Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Marijuana's journey to legal health treatment: the Canadian experience

CBC News Posted: Aug 17, 2009 3:20 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 20, 2011 2:10 PM
CBC ARCHIVES: The marijuana debate
IN DEPTH: Marijuana
Medical pot decision worries N.S. premier

For more than 70 years, possession of marijuana has been a crime in Canada aside from Regina v Hauser in 1979 confirming that the law was indeed civil and not criminal . For most of that time, there were no exceptions for anyone using it for medical reasons, but in recent years the restrictions have changed.

At first, enforcement of the prohibition on marijuana was sporadic. In the 1930s and 40s, the Canadian legal system averaged just one or two prosecutions a year. But as the underground distribution and use of the drug rose, so did the number of prosecutions.

By the late 1960s recreational marijuana use had grown to the point that hundreds, and eventually thousands, of young Canadians a year were being introduced to the criminal justice system thanks to their use of pot.

Medical marijuana is grown under contract for Health Canada by Prairie Plant Systems. (CBC)
The most recent stats show that more than 40,000 Canadians are charged with marijuana possession every year. Cannabis sativa has become by far the most popular illegal drug in the country, with some surveys suggesting that 10 million Canadians aged 15 or older have used marijuana at least once in their lives.

But not all marijuana use is recreational. The growing prevalence of pot use included many people who began experimenting with marijuana's medicinal properties — using the drug not primarily to get high, but to address a specific health complaint.

Prescription to proscription
That marked a return to marijuana's early history in North America, when it enjoyed such widespread use in the 19th century that it was routinely prescribed for such conditions as rheumatism and was even sold in drug stores.

'Smoking [medical marijuana] is not recommended. Some individuals use marijuana in foods, teas or with a vaporizer'
—Health Canada patient information leafletBut the adoption of strict drug laws in the 1930s put an abrupt end to the legal use of marijuana for any reason — including as a health product. Medicinal marijuana use was driven underground for decades to come.

By the 1990s, the pressure to revisit marijuana's health uses was building. Surveys found that 80 per cent of Canadians favoured legalizing marijuana use for medical reasons. Non-profit groups — often called compassion clubs — sprang up across Canada to facilitate the distribution of marijuana to members who said the drug provided them relief from a variety of health complaints that no other medication could match.

Challenges grow
Other users made no secret of their use of marijuana for their ills, and they openly challenged authorities to lay possession charges, which the authorities did. The case of one such user — Terrence Parker — was the one that changed everything.

The Toronto man had been charged with pot possession many times, as he made no secret of using it to control his epileptic seizures. But his lawyers used a different defence for his 1996 charges. This time, they said the charges violated Parker's charter rights.

The defence worked. On Dec. 10, 1997, a judge ruled that people must be able to access necessary medical treatment without fear of arrest. Parker became the first Canadian to be exempted from further prosecution for either possession or cultivation of marijuana. A subsequent appeal upheld the lower court ruling. Justice Mark Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote that "forcing Parker to choose between his health and imprisonment violates his right to liberty and security of the person."

Still, the legal evolution of medical marijuana had more distance to go. There were no guidelines on how the few Canadians who'd been given an exemption from Canada's marijuana possession laws were supposed to get their drug — which, after all, was still illegal to distribute.

A medical marijuana template is born
In 2001, Ottawa came up with a solution to the problem, becoming the first country to adopt a formal system to regulate the medicinal use of marijuana — the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations.

Who qualifies for medical marijuana authorization?
Condition Symptoms
Multiple sclerosis; spinal cord injury; spinal cord disease Severe pain, persistent muscle spasms
Cancer; AIDS; HIV infection Severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, severe nausea
Severe arthritis Severe pain
Epilepsy Seizures
People with terminal illnesses
People suffering from symptoms of medical conditions other than those above (assessment by specialist required)
Source: Health Canada
The policy allowed people suffering from terminal illnesses or severe conditions such as epilepsy, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and cancer to use the drug if it eased their symptoms.

Some people would be able to grow marijuana themselves under strict guidelines. Others would be allowed to buy it from companies licensed by the government. Ottawa awarded the first (and so far, the only) federal licence to supply marijuana to a Saskatoon-based company, Prairie Plant Systems. The pot is grown in an underground mine in Flin Flon, Man.

In early 2003, the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that the medical access regulations were unconstitutional because they were failing to provide a legal supply of the drug. Ottawa responded later that year with a plan to provide dried marijuana or seeds to Canadians authorized to take marijuana for medical reasons. That plan — occasionally tweaked — remains largely intact to this day.

The specifics
So far, the exemption from criminal prosecution for marijuana possession applies to about 4,000 Canadians — patients who have satisfied the rigorous medical and legal conditions Ottawa has set to win the official all-clear.

By some estimates, hundreds of thousands of other Canadians may also be using marijuana for medical reasons, but have not formally applied for authorization to make their use legal.

