transporting for hire. Motor Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act (See
West's Ann.Rev. & Tax.Code, 9601 et seq.); St.l925, p. 833.
. .;:., . . Page: 11 of 15
... .
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-9
-.
~.._
361 Statutes
361 VIII Validity
36lk1532 Effect of Partial Invalidity; Severability
361kl535 Particular Statutes
361k1535(25) k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k64(8))
Void portion of act, separable from remainder, will be ignored in considering validity of remainder of act.
Motor Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act, St.1925, p. 833, 12.
**245 *44 Sullvan & Sullivan and Theo. J. Roche, of San Francisco, and Theodore M. Stuart, of Fresno, for
petitioner.
U.S. Webb, Atty. Gen., and FrankL. Guerena, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respendenL
SHENK, J.
The petitioner seeks a release on habeas corpus from his detention by the chief of police of the city and
county of San Francisco. He was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued upon the filing of a complaint in the
police court of said city and county charging hlm with a misdemeanor in that he did, on the 21st day of
September, 1925, engage in the business of transporting property for hire upon and over the public highways
of the state of Califotnia without having obtained a license so to do as required by the Motor Vehicle
Transportation License Tax Act, approved May 23, 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833). In and by said act it is made a
misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both for any person, firm, association, or *45
..
~- -
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
. .... ... - --
ID: 9224533
..
-- --..~
--
DktEntry: 5-9
Page: 12 of 15
corporation to operate motor vehicles for hire upon and over the public highways of the state without
procuring a license and thereafter paying the license fees as prescribed in said act. The petitioner is now and
for several years last past has been engaged in the business of operating for hire motor vehicles upon and
over the public highways of the state. He has refused to apply for a license, claiming that the said act is
unconstitutionaL The objections which he urges in that respect are substantially the same as those made by
the plaintiff and respondent in Bacon Service Corporation v. Fred C. Huss, etc. (S. F. No. 11419) 248 P. 235,
this day decided. The 1925 statute covers the same subject-matter as the former statute (Stats. 1923, p. 706),
which it repeals. The provisions of the present statute are the same as the 1923 statutes with certain
exceptions which will be noted.
In section 1 of the present statute the definition of an ' operator' is the same as declared in the former
statute, but following the definition a new provision is inserted requiring that all exempted freight-carrying
vehicles shall obtain exempt emblems from the state board of equalization and display the same in the
manner provided. No objection is raised to this additional regulation. Section 4 provides for the payment of
the license fee after deduction therefrom of all county and municipal licenses and taxes and is substantially
the same as the former statute. Section 7 provides the penalties for violations of the act and section 8 for the
allotment of the revenues derived under the act. These sections are likewise substantially the same as the
former statute. Section 9 is as follows:
'This act shall not apply to hotel busses meeting trains or boats, nor to taxicabs, drays, transfer vehicles
and other like city motor vehicles operating within incorporated cities or towns or the usual transfer delivery
zone adjacent thereto, nor shall it apply to such vehicles operating between incorporated cities or towns
where no portion of any state or county highway is traversed in said operation.'
those who solely transport persons by motor vehicle to and from or to or from public schools and of those
who solely transport their own property or employees or both and of those who transport no persons or
property for hire or compensation constitute unlawful exemptions; that the exemptions provided for in section
9 of hotel busses, etc., and other like city motor vehicles operating within incorporated cities or towns, are
unlawful, and that the designation of 'the usual transfer delivery zone adjacent to' incorporated cities or
towns is void for vagueness; and that the exemption in section 9 1/2 of that part of the gross income of
operators derived from United States mail and parcel post contracts entered into prior to the first day of May,
1925, is unlawful. It is urged that the said exemptions are in violation of sections 11 and 21 of article l of the
state Constitution; that the allotment of one-half of said revenues to the counties in the state is in violation of
section 12 of article ll , which prohibits the Legislature from imposing taxes on counties or the inhabitants
thereof for county purposes~ that the alleged unlawful provisions of the act are inseparable from the
--- - ,-
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
--- -- - ~ ~- - --J-
ID: 9224533
--- -
DktEntry: 5-9
-----,------.....
Page: 13 of 15
remainder and invalidate the entire statute; that the act as a whole is obnoxious to section 25 of article 4 of
the Constitution, which, among other things, prohibits the Legislature from passing local or special laws for
the assessment or collection of taxes; or granting to any corporation. association, or individual any special or
exclusive right, privilege, or immunity, and exempting property from taxation. It also is contended that the
said act violates the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the federal Constitution.
[1][2] Considering frrst the objections to the several provisions of the act and then to the act as a whole, it
will be noted that the exemptions provided for in section 1 have been determined in the Bacon Service
Corporation Case to be lawful exemptions. It will also be noted that in section 9 of the act sightseeing busses
are not exempted and that said section as re-enacted makes more certain the intention of the Legislature to
exempt from the provisions of the act only those motor vehicles for hire which are operated within *47 the
limits of incorporated cities. It was doubtless contemplated by the Legislature that many operators might
operate both within and without incorporated cities and towns. This might be true as to many motor vehicles
mentioned in section 9. If any of those motor vehicles should be operated for hire as a business and not
incidentally on the public highways outside of incorporated cities, it would seem to be clear that they would
be subject to the license tax. This conclusion is fortified by a consideration of the tenns of section 4 of the
act, which provides for a deduction from the license tax of all sums paid by any operator on account of
county or municipal taxes or licenses. It is thus made plain that it was the intention to exact the license fee
from those only who use the public highways outside of incorporated cities in the conduct of their business,
and that as to those whose business is operating exclusively within such cities the license is not required, this
on the theory that the latter are or may be called upon to respond to a license tax or other exaction imposed
for like purposes by the municipality itself, and that as to those operating both within and without
incorporated cities they should receive a credit in their state license tax for whatever amount they are required
to pay as county and municipal licenses and taxes. There would seem to be nothing unfair or unjust in the
license plan thus laid out by the statute. We are of the opinion that the exemptions and classifications
provided for in section 9, when read in conjunction with the rest of the act, do not amount to arbitrary action
or unlawful discrimination on the part of the Legislature.
[3]1n connection with the return to the writ herein, a stipulation of facts was filed from which it appears
that at the time of and for more than six months prior to the filing of the stipulation on December 24, 1925,
there were and are numerous persons, firms, associations, and corporations operating motor vehicles on the
public highways for hire who are exempted from the license tax imposed by the act in question. But it does
not appear that those who were and are so operating and are so exempted do not fall within the classification
of those who are lawfully exempted. It also appears in the stipulation that the type of motor vehicles used by
the exempted classes is similar to the type used by licensed operators. This fact we deem immaterial. It is not
the type of vehicle, but the peculiar nature *48 of the business conducted upon and over the public highways,
that justifies the classification of the statute for licensing purposes.
[4][5] Again, it appears in the stipulation that numerous business concerns, such as lumber and building
material dealers, use the public highways for the tranportation of their merchandise and add the cost of
cartage to the price of the material delivered. These facts might be sufficient upon which to **247 separately
classify such use for the purpose of regulation or license or both, but they would not necessarily compel their
inclusion in the classification singled out by the statute of those engaged in the business of using the public
highways for the transportation of persons or property for hire. In exercising its power to classify the
Legislature has a wide discretion. The presumptions are in favor of the validity of the legislative
determination, and it will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. County of San Luis Obispo v.
Murphy, 162 Cal. 588, 123 P. 808, Ann. Cas. 19130, 712; 5 Cal. Jur. pp. 832, 833, and cases cited.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
[6][7] It also appears from said stipulation that ' the usual transfer delivery zone' outside of incorporated
cities referred to in section 9 of the act is traversed by public highways upon and over which certain
exempted operators operate their motor vehicles for hire. If such operators be lawfully exempted, no
complaint may, of course, be made. But if they belong to the class of operators who conduct their business
within the limits of incorporated cities and who desire to engage in such business also in county territory
adjacent to said cities, it would seem to be impossible for them to determine to what extent the public
highways in the adjacent outside territory would be in the 'usual transfer delivery zone.' We fail to be
cognizant of any standard of measurement by which an operator could foretell the extent of any such 'zone'
and be certain that he was not transgressing the law when he proceeded to conduct his business on the public
highways therein. No reason has been suggested by the respondent for the inclusion of said clause in the
statute. It is unquestionably void for vagueness. In re Peppers, 189 Cal. 682, 209 P. 896. But its invalidity
cannot affect the remainder of the act when considered in its entirety. The clause is merely incidental to the
main purposes of the act and is separable therefrom. *49 In view of section 12 of the act it should be wholly
disregarded in the enforcement of the statute. Hewitt v. Board of Medical Examiners, 148 CaL 590, 84 P.
39, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 896, 113 Am. St. Rep. 315, 7 Ann. Cas. 750.
[8] It also appears from the stipulation that there are numerous persons, etc., operating upon and over said
public highways and carrying United States mail and parcels post for hire under contracts with the United
States government entered into prior to the first day of May, 1925. As we understand the petitioner's
contention on this branch of the case, it is that if it be within the power of the Legislature to classify for
purposes of legislation the revenues derived from United States mail and parcels post contracts, still the
exemption provided for in section 9 1/2 is invalid for the reason that it purports to exempt only the revenues
from such contracts as were entered into prior to May 1, 1925, thus unlawfully discriminating, so it is
claimed, against operators whose contracts were entered into after that date. It is assumed that the revenues
from such contracts may be subjected to the license tax as an exaction by the state for the maintenance of the
public highways. See Dickey v. Turnpike Co., 37 Ky. (7 Dana) 113; 31 Cyc. 975. If so, we think there is a
reasonable basis for their separate classification for the purposes of legislation. It has been held that a mail
contractor is not a common carrier but is rather a public agent of the United States employed in performing a
governmental function. A. T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 225 U.S. 640, 32 S. Ct. 702, 56 L. Ed. 1236;
31 Cyc. 999. When he acts in the dual capacity of a governmental agent and an ordinary operator for hire,
that portion of his revenues which is derived from his mail contracts would seem also to be the proper subject
of legislative classification. It was undoubtedly the intention to make the statute apply prospectively and thus
to avoid interference with a public service under existing contracts. The Legislature may have considered that
in any event the powers of the Postmaster General extend only to the authorization of mail carrying contracts
for limited periods. R. S. 3966 [U. S. Comp. St. 7459]. It may also have considered that in fixing May 1st,
which was several days after the measure was finally adopted by both houses of the Legislature, as the *50
dividing point of time, sufficient notice was thereby afforded to contractors carrying United States mail and
parcels post and to prospective contractors to take into account the proposed license tax in entering into new
contracts. Whether or not it would be legal notice we deem unimportant. It might have been more in
accordance with precision in legislation to have fixed the dividing point at the effective date of the statute,
but it may not be said that in designating May 1st any unlawful discrimination was thereby effected.
No additional facts set forth in said stipulation call for further remark. What was said in the Bacon
Service Corporation Case, supra, as to the effect of section 12 of article ll and other provisions of our
Constitution in relation to the statute in question, sufficiently disposes of petitioner's contentions. When the
statute is construed in the light of that case and of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that no unlawful
exemptions are incorporated in the act, and when the fatally vague and indefinite clause in section 9 is
- - .. .
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
. . . . . - ...
ID: 9224533
.. - -.J -
DktEntry: 5-9
- - - - - - - - - - - -.1-
Page: 15 of 15
stricken the statute is a complete expression of the legislative will as ascertained from the language thereof.
As such it contravenes no provision of the state or federal Constitutions.
The many authorities cited by the petitioner have been noted. The Attorney General does not dispute the
rules therein laid down, but only their applicability to the case **248 in hand. We find in none of them, when
carefully examined and well considered, anything inconsistent with the conclusions herein expressed.
The writ is discharged, and the petitioner remanded.
We concur: WASTE, C. J.; SEAWELL, J.; CURTIS, J.; RICHARDS, J.; LAWLOR, J.
CA. 1926
In re Schmolke
199 Cal. 42, 248 P. 244
END OF DOCUMENT
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
'
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 1 of 23
II E C.EI VED
-JIOLLY C.. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
At:.:J .t 8 !: A
FILED,-- - ----- ~ - -
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #10
19
20
21
Defendants
@~W
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 2 of 23
Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
ape~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 8 of 23
Westlaw
180 CaLApp.2d 200,4 Cal.Rptr. 396
(Cite as: 180 Cal.App.2d 200, 4 Cal.Rptr. 396)
District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
Robert BEAMON, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Paul Mason, Director, Defendant and Respondent.
Civ. 23968.
April21, 1960.
Proceeding on petition for writ of mandamus to compel department of motor vehicles to set aside and
expunge from its records an order revoking petitioner's motor vehicle operator's license. The Superior Court,
Los Angeles County, E llsworth Meyer, J., entered judgment denying petition, and petitioner appealed. The
District Court of Appeal, Vallee, Jr., held, inter alia, that legislature, by empowering officers of department to
determine whether a driver's license shall be revoked, did not thereby unconstitutionally delegate judicial and
legislative power to department.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Automobiles 48A
~144.1(1.5)
48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Akl44 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.1 In General; Grounds
48Akl44.1(1.5) k. Constitutional and statutory provisions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak132)
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 9 of 23
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 10 of 23
~144.1(1.5)
48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.1 In General; Grounds
48Akl44.1(1.5) k. Constitutional and statutory provisions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Akl32)
Constitutional Law 92 i='2425(2)
92 Constitutional Law
92XX Separation of Powers
92XX(B) Legislative Powers and Functions
92XX(B)4 Delegation of Powers
92k241 0 To Executive, Particular Issues and Applications
92k2425 Licenses
92k2425(2) k. Motor vehicles and operators. Most Cited Cases
(Fonnerly 92k62(7), 92k62)
Vehicle Code provision authorizing department of motor vehicles, upon receipt of certain information or
showing of its records, to conduct an investigation to determine whether there were grounds for suspension,
revocation, or the imposition of conditions or restrictions on licensee, and permitting department to
re-examine licensee in any such event, the grounds for suspension and revocation being contained in other
sections of Code, did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation to department of power to designate what
acts constitute violations for which penalties might be imposed, power to set penalties, and power to impose
them. West's Ann.Vehicle Code, 13800-13802.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 11 of 23
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 12 of 23
361XI(A) In General
361kl633 Laws of Special, Local, or Private Nature
361kl634 k. Io general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k"77(1))
Prohibition against special legislation does not preclude classification, but only requires that classification
be reasonable.
[8] Statutes 361 =:>1634
361 Statutes
361XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
361kl633 Laws of Special, Local, or Private Nature
361k1634 k In general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k77(1))
In determining whether a statute violates prohibition against special legislation, legislative determination
as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant a classification will not be overthrown unless it is palpably
arbitrary, and unless it clearly appears beyond a reasonable doubt that no sound reason for the classification
exists.
-- -
"l
- ~
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 13 of 23
361 Statutes
361XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
361k1636 Particular Laws as General or Special; Validity
361k1654 k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
{Fonnerly 361k77(1), 361k68)
Vehicle Code provision to effect that, in applying Code section governing suspension, revocation, or
restriction of driver's license, department of motor vehicles must give due consideration to more frequent use
of motor vehicles by chauffeurs, was a general, not a special law, with a rational foundation, and did not
contravene constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of laws. West's Ann.Vehicle Code,
13802.
J.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 14 of 23
-- .- -
......,...
-.-
... .....
. -- ......
_...
Case: 14-55077
Automobiles 48A
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 15 of 23
~144.5
48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Akl44 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.5 k. Extent of discipline in general; hardship and mitigating circumstances. Most Cited
Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144.2(14), 48Ak144.2(8))
Fact that motor vehicle operator, whose license was revoked on ground that he was negligent operator,
might suffer inconvenience and even economic loss because of revocation, did not make remedial action of
department of motor vehicles in revoking license the imposition of punishment for past offenses. West's
Ann.Vehicle Code, 1801, 1806, 1807, 14104-14106, 14108.
[15] Automobiles 48A
~138
48A Automobiles
48AN License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak135 License and Registration
48Ak138 k. Eligibility for license. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144)
revocation, and restriction of his license, as well as convictions of traffic violations, is relevant and material
evidence of his knowledge of and compliance with vehicle laws, and his ability to exercise ordinary and
reasonable care in operating motor vehicle. West's Ann.Vehicle Code, 1801, 1806, 1807, 14104--14106.
14108.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 16 of 23
48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Akl44 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.2 Procedure
48Ak144.2(2) Judicial Remedies and Review in General
48Akl44.2(3) k. Scope of review; discretion and fact questions. Most Cited Cases
Where referee, in informal hearing which culminated in revocation of driver's license, reported that driver
drove total of 30,000 to 40,000 miles a year, 75% of which was for business purposes, driver could not
thereafter contend successfully that motor vehicle department did not consider his economic need to drive in
conduct of his occupation, or the probable amount of driving he would be required to do for that purpose.
[17] Automobiles 48A =>144.2(3)
48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.2 Procedure
48Akl44.2(2) Judicial Remedies and Review in General
48Ak144.2(3) k. Scope of review; discretion and fact questions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144.2(9.1))
On judgment roll appeal from action of motor vehicle department in revoking driver's license, where
neither evidence heard by referee nor that heard by trial court was before reviewing court, claims that there
was insufficient proof that driver had committed certain offenses, and that the hearing officer acted arbitrarily
in failing to give any weight to evidence which driver submitted, could not be considered.
[18] Appeal and Error 30 =>901
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and Warren H. Deering, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 17 of 23
VALLEE, Justice.
Appeal by petitioner from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus **399 to compel the
Department of Motor Vehicles to set aside and expunge from its records its order revoking his motor vehicle
operator's license. The appeal is on the clerk's transcript consisting of the judgment roll.
On May 21, 1957 the department mailed to petitioner a notice of a hearing to be held before it for the
suspension or revocation of his operator's license. Petitioner did not request a formal bearing, and on June 25,
1957 an informal hearing was held before a referee. Petitioner appeared at the hearing. Evidence was
introduced; and petitioner's driving record, shown by the department's records, was considered. On June 27,
1957 the referee rendered his report.
The report showed: at the time of the hearing petitioner was 23 years of age, married, the father of one
child, and had been a carpenter for 3 1/2 years; be had been driving 6 112 years, all of it in California; he
drove a total of 30,000 to 40,000 miles (a year, apparently), 75 per cent of which was for business purposes.
The report stated his driving record as follows: past 12 months, 9 convictions and one accident; past 24
months, 9 convictions and one accident; past 36 months, 13 convictions and one accident.
The report concluded with the comments and findings set *204 out in the margin.FN1 The referee
recommended revocation of petitioner's operator's license.
FNI. 'In reviewing the file of Mr. Beamon, accumulated since age eighteen, a period of five years. it
is noted that the record show(s]:
'Citations: 22
Violations: 30
Fines: $250
Bail Forfeitures: $44
Days in jail: 5
Accidents: 5
Traffic School
Written contracts: 6
.,.
Case; 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 18 of 23
Personal contracts: 4
Did not appear 4
Placed on probation:
1(~20-53
Revoked:7-26-54
Reinstated: 7-26-55
'Department requested by Judge, in 1954, to 'please get this roan off road' .
'Subject stated that tickets have decreased, that his citations were due to negligence. Of the 332.2
(4-17-56) and other similar violations be stated that on some ofthese occasions it was necessary that
he drive. The out of state violations of 10-4-56 he claimed he knew nothing about since he had never
been to North Carolina and that he had not been out of this state during 1956.
'It is evident from the records that this department bas spent much time and effort; has been patient
and considerate in trying to cause Mr. Beamon to drive in a violation-free manner. His defense of the
record offers nothing to indicate further delay of strong action at this time. This has been pointed out
to him.
'Findings ~
'Recommend: Revocation.'
On July 29, 1957 the department entered its order revoking petitioner's operator's license, effective
August 2, 1957. On October 7, 1958 mandamus was sought in the superior court. On March 9, 1959 the cause
was heard on the pleadings which included the referee's report plus the testimony of plaintiff. Plaintiffs
testimony is not in the record. The court found the facts as stated, and concluded: the department did not act
arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably or without just cause, and did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse its
discretion; it afforded petitioner a fair hearing; it proceeded at all times in compliance with the provisions of
the Vehicle Code; its decision revoking petitioner's operator's license was supported by the weight of the
evidence; the provisions of the Vehicle Code relating to the suspension, and revocation of motor vehicle
operators' licenses under which the department acted are constitutional, both on the face thereof and as
applied to petitioner. The judgment denied the writ.
Our decision is governed by the provisions of the Vehicle Code with respect to the power of the
department to suspend *205 or **400 revoke the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon the
highway after notice and hearing, as they read in 1957.FN2 We are not concerned with the provisions which
made it mandatory on the department to suspend or revoke the privilege of any person to operate a motor
vehicle upon the highway on receipt of a record showing he had been convicted of certain public offenses.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 19 of 23
304, 305, 307.FN* In such cases the facts have already been determined in the criminal proceeding. Nor are
we concerned with the question whether the department had the power to suspend or revoke the privilege in a
case in which a court had acted on the question.
FN2. The section references to the Vehicle Code are to the sections as they were numbered prior to
September 18, 1959. Stat.1959, c. 3, p. 1523.
FN* New Vehicle Code 1959, 13350-13353, 13550, 13555-13557.
[ 1] it is petitioner's contention that the provisions of the Vehicle Code under which the department
revoked his operator's license delegated judicial and legislative power to the department in violation of the
state Constitution. There is no merit in this contention.
[2] It is well established that state-wide agencies empowered to revoke licenses, for cause defined by law,
are not exercising judicial power as that phrase is used in the Constitution conferring judicial power on the
courts; and statutes creating such agencies and conferring upon them such powers are constitutional. Suckow
v. Alderson, 182 Cal. 247, 250, 187 P. 965; Dominguez Land Corp. v. Daugherty, 196 Cal. 453, 466,238 P.
697, 44 A.L.R. 1. It was expressly held in Keck v. Superior Court, 109 Cal.App. 251, 293 P. 128, that the
Legislature, by empowering officers of the department of motor vehicles to determine whether a driver's
license shall be revoked, does not confer judicial power upon executive officers.
[3] 'The delegation of an absolute legislative discretion to an administrative body is not proper, but if the
delegating statute establishes an ascertainable standard to guide the administrative agents no objection can
properly be made to it.' Wotton v. Bush, 41 Cal.2d 460, 468, 261 P.2d 256, 260. The carefully detailed
provisions of the Vehicle Code under which the department acted refute any implication of unlawful
delegation of legislative power to the department. Legislation on the subject of operators' and chauffeurs'
licenses at the time of the investigation and revocation of petitioner's operator's license constituted a complete
division of the Vehicle Code. Division IV, chapters 1--6, 250-339.FN** The *206 applicable sections
provided a complete and comprehensive guide for departmental action.
FN** Now Vehicle Code 1959, 12500 et seq.
Section 306 provided that the department might revoke a license upon any of the grounds which
authorized the refusal to issue a license. Section 271 stated the grounds on which the department might refuse
to issue a license. One of these grounds permitted the department to refuse to issue a license if it determined
that the applicant was a negligent or incompetent operator of a motor vehicle. 271(e). As a guide in the
determination of whether a person was a 'negligent operator,' section 271.2FN3 established a point-count
system to **401 be used in evaluating the traffic record of the person. If his record totaled a specified
minimum number of points for a specified period of time, the statute directed that he be prima facie presumed
to be a negligent operator.
FN3, Section 271.2 read: "Negligent Operator' Defined. Any person who has been convicted on four
or more occasions in a consecutive period of 12 months, of six or more occasions within a
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 20 of 23
'(2) That the licensee has been involved in three or more accidents within a period of twelve
consecutive months.
'(3) That the licensee is a reckless, negligent or incompetent driver of a motor vehicle.
'(4) That the licensee has permitted an unlawful or fraudulent use of such license.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
Page: 21 of 23
'(5) That any ground exists for which a license might be refused.
'(b) In any such event the department may require the reexamination of the licensee, and shall give 10
days' written notice of the time and place thereof. In the event the licensee refuses or fails to submit to
such reexamination, the department may peremptorily suspend the license of such person until such
time as the licensee shall have submitted to such reexamination. Such suspension shall be effective
upon notice.
'(c) In applying the provisions of this section the department shall give due consideration to the more
frequent use of motor vehicles by chauffeurs.'
[5] Petitioner complains that under the authority of section 314 subdivisions (a)(l) and (a)(2) the
department could and did take action to suspend, revoke, or impose conditions on the license of an operator
where he was free from fault. There is nothing in the record to support this claim.
Section 314(c) directed: 'In applying the provisions of this section the department shall give due
consideration to the more frequent use of motor vehicles by chauffeurs.' Petitioner contends this subsection
denied him equal protection of the law. He argues that there is no reasonable distinction between a licensee in
his position who was necessarily required in his occupation to drive many times the *208 number of **402
miles which the Legislature contemplated as the average amount of miles driven by individuals for pleasure,
and one who was employed by others for the principal purpose of driving a motor vehicle. Veh.Code, 7L
[6][7][8] 'A law is general when it applies equally to all persons embraced in a class founded on some
natural, intrinsic, or constitutional distinction. It is special if it confers particular privileges or imposes
peculiar disabilities or burdensome conditions in the exercise of a common right on a class of persons
arbitrarily selected from the general body of those who stand in precisely the same relation to the subject of
the law. [Citation.] The prohibition against special legislation does not preclude classification, but only
requires that the classification be reasonable. [Citation.] A legislative determination as to what is a sufficient
distinction to warrant a classification will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It must
be clear beyond reasonable doubt that no sound reason for the classification exists. [Citation.]' Sawyer v.
Barbour, 142 Cal.App.2d 827, 838, 300 P.2d 187, 193.
Classifications of persons authorized to operate motor vehicles have been upheld with respect to minors
(Buelke v. Levenstadt, 190 Cal. 684, 688, 214 P. 42); financial responsibility of operators (Watson v.
Division of Motor Vehicles, 2 12 Cal. 279, 282, 298 P. 481)~ chauffeurs and operators (In Matter of
Application of Stork, 167 Cal. 294, 295, 139 P. 684). The latter case, upholding the validity of a statute
requiring chauffeurs to pay a license fee but exempting all other drivers from payment, states in respect to the
differences between the two classes of drivers (167 Cal. at page 296, 139 P. at page 685):
'Of first importance in this is the fact that the chauffeur offers his services to the public, and is frequently
a carrier of the general public. These circumstances put professional chauffeurs in a class by themselves, and
entitle the public to receive the protection which the Legjslature may accord in making provision for the
competency and carefulness of such drivers. The chauffeur, generally speaking, is not driving his own car. He
is intrusted with the property of others. In the nature of things a different amount of care will ordinarily be
exercised by such a driver than will be exercised by the man driving his own car and risking his own
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
o.J
Page: 22 of 23
property. Many other considerations of like nature will readily present themselves, but enough has been said
to show that there are sound, just, and valid reasons for the classification adopted.'
[9] *209 Section 314(c) was a general, not a special law. It had a rational foundation, and did not
contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution assigned by petitioner.
[10] Petitioner was not denied due process. Acting in accord with the provisions of section 315, the
department at the conclusion of its investigation gave notice to petitioner it was considering suspending or
revoking his operator's license, and of his right to a hearing. Section 316(c) provided that failure of the
licensee to respond to the notice should be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing, but the department
might grant either an informal or formal hearing. Petitioner failed to request a formal hearing and the
department held an informal hearing presided over by a referee. He appeared and testified. Due process of
law was satisfied.
[11][12] Petitioner also urges that the shifting of the burden of proof by creation of the presumption is a
denial of due process. Due process requires only that there be a rational connection between the facts proved
and the fact presumed. People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330, 346, 202 P.2d 53. There is no doubt that a record
reflecting repeated violations of traffic laws or accidents or both, attributable to the fault **403 of a driver,
leads to a rational conclusion that he is a negligent operator.
Petitioner urges that the department should not have received and considered evidence of prior traffic
violations which terminated in disciplinary action against him.
Section 317(b) stated: 'In connection with any informal hearing, the department may consider any of the
records or reports referred to in Section 318(c).' Section 318(c) provided that the department shall consider
its official records and may receive sworn testimony. Section 320 listed the records to be kept by the
department: every applications denied; all applications granted; the name of every licensee whose license has
been suspended or revoked by the department or by a court, the reasons therefor, and the period of suspension
or revocation; all accident reports and abstracts of court records of convictions received under the act. Under
section 317 petitioner at the hearing had the right to present evidence to controvert the information obtained
from the fl.les of the department, and to submit the questions of fact for determination by the department.
[13][14][15] *210 Petitioner says this procedure inflicted double penalties for the same acts and offenses.
The suspension or revocation of a license is not penal; its purpose is to make the streets and highways safe by
protecting the public from incompetence, lack of care, and wilful disregard of the rights of others by drivers.
Cf. Murrill v. State Board of Accountancy, 97 Cal.App.2d 709, 711, 218 P.2d 569; Brodsky v. California
State Board of Pharmacy, 173 Cal.App.2d 680, 344 P.2d 68. The fact that petitioner may suffer
inconvenience and even economic loss because he has been denied a license does not make the remedial
action of the department the imposition of punishment for past offenses. In a determination of his
qualifications as a driver, the prior traffic record of a driver, including prior suspension, revocation, and
restriction of his license as well as convictions of traffic violations, is relevant and material evidence of his
knowledge of and compliance with the vehicle laws and his ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care
in operating a motor vehicle.
[16][17][18] Petitioner contends the Vehicle Code did not permit consideration by the department of
J.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-10
. ""'.
Page: 23 of 23
offenses committed in a foreign state; and that there was no clear proof he had been convicted of an offense
in a foreign state. Since the referee reported that all of petitioner's driving was in California, it is obvious he
did not find petitioner had committed any offense in a foreign state. Petitioner also contends the department
did not consider his economic need to drive in the conduct of his occupation, or the probable amount of
driving he would be required to do for that purpose. Since the referee reported that petitioner drove a total of
30,000 to 40,000 miles a year, 75 per cent of which was for business purposes, it is obvious the point is not
well taken. He also contends there was insufficient proof he had committed certain offenses in this state, and
that the hearing officer acted arbitrarily in failing to give any weight to evidence which he submitted. Since
this is a judgment roll appeal and neither the evidence beard by the referee nor that heard by the trial court is
before us, these points may not be considered. Error is never presumed but must be affmnatively shown, and
the burden is on the appellant to present a record showing it. (3 Cal.Jur.2d 781, 260.) No such record is
here.
Affumed.
SHINN, P.J., concurs.
FORD, J., did not participate.
Cal.App. 1960
Beamon v. Department of Motor Vehicles
180 Cal.App.2d 200,4 Cal.Rptr. 396
END OF DOCUMENT
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 1 of 30
2
RECEIVED
MOI..I.Y C. DWYER CLERK
AUG
4
5
2 8 201't
fii.EO _ _ _ _ _ _ -
...,..
POCKETEo~.......,~-DATE
INiliAr
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #11
19
20
21
Defendants
ORIGINAL
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 2 of 30
Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 8 of 30
State of California
Secretary of State
&~--~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP 09 11-3643
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Pag~: 9 of 30
I
I
II
v.
Railroad Commission of the
State of California et aJ. . ,
Respondents .
l
l
Highway Transport
Co~any
s.
and
truok between
San Francisco and San Jose and intermediate :points, filed complaint
alleging that the :petitioners
her~in
.,
--- -. ------ --
- -.
- --- ..
---: -
_)
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 10 of 30
The ans-
wer further denied that the defendants were common carriers, that
they operated between fiXed termini or over a regular route, that
they were. operating in Violation of l aw and that they were subjeot
to the juris diction of the Railroad Commission.
thus 3oined the Railroad Commission after
d~e
full and extended hearing rendered its decis ion and order now
..
before this oourt for reView, wherein it was found that the defendants, petitioners herein, were operating as a transportation
Company as that term is defined in section l(o) of Chapter 213,
Statutes of 1917 as amended, and that they were engaged in the
operation of motor trucks over the public hi ghways for compensation over a regular route and between fixed termini, namely,
"San Franoieoo t o San Jose and intermediat e points . "
The Com-
miss ion thereupon m.a de its order directing the defendants to oease
and thereafter to desist from any and all such
transpo~t1oaunlesa
~venty-three
into severally by petitioner s as one party and by one of the shippers aa the other party theretp .
l_ _
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
Dkt~ntry:
5-11
Page: 11 of 30
use
by
the
latter
in
transporting
its
merchandise
from San Francisco to points in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties
at an agreed rental of ).19 .50 per truck per day .
It is further
trucl~
the
parties
that
mann~r
than
sixt~- five
The
evi~ence .
find upon the issue as to whether or not the petitioners were operating as common carriers , which was alleged in the complaint and
denied in the ansv1er .
operating a
transportatio~
section l(o) of chapter 213 of the statutes of 1917 and amendments thereto ; that they are engaged in the operation of auto trucks
over the public high11ays for compensation , over a regular route and
between fixed termini , namely , San Francisco to San Jose and intermediate points , "
Case:
14 ~55077
08/28/2014
10:9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 12 of 30
sist that under t he rule which requires t he construction of findings so as to support the judgment we should construe this as a
finding that petitioners were in fact operating as common carriers
and that suoh finding is amply supported b y the evidence herein.
It may be that the evidenoe herein would sustain such a finding if
it had been made by the Commission.
ion.
As
whioh the quoted finding forms but a part , makes it cl ear that the
Commission did not intend t o -find as a fact that pet i tioners we1s
operating as common
ca~riers .
On
ir;
and i utentiont\lly omitted to find upon this question . If, there .:ore, v;e should conclude that the operation ot
p~.::titioners
as common
du'~y
Pac.
That
is
erron-
m~:~y
The legislature by
tlle 1919 amendment to the Auto Stage :;1nd 'fruck Trl:lnsportation Act
plai nly intended and a t tempted to extend the jurisdiction of the
i...
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 13 of 30
- 5-
lim~t~tions
imposed by that
The question then is whether the state has the ]?OWer to impose
sucll burdens and l imitatiol:ls upon p:rivate carriers when usi!lt.) tl":e
public highways for the transaction of their bus iness or wheth er its
power iu this behalf is limited in Hs application to public carriers .
It is now UJ.liversally reco{\'Il ized that the state does possess such
powet Y/i th respect to conunon carriers us111g thepuulic hie:hways f'or
the transact ion o1' theil bus i ness i n the trans port at ion of persons
o:r property for hire. Thut rule is statea. &a follows by the Supreme
.;otut of the United State s: "A citizen may tr.:.ve, under the fourteenth
wnendment, the r igllt to travel and. transpol.t his property upon them
(the yublie highways) by auto veh icle, but he has no right to taake
the highTjays his pluce of bus i ness by using tbeLD
for hire .
~-~ammon
caTrier
viol~ting
either tho
~etiHoners
~ue
pro-
ICuylcend~ll ,
emphasize
-~he
45
words
which we have italicized and insist that tbis rule is 'limitect in its
upplioation to common caniers . We thil1k
is ec1ually ap1Jlicable
. t o ull persons who seek to make a specia l and private use of the
public bi~~hways by transacting their private bus:ll ness thereon ana.
'tbu.-t it applies with equal force to private carriers who
engat~e
in
aut~orizes
private 11.se o-r tiJe lll..e!hways by such carriers is not that they are
common carriers . It is tbat they are me.king a private use of the
:public highwciys which are mmed c;nd
are open alike to all persons .
~id
~;hicb
subject to retulation by the state becliuae tbe fact tbc.t they are
eugaged in public service causee their business to be af:rected with
:PUblic i 11terest cmd. thus justifies the regulation thereof by pub lic
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 14 of 30
- (j-
authority.
r or the
re~son
the~ o:f
its hiE;;hVIB.ys .
-~-~~~~ivate
It is based upon
priv<.~te
use upon
p~ivile 5e
or using my
hi~_.;;hwaya
gT~nt
ness upon <;:on<lition t!Hi.t you in turn submit y01.uself and yom property to such re&,ulations as I iHpose .
to tllese regulati0ns out i:f you are not willi ng to do so, I shl;lll
not grant you tl1is special p1i vileL:;e . 11
{;~mpa.ny v. RC:tilroad Commission ( 1 '/0 Cul. 4SS) relied upon by petitioners herein . I t was ~;her e held. tlH:\t c. sbate hE~s no power by t<:ere
legislative f:l.a.t, nor even by such fiat embodied in its constitution, to
transmut e ~
common carrier .
V/ith
tllat conclusion we are in entire 20cord, bnt it was !ilso there held
that if a private carrier exercises the right of emineut domain ir.
aiel of his transpol:tatioo business, lle will ue lieetned thereby to
buve de<iicated his transportation system to a public use un<i to have
thereby become public carr i er . The circumstance thut the ric;ht of
er,linent domalin is a
rit~ht
u.::;
in:\eret~t
in the
Case: 14:55077
08/28/2014
Page: 15 of 30
-7 not possessed by iud.iv iduuls c.s a matter of 1it9lt. \/ben tile state
offers to grant t t,is right to an i nd ividual, it is as to him
ial ptivilee;e .
privile~e
l.\
spec~
to hihl upon ex -
ri~ht,
to
subm~it
to the conditions .
distinc~iO'll
case and the case of t:ichigan Public Utilities Comrn . v . Duke!45 ~up .
Ct . Rep . 191) .
fact that the reasoning adopted. by us in the Frost case and adhered
to here in was urged
u~on
the Duke case and was by that court te jected. Y/e agree that it was
properly rejected. in that case because it was not tenable under the
facts of that case .
tro.ns.:portation of property f or h ire after the enactment of the Uichi gen Public Utilities act DuJce had voluntarily elected to ded icate his
property to a public use because DWce had no opportunity for an elec tion .
Wt!S
under compulsion
so to do because of h i s cont ract s ';'Ihich were i n existence and s ub sisting at the tirne of its ena ctment .
applicable to him would be to say in effect that the state had the
power t o transmute him from a priva te carrier int o n public carrier
nolens volens and this we agree it could not do.
Th is i s what we had
i n mind when we said in this connection i n the Frost case , "to g ive
it effect in i ts
ap~lication
point out that the only liberty of choice offered by the l.;ich i gan
statute in its application to Duke was a Robson ' s choice between de G.icati11g his pr opert y to the public on t he one hand and breaching
his co11tracts on tbe
o-~.b er .
thereb:~
to intimate
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 16 of 30
-8-
that tbe decis ion of the United States Sutr eme Court i n the Dulce
case w&s rested i n part upon the impairment of the contracts provision
of the Federal constitution.
the petitioners did not enter i nto the transportation busi n ess until
long after tbe enactment of the s t atute here in question .
~le
find
here no such o bstacle as . there was i n the Duke case il.1 the way of
the conclusion that by so doing petitioners must be deemed to have
v oltmt arily elected to submit themselves t o the conditions imposed by
the statute .
bee~'l
overruled by
That case , bow ever , did not involve the question or the
ru<..~e :i.t!
order i n resvect of c.
e~ui t
?l.~t
case l:t2'ose as
lUl
~;<
injunction
res'trui ni ng an tUloert ific a~ed carr ier from tlanspo!'tit~ goods for
compensa'tlor1 over a l'ee)ttlar route i n competitio n with tbe plai nt i f f'.
'l'l1e .tr iul comt c1eni e<l th;::
i:njU11c ~ ion
~o.~
requirin~
obt~ i.ned
a cert i-
i'icate of public convenience and necessity, t:-Jet such order v.rol.lct. !"'l:l. ve
been
~nulled
by
i u t .h e State of
o~se
~/::ashin;:-: ton
of State v . Nels on (
~ao.
237 .
is,
~~e
t!'iink , dis -
tine;u.islled fro ~1 t!1e prese11t c~se b~, t.lJe dit'l'erehces i n the Utab stat ute .
"to eu:pervise
~::rid
Ca se: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 17 of 30
-9-
* * *."
* * a utotno'bile corporation *
.!_s_ _l'er:f_ormed.
the
for~--.
tion thereof."
>~
**
_9.2,l~?di t_):_O.elivel'ed
pui~
to the
or <:J.ny por-
automobile co:q,10ration. tr
>t-
>t
**
ellg2.ged
(Ita~ics
added) .
~he
i .ti
vritllin
ti1e trans-
re~;ul"'r
routes
section of the
Utah statute providini;' for the iasu<luce ol' cel.ti:ficat;es of public con-
vell ience and. necessity, v1hile it doe:o bot expressly so provide, nevertheless indicates by clear implication 'Ghe lee:;islative in tent
it
th~t
t{uilr ~n~d
Commission
conclusion; the lcne;unge i n its opinion which is relied upon by petitioners herein rnu.s'G, as it seems to us, be regarded as obiter. We agree
with petitioners thut tbe case of
Hies~ mv .
. however, that the reas onint which has impelled. us to OU:l' conclusion
ci.oes not appear to have been
c ourt . We are disposed
the
Mailx:B141
~o
sug~;estecl
adhere
~o
that conclusion,
sufficient
~:~nswer
guarantees of the
of' t:1e
co>~tention
notwi ~hst:;.nding
su:p~lort
it.
it is, as it seems to us ,
Fed~r!:ll
~he
Sta~e
Qnd.
True].~
Transportation Act
as amended. and ;as construed by us denies to peti'GionerB the equal pro t e ction of the l aw .
Eac .
l,~otor
Petitioners
Freight
see~ing -
l y tal<e tbe position that there is no legitimate basis 'for a classification and
distil:~,ction
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
Page: 18 of 30
-10h~nd
s~lf
contradtiotory .
ports merely his own :fl'eit;:ht over the highway is not a ca:J,rier, private
or otherwise . He mey be a
f~u.cter
Re is not
~ o~rier
no"t
tne
unless he
buSi:-
en g~~es
i n tbe
mere~y
also, o.ue
:ls
enga~ed
eue;at~etl
<~nother
m~ster
or principal, vl!\ahever
in the trllnsportatiou of
~ood.s
for another
Ol'
0011-
ll
car1ier.
is tlere
natural or inherent
-\
t~e
use of those bigbways , and those on the other hand vtho are
eng~ed
in
other lines of bus i ness and Wlio use tbe hi[;lmaya i n the transportQtion
oi' their g oods 1.;.erely
<:J.S
fo1
wh 1ch pur-
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 :9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 19 of 30
- 11~t
to .:nsvter itself .
hcki n<_~
in uniformity if it operates
tious.l i n
'bilc.~t
mission.
'he discretion
co.ntrolled
~;tnd
th~t
-tiJe
~ot
is l.U1constitu-
'b~
it to
~he
public conven ie nce and. necessity ( Tarpey v . !.icClure, 190 Cal. 593,
600 , and cases c it ed) .
fiud i l]i~
be cotlsidered herei11 is
h\)
~ll~t
rec;ul~r
~ re~l.L.r
route is un:::oustai n 11
* * "'
usually or ordinarily
operata any autot!lob ile, bus , auto truclc , stac;e or auto s t ae:;e, even
t.houth there may be depa:ttures frotl saitl ter111itli or route, whether
such depa.rttUes ue. 11'erioG.ic o:;: irregulfllr ."
this sball be s. question of :fact and. that the f i nO.int; o.f tlle Cmamis sion thereort shall l)e i'iual :.:m t1 shall not be sv.b ject to revievJ . We
ag-ree wHil pet i tioners that the f i nd i nc; is , however ,
subjeo~
tore -
~h e
::>\lC.h
so~o1e
Bl!.bstau-
o~
the
findin~s
th~:tt
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10:9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 20 of 30
- 12'J:'h e
stn~ute.
~n<l
'~he
jw. istJ.ict ion oi' tile Con;~..iss ion 1..:.. there vt&s
UllOn
this
qtte s tion and v1 e quote tberefror.t <.s follo1rs : "Defendanlis contend i;hat
the y 1:1re not operut i n.: bet-..vee11 fixed tar11li ni nor over Quy
rou-te, because
StJnta
Ql~l'ti
the~}
ret,"lll~:~r
r.~ateo
or
01:
point in t:ny ci i;y or town in San t:ateo or Sunta Clara couuties v1hich
T lesse e S T Of
is determi ned
truol~s
there are no cities o1 towns i u San hlateo ol: Sant& Clara county to
\'lisich
~ny
trucks
~ e gularly
"It is true
tb~t
eve~'J'
d~liver:'J
Pt~rliCJ
o'f merchan-
~one
oi'f the
hie;hway for several miles to- ma1ce deliveries to points such as the
C~mp
Chadwio}~
tlu~t
e<~st
bi~llway
ants usu.ully or ordinarily operate; that defendants ' dr iv ers are instructed dur1u 0 fair weather to use r1hat is 1r..norm as the Ba y Shore
:H i ,:rbwtty out of San Franclsco to i t s co.:1nection wtth the muin J?enin eule Rit;hway at San Bruno and in rainy weather to use the Llission Road
thro ueh Colma to Sun Bruno .
From
S~m
~edVIood
City , Lenlo
.Par;c , .Palo AJ.to and oth er intermediate pointe, to San Jose . Tbis mc. in
State
H ic!.~bway
is
of tbe lnfrec1uent
usu~lly
occ~:wions UIJDi1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 21 of 30
-13-
~like .
the names of
co~ununit i es
over which the trucks travel, but me;tely sl1ows a difference in the
routing of pniticular del iveri es . In fact, this entire exhibit in the
main substantiates tbe contention of complainants
t h~t
defendants '
trucks do U:sually and ordinaril y operate over a r.egular route or between fixed termi ni as represented by manifests therein named .
"Defendants further contend that they have n.o :fixed termini due
to the fact that the manifests submitted in the evidence coveri ng the
month of January, 1924, show a different southerly terminus on different trips . Analysis of th is evidence shows that during the thirty day
period above
ro~ntioned ,
the city lim1 te of San Jose, such as Alum Rock, Lteridian rtoad, etc .,
appea~s
most southerly desti nation on other occasions bemng sorne point along
what is known as t he main Peninsula Hi ghway, San Francisco to San
Jose, such as Redwood City, which appears some seven times, or Palo
Alto, which appears some five times .
"C ertainly if a truck carries no merchandise for delivery upon
a spec i fi ed trip which would necessitate it going the entire length
of its route and bas no call :for a p ick - up on the northbound trip,
it would in any case turn back after making its most southerly delivery, and if this Commission should hold that the law contemplated
this class of operation as not being over a regular route no truck
operator i n the state could be held to fall within the provisions o:f
the state
reb~lation ,
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 22' of 30
14
which they produced testimony that the deliveries during those weeks
were :fairly typical of all o:f their operations.
~he
schedule shows
petitioner~
terial that there were departures :from the termini and f rom the
route "whether such departures be periodic or irregular. ''
We are
..I
- - --
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page:. 2'3 of 30
(SF 11467)
I dissent.
~md
necessity.
certific~te
of public conven-
fi~
as a common car-
The application
~n
o~
the com-
mission under section 7 of the act which provides that the comtnission m.ey grant or deny such a certificate "with or without
he~ring."
The
~lleging
tation company e.s defined by the Auto Stage and Truck Transportation
Act and as such were operating in direct competition with the compl~inants
The peti-
Case:
14~55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry:
5~11
Page: 24 of 30
of the regn.l atiop and control of public utili ties and matters whioh
are germane to such regulation and control.
ThiS is
co~oeded
in
the preva iling opinion but it is held, foll owing the Frost case,
that the regulation of such a private carrier i s so germane because
forsooth the private carrier is in competition with the public carrier.
reaeon or authority.
be that the commission may now require a truck owner. engaged exclusively in the business of operating his truck for transportation
of freight on the public highways under contract with the sole owner
of a chain of stores. to apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity or go out of business
cation put him out of business.
~d
co~ssion
could be endowed
g~snt
with the
power to say that no one may use the publi o highways for the transportation of his own goods because by so doing he would take from
the certificated operator a revenue which the latter might otherwis e receive.
By
the
Sl\nle
p~asengers
with
Suoh a result
may not be contemplated as within the power of the state EJ.nd more
particularly within the constitutional powers of the railroad commission as defined and limited by this court.
10: 9224533
08/28/2014
Case: 14-55077
DktEntry: 5-11
- /7plaints
manner , under the limitations and with the effect s pecified in the
public utiltiea act."
189 Cal. 573, this court said at page 578: ":By specific reference
to the public utilities act the commission is given power to hear
and determine complaints against transportation companies in exactly
the same manner and to the same extent as it has of complaints
~gainst
Act,
It ob-
the section are that, for the purpose of procedure , the terms of
in ll\V
o~ rriers
Such a
conclusion would not deprive the commission of the power to entertain complaints against transportation companies which ere common
carriers in faot .but are seeking to avoid the requirements of the
act by
mae~uerading
as private carriers .
been found to be a common carrier in .feot the commis sion would have
bad jurisdiction over
au:thority
commission
rier,
and
t~em
in prohibiting
found
it
the
did
petitioners
so
find,
operations .
to
the
be
juris-
But
private
when
car-
the
Page: 25 of 30
08/28/2014
Case: 14-55077
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 26 of 30
It seems to me
that the prevailing opinion has misconceived the real purpose and
ob ject of the Aut o Stage and Truck Transportation Aot .
The opinion
m~
comprehend all
an.
under suoh an act may be regulated but not prohibited, with certain
exceptions not material here .
m~
~egulEte
carrier and it may prevent other common carriers from competing with
a privil eged carrier .
Truo~
Transportation Aot .
latory provision here in question is to prevent , in the public int eres t, r uinous competition as between o oncerns engaged in a like
publ i c bus iness .
washi ngton the supreme court of the United States in Buck v. KUykendall , 267
u.s
highwa~s ,
high\va~s
highw ~ s
may be used."
In
it has that right and parti cularly the right to prohibit a priVijte
14~55077
Case:
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry:
5~11
Page: 27 of 30
highw~ys
as
~ounced
unifo~m
and apply to all similarly situated and be enforced through the medium of a state agency duly constituted for that purpose.
case a
st~te
But in this
priv~te
found to be engaged in a private business and it is put out of business because forsooth its private business diminishes the revenues
of a certificated common carrier .
~cted
judi-
Its authority
sta~ute
in 1919.
Such a grant
of power must come from the constitution or from some act of the
l6gislature which is constitutionally authorized.
It is not con-
tended as indeed it may not be that the commission has direc t grant
from the constitution to regulate private business .
co~elled
oomp~niea
railro~d
o~
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 28 of 30
166 Cal. 640; City of Pasadena v. Railroad Corum., supra; uotor Tranett
Co . v. Railroad Comm., 189 Cal. 573).
c,,,.,f"l
NIIJ"
germ~ne
fective method of taking private property for publio use without compensation.
and the elimination of competition be germane to the subject of reguletion and control of the public utility it is difficult to conoeive
Why it is necessary to consider the use o:f the public highwl_vs in
connection With such competition for if the power to suppress competition be possessed by the commission it may be exercised against
the outlawed competitor whether he operate on the public highways
or elsewhere.
regnl~tion
and control of
with public and pri vate concerns which use the public highways in
their
~~~
is
ste.tu~
Davis~v . Metcalf, 131 Wash. 141, 229 Pao . 2; State v. Nelson (Utah ) ,
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 ~ 9224533
DktEntry: 5 -11
).I-
u.s.
570,
~oreover,
t~ing
s.
522,
536~
On the facts
~bove
re-
ferred to, it is clear that, if enforc.e d against him, the act would
deprive plaintiff of his
constitution. "
prope~ty
in violation of that
ol-E~use
of the
case from the one at bar on the growld that :puke's contracts were outstanding at the time the Michigan statute took effect and for that
reason the statute was not applicable to him.
imp~irment
of con-
Such in my opinion
say~
it
use ~ without
just or any
Page: 29 of 30
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-11
Page: 30 of 30
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 1 of 14
2
3
,~
.. ii~&lVE D
'\.au.v
c. oWYEfl Ct.EAK
U s-COURT OF A~PSAL.S
..
AUG 2 8 201~
4
5
FILED'- - - - - -
b()CKETED
DATE
--t-.imf""'i'Xl..--
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #12
19
20
21
Defendants
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 2 of 14
Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the following California case law entitled, "Buelke v. Levenstadt" (1923).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1!9( It#
Philip Christian Bikle
0~5(/!1
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 8 of 14
Westlaw
214 P. 42
190 CaL 684, 214 P. 42
(Cite as: 190 Cal. 684, 214 P. 42)
Supreme Court of California.
BUELKE
v.
LEVENSTADT et al.
L.A. 7309.
March 23, 1923.
ln Bank.
Action by Augusta E. Buelke, special administratrix of August E. Buelke, deceased, against Nat
Levenstadt and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Automobile~ 48A ~193(13)
48A Automobiles
48AV Injuries from Operation, or Use of Highway
48AV(A) Nature and Grounds of Liability
48Ak183 Persons Liable
48Akl93 Owner's Liability for Acts of Servant or Agent
48Akl93(13) k. Incompetency of servant. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 200kl83)
Under Motor Vehicle Act, 24, as amended by St.l919, p. 223, 14, declaring it unlawful for one to
permit his child, ward, or employee to drive his auto on the highway without first obtaining a license for him,
that application of a minor shall not be granted unless his parent or guardian sign it, and that negligent driving
of a minor so licensed shall be imputed to the person signing his application, the minor's negligence is so
imputed, though the one signing as "parent" merely stood in the relation of in loco parentis to the minor, and
employed him to drive his machine.
[2] Automobiles 48A
48A Automobiles
~132
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 9 of 14
361 Statutes
361X Subjects and Titles
36lk1618 Relation of Title to Contents of Statute; Title-Subject or Clear-Expression Rule
36lkl624 Statutes Relating to Particular Subjects
36lk1624(25) k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 36lkl21(1 ))
Provision of Motor Vehicle Act. St.l915, p. 411, 24, as amended by St.1919, p. 223, 14, declaring the
terms and conditions on which minors may be licensed to drive, held germane to the subject, within ConsL
art. 4, 24; as to subject and title of acts.
[3] Automobiles 48A ~191
48A Automobiles
48AV Injuries from Operation, or Use of Highway
48AV(A) Nature and Grounds of Liability
48Akl83 Persons Liable
48Akl91 k. Parent and child. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 36lk72)
Statutes 361
~1723
361 Statutes
361Xl General and Special Laws
361XI(C) Uniformity of Operation
36lkl702 Particular Laws
361k1723 k. Tort or fmancialliabilities. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k72)
Provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 24, as amended by St.l919, p. 223, 14, that negligence of a minor in
driving shall be imputed to the parent or guardian signing his application for license, does not violate Const.
art. 1, 11 , requiring general laws to have uniform application.
[4] Automobiles 48A <:=;>191
48A Automobiles
48AV Injuries from Operation, or Use of Highway
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 10 of 14
**42 *684 Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Paul J. McCormick, judge. Jennings &
Belcher, of Los Angeles, for appellants.
Duke Stone and Perry F. Backus, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.
*685WASTE, J .
The plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, brought this action to recover for
injwies resulting in the death of the decedent and caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by
defendant Nat Levenstadt, a minor. The automobile was owned by defendant Manis Levenstadt, uncle of
Nat, whose relation to the boy was that of in loco parentis, and who, in order that Nat might procure a license
to operate a motor vehicle, had signed the required application therefor. At the time of the accident the uncle
was not present, and the boy was engaged upon an independent mission of his own. Special issues were
submitted to the jury upon the answers to which the court entered judgment in plaintiffs favor, and against
both defendants, who have appealed.
It is admitted at the outset of the presentation of the appeal that, as to the defendant Nat Levenstadt, the
evidence of negligence was conflicting and that as to him there is no just ground for reversal. We shall
therefore disregard him in the discussion of the case, and shall refer to the defendant Morris Levenstadt as the
appellant. He was held liable solely by reason of the provisions of section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act of
1915 (St. 1915, p. 411), as amended by St. 1919, p. 223, 14, which provides for the licensing of persons
operating motor vehicles, and imputes the negligence of a minor in the operation of an automobile upon the
public highway to the person who shall have signed the application of such minor for such license. The
section provides in brief that it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or drive such vehicle upon the
public highways unless licensed by the motor vehicle department of the state. The concluding portion, the
part germane to this discussion, is as follows:
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 11 of 14
**42 *684 Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Paul J. McConnick, judge. Jennings &
Belcher, of Los Angeles, for appellants.
Duke Stone and Perry F. Backus, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.
*685 WASTE, J.
The plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. brought this action to recover for
injuries resulting in the death of the decedent and caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by
defendant Nat Levenstadt, a minor. The automobile was owned by defendant Monis Levenstadt, uncle of
Nat, whose relation to the boy was that of in loco parentis, and who, in order that Nat might procure a license
to operate a motor vehicle, had signed the required application therefor. At the time of the accident the uncle
was not present, and the boy was engaged upon an independent mission of his own. Special issues were
submitted to the jury upon the answers to which the court entered judgment in plaintiffs favor, and against
both defendants, who have appealed.
It is admitted at the outset of the presentation of the appeal that, as to the defendant Nat Levenstadt, the
evidence of negligence was conflicting and that as to him there is no just ground for reversal. We shall
therefore disregard him in the discussion of the case, and shall refer to the defendant Monis Levenstadt as the
appellant. He was held liable solely by reason of the provisions of section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act of
1915 (St. 1915, p. 411), as amended by St. 1919, p. 223, 14, which provides for the licensing of persons
operating motor vehicles, and imputes the negligence of a minor ju the operation of an automobile upon the
public highway to the person who shall have signed the application of such minor for such license. The
section provides in btief that it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or drive such vehicle upon the
public highways unless licensed by the motor vehicle department of the state. The concluding portion, the
part germane to this discussion, is as follows:
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 12 of 14
'Provided, that it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or knowingly to permit his or her child, ward
or employee to operate or drive a motor vehicle upon the public highway, whether as a chauffeur or operator,
without having first obtained such license as is hereinbefore specified; provided, that the application to the
department of a minor to operate or drive a motor vehicle, whether as chauffeur or operator, shall not be
granted by the department unless the parent or parents having the custody of such applicant or the guardian of
such applicant shall have joined in said application by signing the same; *686 and provided, further, that any
negligence of a minor, so licensed, in operating or driving a motor vehicle upon the public highway, whether
as chauffeur or operator, shall be imputed to the person or persons who shall have signed the application of
such minor for said license, which person or persons shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for
any damages caused by such negligence.'
**43 [1] Appellant's first contention is that, as he is neither the parent nor guardian of Nat Levenstadt, he
is not one of the persons required by the statute to sign a minor's application, and is therefore a mere
volunteer, who cannot be held liable under the provisons of the act. To sustain such contention would be to
countenance a fraud upon the people of the state. In order to procure a license for his minor nephew.
appellant joined in the application of the boy to the motor vehicle department of California, in which he gave
his relationship to the minor as 'father.' Upon the faith of this guaranty the license to the minor was issued.
The evidence shows that Nat's parents died when he was 12 years of age. His sister and he then went to live
with their uncle, this appellant, who had no children of his own, and the record conclusively establishes that
from that time on appellant stood in the relation of in loco parentis to both children. He conducted a grocery
store and owned a delivery truck for use in his business. Nat drove this truck for him. He testified that 'no
one else had anything to do with the driving of the truck except Nat.' For these services appellant paid the
boy1 who was about 19 years of age, $8 a week and his board. Had appellant permitted Nat, regarded either as
a son or as an employee1 to operate or drive a motor vehicle upon the public highway without first having
obtained a license as required by the act, he would have been guilty of a misdemeanor. In order to avail
himself of Nat's services, he was compelled by law to join with the minor in the application to the department
for the proper license. He did so, misrepresenting his relationship to the applicant. It is quite apparent why he
did so, and we are not constrained to assist him in evading the liability he assumed over his own signature by
any nicety of construction or regard for technical use of words.
*687 But, aside from this attitude, it is the well-settled law that one standing in loco parentis to those held
out as members of his family is entitled to all the rights of a parent. Whitaker v. Warren, 60 N.H. 201 49 Am.
Rep. 302. He also incurs the same liability with respect to them that he is under to his own children. Starkie
v. Perry, 71 Cal. 495, 497, 12 Pac. 508; Larsen v. Hansen, 74 Cal. 320, 322, 16 Pac. 5. The relation being
established the reciprocal rights, duties and obligations pettaining to it arise between them the same as if he
was their natural father. Eickhoff v. Sedalia, etc., Ry. Co., 106 Mo. App. 541, 544, 80S. W. 966; 1 Schouler's
Domestic Relations (6th Ed.) 686, 687. We see no reason, therefore, why one standing in such relation
may not voluntarily assume the liability imposed by the statute in the same manner and with like effect as
though he were a natural father.
[2] It is next contended that the portion of section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act under consideration is
violative of section 24 of article 4 of the state Constitution, which provides that 'every act, shall embrace but
one subject, which subject shall be expressed in its title.' All that is required in that connection is that the
subject must be in some way indicated by the title of the act, or be logically germane to it, and included
within its scope. Pratt v. Browne, 135 Cal. 649, 653, 67 Pac. 1082. As said in another case, there must be a
reasonably intelligent reference to the subject to which the legislation of the act is addressed. Estate of
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 13 of 14
McPhee, 154 Cal. 385, 389, 97 Pac. 878. Numerous provisions having one general object, fairly indicated by
the title of the act, may be united. The general purpose of the statute being declared the details provided for
its accomplishment will be regarded as necessary incidents. Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 637, 29 Pac. 251.
The title of the Motor Vehicle Act declares that it is one enacted (among other things) 'to regulate the use and
operation of vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; * * * to provide for the licensing of persons
operating motor vehicles; to prohibit certain persons from operating vehicles upon the public highways.' The
mere statement of appellant's objection is sufficient to refute it. While the provision declaring upon what
terms and conditions minors *688 may be licensed to operate motor vehicles is not carried in the title, the
subject is germane to the general subject there expressed, and forms a part of the comprehensive scheme
provided. It is an appropriate method of effecting one of the main objects of the law. Robinson v. Kerrigan,
151 Cal. 40, 50, 90 Pac. 129, 121 Am. St. Rep. 90, 12 Ann. Cas. 829; Pritchard v. Whitney Estate Co., 164
Cal. 564, 567, 129 Pac. 989.
[3][4] Appellant's final contention is that the provision of the act is unconstitutional, because it is
unreasonable and discriminatory, and is not uniform and general in its application. The application of the law
to minors in a class by themselves is not unreasonable or arbitrary. The argument that the law attempts to put
into a class by themselves all minors, irrespective of their age, experience, ability to drive, or their financial
responsibility, is one that should be presented to the legislative department and not to the courts. In reStock,
167 Cal. 294, 296, 139 Pac. 684. While some minors are more apt at learning to run motor vehicles than
others-possibly more apt than many adults-the fact remains that they are minors. They are in position to
be, and in a vast number of cases are. intrusted with the control and operation of motor vehicles upon the
public highways. While an automobile is not, in and of itself, a dangerous machine, it may become such in
the hands of a careless and indiscreet person. The statute prohibiting the operation of motor vehicles upon the
public highways by minors, without their first having obtained **44 licenses which can only be procured
upon an assumption of liability for their negligence by parent or guardian, is in effect a determination by the
Legislature that minors have not that discretion and judgment which entitles them to unrestrained permission
to operate such vehicles upon the public thoroughfares, freed from all parental liability for their negligence
except in those cases where it can be established that they are acting as the agent or servant of the owner of
the car causing an injury. Daily v. Maxwell, 152 Mo. App. 415, 425, 133 S. W. 351. The Legislature no
doubt had in mind the fact that the authorities are in accord in holding that, as a general rule, in an action
based on the negligent running of an automobile, the owner of the car who was not present at the infliction of
the injury cannot be *689 held liable, except it be shown that the person in charge not only was the agent or
servant of the owner, but also was engaged at the time in the business of his service. Daily v. Maxwell, supra;
Bryant v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 174 Cal. 737, 742, 164 Pac. 385. In this state it is now firmly established,
also, that in the absence of a statute creating a liability, the rule applies when the driver is a minor child, and
the father is the owner of the car, and all courts recognize the general rule that a parent is not liable for the
torts of his child. Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209,211, 212, 193 Pac. 255, 14 A. L. R. 1083.
We may assume, also, that the law-making body was fully cognizant of another rule oflaw relating to the
torts of minors which is somewhat in the nature of an exception, and that is that a parent may become liable
for an injury caused by the child, where the parent's negligence made it possible for the child to cause the
injury complained of, and probable that it would do so. Schultz v. Morrison, 91 Misc. Rep. 248, 154 N. Y.
Supp. 257, 258; Hoverson v. Noker, 60 Wis. 511, 514, 19 N. W. 382, 50 Am. Rep. 381; Chaddock v.
Plummer, 88 Mich. 225, SON. W. 135, 14 L. R. A. 675, 26 Am. St. Rep. 283. This liability is based upon the
rules of negligence rather than on the relation of parent and child (Doran v. Thomsen, 76 N.J. Law. 754, 760,
71 Atl. 296, 19 L. R. A. [N. S.] 335, 131 Am. St. Rep. 677) and finds support in the direct relation of cause
and effect. Elmendorf v. Clark, 143 La. 971 , 79 South. 557, L. R. A. 1918F. 802. In the case of an injury by
an automobile, the liability rests, not alone upon the fact of ownership, but upon the combined negligence of
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-12
Page: 14 of 14
the driver in the operation of the automobile, and of the owner in intrusting the machine to an incompetent
driver. Berry on Automobiles (2d Ed.) 603; Parker v. Wilson, 179 Ala. 361, 371, 60 South. 1501 43 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 87.
The Legislature has now declared that under a given state of facts a liability exists where none existed
before. The right of action here provided for is, in effect, a modification of the common-law rule exempting a
parent from liability for the torts of his minor child, joined with the other rule that a parent may become liable
for an injury cansed by the child, and made possible, and probable, through the parent's negligence. Its
creation does no violence to the *690 provision of the Constitution (article 1, 11 ) requiring general laws to
have uniform operation, nor that (article 1, 21) forbidding a grant of special provileges to one citizen, or
class of citizens, which are not given on the same terms to all. Pritchard v. Whitney, supra, 164 Cal. 568, 129
Pac. 989.
The objection that the law attempts to create a liability on the part of a parent or guardian signing a
minor's application, without regard to any inherent liability of such parent or guardian, and without regard to
their negligence or fault. is answered by what we have already said. The statute involved in Daugherty v.
Thomas, 174 Mich. 371, 140 N. W. 615, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1163, so strongly relied
upon by the appellant, is not the same as the one here. The court there had under review an act of the
Legislature which made the owner of a n automobile liable for any injury caused by the negligent operation of
his car by any person who might obtain possession of it, even though it be without his consent or knowledge.
ln declaring such provision repugnant to the Constitution, the court said it was not then dealing with 'the
question of the responsibility, be it moral or otherwise, of the owner of an automobile who has placed it in the
hands of an inesponsible person to use.' 174 Mich. 379, 140 N. W. 61 8, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699, Ann. Cas.
1915A, 1163.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILBUR, C. 1.; LENNON, J.; KERRIGAN, J.; LAWLOR, J. ; SEA WELL, J.; MYERS , J.
CA. 1923
Buelke v. Levenstadt
190 Cal. 684, 214 P. 42
END OF DOCUMENT
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig . US Gov. Works.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
tO: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-13
Page: 1 of 13
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
~OTICE#13
19
20
Defendants
ORIGINAL
21
I'
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-13
Page; 2 of 13
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the fo1lowing selected pages from the California
legislative act entitled, "An act to repeal and re-enact the Vehicle Code and to ad
Chapter 6.5 (commencing at Section 3067) to Title 14, Part 4, Division 3 of the
Civil Code and to amend Section 11004.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
relating to vehicles."
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.,
el:j r flf/;
Philip Christian Bikle
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
tO: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-13
Page: 8 of 13
State of California
Secretary of State
&~-- ~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP 09 11.:3643
Case: 14~55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
.
'
..
'
-------L_--c:-~
DktEntry: 5-13
Page: 9 Of 13
Case: 14-55077
08/28/20l 4
-3CH.A.PTER__
d __
DktEntry: 5-13
Page: 10 of 13
Case: 14-55077
14
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-13
Page: 11 of 13
Case.: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
r
-
DIVISION 6.
CH.A..PTER
1.
101 -
DktEntry: 5-13
Page: -12of 13
Case: 14-5507
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-13
FILED
In th~t office of the Secretory of State
of the State of California
FEB 2 5 1959.
AL_J__o'cloci<.__
M,
296 -
Page: 13 of 13
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-14
JD: 9224533
Page: 1 of 11
U.$: COURT
AUG 2 8 20\4
FlLED-------OOCKETED'--~DAo;o;:JE-- -IN"""'IT,.,.IAL.,...
OrAliPEALS
6
7
8
10
11
Philip C. BikJe
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE # 14
19
20
21
Defendants
ORIGINAL
1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-14
Page: 2 of 11
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 310, 12500, 12502, 12503,
12506, 12510, 12511, 12512, 12514, 12515, 12517, 12518, 12519, 12800, 12804,
12811, 12813, 12814, 13100, 13550, 13551 , 13802, 14605, 14606, 14607, 14900,
16081 , 22514, 42230, and the heading of Division 6 (commencing with Section
12500) of, and to repeal Sections 250, 450, 12801, 12812, and 14604 of the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
etr(~
Philip Christian Bikle
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
tO: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-14
Page: 8 of 11
State of California
Secretary of State
b~--~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
OSP091i3643
--
:_ "I
'
i"'
day oL ___ - {
: 1.-"'
-~---
J
&
th~L--=---
//
' 1
2
1961, aLJ.-<?o c ockf_M.
C4~~4C/ -~
Private Seof"etary of the Governor
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ICE 9224533''
-3CH.A.PTER_/6_j. j
An act to amend Sections 310, 12500, 12502, 12503, 12506,
12510, 12511, 12512, 12614, 12515, 12517, 12518, 12519,
12800, 12804, 12811, 12813, 12814, 13100, 13550, 13551,
13(J02, 14605, 14606, 14607, 14900, 16081, 22514, 42230,
a11d the heading of Divisi(Yn 6 (commencing with Secti(Yll,
12500) of, (J!Itd to repeaL Sections 250, 450, 12801, 12812, and
14501. of the Veh4c1.e Code, relating to df"ivers' licenses.
The people oj' the Stale of California do enact as follows:
1. Section 250 o the Vehicle Code is r epealed.
SBC. 2. Sect ion 310 of said code is amended to read :
310. "Driver's license'' is a license to drive the type of
motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is
licensed under this code.
SEo. 3. Section 450 of said code is repealed.
. SEc. 4. The heading of Division 6 (commencing with Sec~on 12500) o.f said code is amended to read :
SEcTION
DktEntry: 5-14
Page: 10 of 11
Case: 14-55077
Of/ 28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-14
-12-
l
~
:~
.t
q
' '!f
,i
I
'
'
Approved __
j_l)__~_j__'k::-__ ________,
F I ~ .E D
:.~ ..
' .
JULl 3 1961
~~
1961
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-15
Page: 1 of 11
RM~~- ~W~A~CJR~
U.$: COVAT OF AtlP.EAL$
AUG 28 ZOl~
FILEDI- - - - -- - -
DOCKETEOI-----::o::::=ATE~- ~IN=tr=tAL:-
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
Plaintiff- Appellant,
12
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #15
19
20
21
Defendants
OR\G\NAL
1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-15
Page: 2 of 11
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend sections 310 and 12500 of the vehicle
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-15
Page: 8 of 11
State of California
Secretary of State
&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSf\09113643
7
Assembly Bill No. 461
'
_ ~,,;A..(
ill was rece1ved by the Governor this-~Y---=------
'l'his b'
da
y
c "-'
j~
)
7
M.
---L.&J~~.:
--<-~ r.,O 'CIOCkL___
/
- - - -- - -- - 1 1963, at --~r
..
.
(__./:!Uu_~l/IVZ ~~I
' 1
;:
Page: 9 of 11 .
lo :-9224533'
3-
CRAPTER__
Z:f
A.n aot to amend Sections 310 and 12500 of the Vehicle Oode,
relating to driver's license.
'!he people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 310 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
"3:J.O. "Driver's license" is a valid license to drive the type
of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person
is licensed under this code.
SEc. 2. Section 12500 of said code is amended to read:
12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a
highway unless he then holds a driver's license issued under
this code, except such persons as are expressly exempted under
this code.
(b) No such person shall drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which he is licensed.
DktE.ntry: 5-15
Page: 10 of 11
Case: 14-55077
0~/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-15
Page: 11 of 11
-4-
.,~A.
'".
. ..
m~
Speaker of the Assembly
.,.
0.
:,..;
EIL.:ED
Governor
,, ?
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-16
JD: 9224533
Page: 1 of 11
AUG 28 20\4
3
4
6
7
10
11
Philip C . Bikle
Plaintiff- Appellant,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE # 16
19
20
21
Defendants
ORIGINAL
1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-16
Page; 2 of 11
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the Californi
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend section 305 and 310 of the vehicle code,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
et; ( /(~
Philip Christian Bikle
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-16
Page: 8 of 11
State of California
Secretary of State
&~--~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
OSP 09 113643
Case:14-5507T 08/28/2014
':
Thi8 b'U
1
I L'
r r:;
1..
day oL:..[../L
A
'2____ o ,clock....t:::..-M.
. L'Y
-Llf--=--- - ------, 1971, at__ ..,:;t
Page.: 9 of 11
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
P.age:. 10 of 11
'
-3-
_&'._
CHAP'l'ER _
A1~
1.
read:
305.
ph~sical
I
i
I
.. !.
Case: 14-55077
8/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-16
Page: 11 of 11
-4 -
~pprmd- --------~Q_i_________,
..
1971
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-17
Page: 1 of 11
R E C E i. i/ . ! 0
. MOLLY c. oWVER;.fi1F~
u .S. COURT OF APP~
AUG 1 8 10\~
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE # 17
19
20
21
Defendants
OR\G\N~\.
1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-17
Page: 2 of 11
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the Califomi
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 4000, 12500, 12501, and 14605
{2!J.-r L&
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-17
P age: 8 of 11
State of California
Secretary of State
b~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP 09 113043
Case: 14-55077
08/2"8/2014
-- ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-17
..
I :-
i
I
1 0
Page: 9 of 1 1'
Case: 14-55077
14
ID: 9224533
AB 2283
DktEntry: 5-17
Page: 10 of 11
-4-
Case: 14-55077
8/2014
ID: 9224533
FIL:ED .
DktEntry: 5-17
Page: 11 of 11
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-18
Page: 1 of 11
v
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
II
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #18
19
20
2I
Defendants
ORIGINAL
1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-18
Page: 2 of 11
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the Californi
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 405, 2936, 12500, and 12804.9
of, and to add Section 14602.5 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles."
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
().L.If / /) ' /)
'(
( ' k~
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-18
Page: 8 of 11
State of California
Secretary of State
b~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OS P 091 13643
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-18
Page: 9 of 11
c;:J
b ,
1990, at
/.62-
___;_/t_~--
o'clock
jJM.
1 0
AB 55
rl
rl
.......
0
0
rl
Q)
g>
Q.
00
rl
I
L!)
~
.......
c
w
~
.:;t
rl
-ro0
00
N
-4 -
-5-
AH 55
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-18
Page: 11 of 11
02;.1990
StP 2 7 \990
1 0
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-19
Page: 1 of 13
----
FILEO-------=-- -!lll11l~
oOCKEiEO-
o~:TE
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
V.
14
15
16
17
18
)NOTICE #19
19
20
21
Defendants
OR\GlNAl
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-19
Page: 2 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5
I certify that 2 copies of the document: An act to amend Sections 39005 and
6
7
81033 of. and to repeal Section 81034 of. the Education Code, to amend Section
14007 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 21602. 99234, and 102051 of
the Public Utilities Code, to amend Section 101.8 of, and to add Section 2121 to,
the Streets and Highways Code. and to amend Sections 410, 635, 4453, 4461.
9
10
4604, 11713.3, 12500, 12502. 12505, 12517.2, 12524, 12802, 12804.2, 12804.7,
12810.5. 12812, 13352, 14606, 15250.5, 15250.6, 15255, 15255.1. 15275,
21456.1.21801.22450.22651. 22658. 23157,23161.23166,23168,23186,
11
12
13
23195. 34500. 34505.1. 34505.6, 35581, 35780.3. 36305, and 40508 of. and to
amend and repeal Sections 12804.9 and 12804.12 of. and to repeal Sections 12804
and 23157 of. the Vehicle Code. relating to transportation, and declaring the
urgency thereof. to take effect immediately."
14
15
and any attachments was served, either in person or by mail, on the persons listed
16
below.
17
18
Signature
Date Served
Address
Officer A. Santos
Lakewood Station
5130 Clark Avenue, Lakewood, CA 90712
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-19
Pag e: 8 of 13
State of California
Secretary of State
&b>~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP 09 113643
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-19
Page: 9 of 13
2.7z..Cu)
Ass~mbly
~ . d- ~ ~
-.. ... .- Sfi:retary of the Senate
;1
\. o
, :
i
\.
as received by the Governor tltis
c4}1:11
-2-
.AB 301
CHAPTER
Ct
;L)~u..)
Ct
l
S)
tl
p
0
3t
C,
li
Sl
t]
c
SJ
~
1
r;
a
e
tJ
a
e
p
r.
c
----..--JCa;as~e=-..J,1.:~:
4=-s~si.U
o..J_
77.~....---.~ows.u.l"-1
28..u.I.-:
20ioLolo~o.::4J--_~~
~.,9224533
-23-
Page: 11 of 13
. AB 301
2.
(m) To employ a person as a representative who has
not been licensed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing
with Section 11900) of Chapter 4 of Division 5.
(n) To deny any dealer the right of free association
with any other dealer for any lawful purpose.
(o) To compete \vith a dealer in the same line-make
operating under an agreement or franchise from a
manufacturer or distributor in the relevant market area.
A manufacturer or distributor shall not, however, be
deemed to be competing when operating a dealership
either temporarily for a reasonable period, or in a bona
fide retail operation which is for sale to any qualified
independent person at a fair and reasonable price, or in
a bona fide relationship in which an independent person
has made a significant investment subject to loss in the
dealership and can reasonably expect to acquire full
ownership of the dealership on reasonable terms and
conditions. A distributor shall not be deemed to be
competing when a wholly owned subsidiary corporation
of the distributor sells motor vehicles at retail, if, for at
least three years prior to January 1, 1973, the subsidiary
corporation has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the
distributor and engaged in the sale of vehicles at retail.
(p) To unfairly discriminate among its franchisees
with respect to warranty reimbursement or authority
granted its franchisees to make warranty adjustments
with retail customers.
( q) To sell vehicles to persons not licensed under this
chapter for resale.
(r) To fail to affix an identification number to any park
trailer, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 18010 of
the Healt.l} and Safety Code, which is manufactured on or
after January 1, 1987, and which does not clearly identify
the nnit as a park trailer to the department. The
configuration of the identification number shall be
approved by the department.
SEC. 17. Section 12500 of the Vehicle Code is
amended to read:
91
520
Case: 14-55077
AB 301
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-19
Page: 12 of 13
-24-
540
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-19
Page: 13 of 13
JUL 3 0 i993
Approved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1993
'
-~
FILED
Governor
1 0
" '""
- -- ..
- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - ---------
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-20
Page: 1 of 13
2
e, O
\ "' ~Y:.~~
C ~~.~ C~\.S
~ '7~ c.~1 or- p.~?
tf\~.s. co>J
1.~\"
~~~ 1. ~
~~
10
II
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #20
19
20
21
Defendants
OR\G\NAL
1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-20
Page: 2 of 13
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Section 5220 of the Business an
Professions Code, to amend Section 44241 of the Health and Safety Code, and to
amend Sections 407, 1808.4, 5004.1, 12500, 12951, 14601.2, 14601.5, 14608,
14609,22511.55,22511.6, 23302, and 40202 of, to add Section 5902.5 to, and to
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
rZIJ< rL1:z
Philip Christian Bikle
Vits/1 cr
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-20
Page: 8 of 13
State of California
Secretary of State
&~--~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP 09 11 3843
case~
14-550 1 1
0872872014
"~v
1993, at
d:=.
cf23 1-..:}
o'clock~.
c ase: 14-550 77
SB
~4
oetze;zot4
10. !!!45~~
E>MEt tli y. 5 28
Po:~ e. 18 ef 19
-2CHAPrER
Jd-'j d-
SB
274,
Committee
on
Transportation. Transportation: records: vehicles:
highways.
( 1) The Outdoor Advertising Act defines the term
ccprimary highway,. to mean any highway, other than an
interstate highway, at any time officially designated as
p~ t of the federal-aid primary system by the Director of
Transportation and approved by the appropriate
authority of the federal government.
This bill would change that definition to include any
highway, other than an interstate highway, designated as
part of the federal-aid primary system in existence on
June ~, 1991, and any highway that is not in that system
but which is in the National Highway System.
(2) Existing law provides for a specified fee on motor
vehicles registered in an air pollution control disbict or
air quality management district, as specified, to
implement the California Clean Air Act. Those fee
revenues are required to be allocated, among other
allocations, to the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District to implement specified transportation control
projects and programs.
This bill would add to those listed projects and
programs, the implementation of an automotive buyback
scrappage program.
(3) Existing law defines a motorized quadricycle" as
a four-wheeled device designed to carry not more than 2
persons, including the driver, and having either an
electric motor or a motor with an automatic transmission
-11-
Page: 11 of 13 -
SB 274
amended to read;
5004.1.
>-.- ._
Case: 14-55077
SB 9:14
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-20
Page: 12 of 13
-12-
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
.ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-20
so
Governor
1 0
Page: 13 of 13
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-21
Page; 1 of 13
~'~
rtJAU
fi g
U.S. OOUAr
0FAPfJA1~K
AUG28 20f4
4
5
6
7
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
V.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #21
19
20
21
Defendants
ORIGINAL
1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-21
Page: 2 of 13
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend sections 15975 and 29535 of the
government code, to amend section 99314.6 of, and to add sections 130051.21 and
130243 to, the public utilities code, to amend sections 188.8, 348, and 438 of, and
to add section 73.3 to, the streets and highways code, and to amend sections 1801,
4000, 12500, 12800.5, 12804.14, 21212, 22651, 23136, 23137, 23158.2, and
42205 of, and to add Sections 5002.7 and 25282 to, and to repeal section 32108 of,
I0
the vehicle code, relating to transportation, and declaring the urgency thereof, to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
elf( Kh
Philip Christian Bikle
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry 5-21
Page: 8
oJ 13
State of California
Secretary of State
&b\~ ~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~OSP09 l1 3643
r-
10:--9224533
1-
~c:) ~)
I
I
'
Passed the Assembly January 25, 1996
~OL4<~
Acting
J~tJ.L_Jj;
:..Secretary of the Senate
d\
~eL~,
.. c..__
Private Secretary oj
~rnor
Corrected 1-29-96
mw::a:~-...riiM&II!!IIi!M
ll lllilll61111iiliiii07iiii7.._1@99!19{~289!1/~29~1~:4---tt
l Dr.: -':t92r.2~4~533
AB 1869
-2- (
CHAPTER/0
DktEntry: 5-21
Page: 10 of
U/
93
Case: 14-55077
.AB 1869
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-21
Page: 11 of 13
-18-
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
-19-
DktEntry: 5-21
Page: 12 of 13
_.t\13 1869
. '1.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntiy: 5-21
Page: 13 of 13
:~
i.
'\
?
:,1~
;~
4 ~t
i-:
'
:
:!
'
r\
..
..
;
Approved
~S-\, \ u
r. t
, 1996
.,
In the office of the Secretary ot Staie
of the State of Califoil!~
Governor
,:
. \
' t --.
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-22
Page: 1 of 8
RECEIVED
AUG 2 8 2014
f l l . i D ' - - - - - - - -
6
7
8
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #22
19
20
Defendants
21
Case: 14-55077
10 : 9224533
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-22
Page: 2 of 8
notice of tht: inf(m11ation within the follow ing ~eJected pages from the California
legislative net entitled. "An act ro amend Sections ~60 and 15:; l 0 oC and to add
1 .,
8
9
lO
ll
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,' 1
Case: 14-55077
1848
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
STATUTES OF 2003
Page: 8 of 8
[Ch. 222]
CHAPTER 222
An act to amend Sections 260 and 15210 of, and to add Section 35103
to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
[Approved by Governor August 9, 2003. Filed with
Secretary of State August II, 2003.}
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-23
Page: 1 of 13
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff - Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
) NOTICE #23
19
20
Defendants
ORIGINAL
21
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-23
Page: 2 of 13
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 407.5, 12500, 12509, 12804.9,
21225, and 21235 of, and to add Section 21226 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles."
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
tp Chnsttan B1kle
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-23
Page: 8 of 13
State of California
Secretary of State
8c~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP 09 1136113
August 15.2004
.,
1',(
&pj:m/:Jer .
2004. at_j_
!J/h
day of
o'clock~.
~~k.Oh>
Case: 14-55077
10: 9224533
08/28/2014
DktEntry: 5-23
Page: 10 of 13
- 2-
AB 1878
and 2123 5 of. and to add Section 21226 to. the Vehicle Code.
relating to vehicles.
LEGISLmVf COl":"St:L'S Dl<it:ST
1} _,
Case: 14-55077
AB 1878
08/28/2014
JD: 9224533
DktEntry: 5- 23
Page: 11 of 13
- 6-
(2) The di$closure required under paragraph (I. l shall meet both
of the following requirements:
.
(A) The disclosure shall be printed in not less than 14-pomt
boldface type on a ~ingle sheet of paper that cont;tins no
information other than the disclosure.
(B) The disclosure shall include the following language in
capital letters:
" YOU MAY NOT ~10DIFY OR ALTER THE EXHAUST
'f: : .
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
- 7-
DktEntry: 5-23
Page: 12 of 13
AB 1878
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
10 : 9224533
DktEntry: 5-23
Page: 13 of i3
, ~
"-
FILED
SEP ! 4 2004
At
7
J
J ;;- O'Crock
/ --:>
M.
KEVIN~HE~LEY, ~ta}e
8i2 h &<-th-fi. h 't?[_ (~
Deputy Secretar}' cf Sta
SEP 24 1004
Approved ----------------~-----,2004
.o
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-24
Page: 1 of 12
2
RECEIVED
MOLLY C. OWYcR1 Ct.Ei=ll(
AUG 2 8 2014
FILI!D------ ~,
DOCKETED.:--~-- ~tL
DATE
IFill'"
7
8
10
11
Philip C. Bikle
12
Plaintiff- Appellant,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
)NOTICE#24
19
20
21
Defendants
ORIGINAL
1
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-24
Page: 2 of 12
Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial
notice of the information within the following selected pages from the Califomi
legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 1804, 5002.7, 12500, 12810.5,
12811 , 13005, 15210,22450, and 22452 ofthe Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles."
t/1f. rL&
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
riJs/11/
Date
Case: 14-55077
08/28/2014
tO: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-24
Page: 8 of 12
State of California
Secretary of State
&~*-~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State
~ OSP 09113643
,,
t,
.'
:::
Passed',the Seriate
.......
S~pteurber
.... .,, ..
~
ll ~ 2007
1-.s:r
o'ciock
?.
cia\-.-
.\1.
-;:
~'ii
:. -~~
.--~~1
,.i;'!, :
' '
~~ -~
..
.._. . ..
........
~ ~ .
...
;..
:~ .
.,_ :::.
. ;,;:;;....
. r,;_:..~ , .
. .....
_., ..veriides.
;
~ r " ,::.
'
. . J:....
'-, ... "".
'.
..
..
....
~
':
~;
r;:;
.,
::~~
--
.
.
: "~.
....,
.
I
~: .
~
r~~;
95
..
'7
:..
, .. ' l_rr
::~.
....
~'''"''i-1&-!.:'i:l.'ril. -to~b_division
66aid rilember
to read:
12500.
~pe:i-son rnay not drive a n1otor vehicle upon a
hi:gt)y.,ray. ufil.({s.{ di~ person then holds a valid driver s license
issued trnd~t this~ co~e~ exce pt those 'p ersons who are expressly
exempted under;-t~is code.
(b) A pe~o.ri may n ot drive a motorcycle. . motor-driven cycle.
1
or ~n1otorized bicyt:1ti Upo!i:a highway. unless the person then holds
a valid driv1-~s iioense endorsem,e nt issued uri~er this code for
.that class~ except th0s.e person~ \\ho are expressly exempted under
this code, or th~~e persons specific-ally -a uthorized ~o operate
motorized bicycle_s or motorized scoott;rs \Vtth a valid driver"'s
lic~n;)e of ahy class. as specified in subdivision (h) of Section
or
Ji804.9.
(c) A person n1ay not drive a n1otor vehicle in or upon any
offstreet parking facility~ unless the person then holds a valid
drivers license of the appropriate class or certification to operate
the vehicle. As used in ~hi$ ~ubdivision. "otf~treetparking facility'.
means any offstreet facility held open for use hy the public for
parking vehicles-and includes any puhlicly owned facilities for
offstreet parking~ and privately owned facilities for offstreet parking
where no fee is charged for the privilege to park and which are
held open for the common public use of retail customers.
(d) A perSOIJ may not driYe a motor Yehide or combination of
vehicle~ that is not of a type for which the pen~on is licensed.
(e) A motorized scooter operated on public streets shall at all
times equipped with an engine that complies with the applicable
State Air Resources .B oard e1nission requirements.
SEC. 4. Section 1281 0.5 of the Vehicle Code is ~nnended to
read:
128lO_c;. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b).
a person whose~ d(iving record shows a violation point count of
four or more points in l2 n1onths. six or more points in 24 months,
or eight or more poirtts in 36 months shall be prima facie pre~umed
be
'
.: ~
iE
.:
..
... ~:--~~I
.-i
!.' :
;'t
~~
...
''
:;
o-
:~
':i
!,
-'
"'.:
~._'
.;.
;_.
]
: ~
......
_;'I
.. \:
,,.',.
,.:._:
('
,,
i:
' ,:,.
-- ..;"
1,, -
: :
. .,
, :2007