Why so few? Well, there's a lot of paperwork, for one thing. People who want to use marijuana legitimately must submit a detailed application for authorization and include two photos. Their doctor must also fill out a medical form that spells out why the applicant's medical condition satisfies the conditions for an authorization. Depending on the nature and severity of the illness, the doctor will be asked to spell out that conventional therapies failed or were medically inappropriate.

Medical marijuana by the numbers (as of June 5, 2009)
Number authorized to possess medical marijuana 4,029
Number authorized to grow their own 2,360
Cost of 30 seeds from Prairie Plant Systems $20
Cost of 30 grams of dried marijuana from PPS $150
Average daily use of dried marijuana for medical use 1 to 3 grams
Source: Health Canada

If the person wants to grow their own, they must complete another application for a licence to produce marijuana. If they want to buy seeds … another application. If they can't grow their own, their "designated person" must apply for a licence. This representative must also pass a criminal records check.

And then there's the issue of the supply. Fewer than 20 per cent of the people approved for medical marijuana get it from Prairie Plant Systems (PPS) — the only government-approved supplier.

Some users complain about the quality of the federal cannabis or say they need a different strain of pot than the single standardized one produced by PPS. As a result, many choose to grow their own or head to the black market.

Activists have long wanted Ottawa to loosen the rules that prevent providers (other than PPS) from supplying more than one patient. New rules were implemented in 2009 to allow designated producers to grow marijuana for one additional approved user — to a maximum of two. But that fell far short of what many in the community had wanted.

In December 2009, Health Canada gave a B.C. man permission to grow up to 292 marijuana plants. But Sam Mellace is not planning to smoke his harvest. Mellace has a chronic pain condition and needs that many plants to produce enough cannabinoid compound for a cream he uses.

He would like to sell his cream to other medical marijuana users. But under current rules, that isn't allowed.

There are also patients arguing that the government should help them shoulder the financial burden of growing their own medicinal supply of marijuana. In June 2011, for example, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ordered the Nova Scotia government to sponsor the medical marijuana growing operation of a woman who says she's too poor to pay for the equipment herself. The Department of Community Services must pay a one-time setup cost of $2,500 and an additional $100 every three months for supplies, an appeal board ruled.

The Income Assistance Appeals Board concluded that the woman's need for marijuana was real, and since she has no other means, the department should assist her rather than pay for her pot. The board stated that her request seems reasonable in comparison to what the department pays for other medications.

Even so, eight years into the adoption of the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, many activists remain frustrated with the bureaucracy and the limitations. Ottawa has shown little enthusiasm for further loosening the legal restrictions on a drug that it says still deserves a tight leash

Thursday, June 16, 2011

No license needed

How is a License against God’s Will?
Richard Anthony


Man is constantly telling you that you must identify yourself. Well, please show me from scripture where it says that you must carry papers with you at all times and submit to man whatever he wants. God defines what is good and evil; please show me in the Word of God where it says it is evil to do an act without a license from the government (i.e. such as the act of marriage, fishing, or driving). God does not say this is evil.
Keep this Truth in mind...God ordained rulers with only two reward good and punish evil (John 18:23, Romans 13:3-4, 1 Peter 2:14). That's it! Anything they do beyond this is out of their ordained duties. Ask yourself this question, "Do licenses reward good or punish evil?" No, they do not. Courts are supposed to, but licenses have nothing to do with rewarding good or punishing evil.

When the powers that be say that you have to have a license to do something, we have to ask ourselves, "am I doing the will of God by taking a license?" When one gets a license, it is an agreement with the State to perform a particular duty. You are receiving a privilege, and whenever you receive a privilege from man there is a duty attached to it. And we must ask ourselves, "who are we binding ourselves with?" By receiving a privilege, we are gaining the favor of rulers; but scripture says, "Many wait on the favor of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the LORD" (Proverbs 29:26). We are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Papers give status, dignity and privilege to the issuing authority rather than to the bearer — although the opposite is generally assumed. This is equally true in the case of passports, driver’s licenses, honorary degrees, permits to practice law, licenses for marriage, or even certificates of good health. In all such cases the individual unwittingly surrenders his right to assume command, status, or direction of himself in God's terms by acknowledging and then accepting an outside authority’s right to grant these things to him. For example:

One who hangs a degree on the office wall unwittingly admits that he has forfeited his power of discernment to an institution.
One who uses a drivers license has forfeited his God ordained duty to movement in exchange for a government priviledge which can be revoked at any time by the State.
National governments use birth certificates to "prove" that the baby is national property. The birth certificate thus becomes a form of theft, the theft of the child’s true identity as a free child of God to a servant of the State. By affixing a national seal of approval to a child, the state denies the freedom, rights, and dignity that God has ordained in the scriptures.
A national passport legitimizes and represents the arbitrary frontier of a particular nation. As property of the government that issues it, this license can be denied for virtually any reason. In essence, it is a control device, used by government to limit the movement of its citizens, and to regulate the entry and exit of ‘foreigners. When you are issued a passport, you are actually giving something up — your inalienable right to ‘leave any country’ and return again. In order to travel, you are forced to accept a bureaucratic device designed deliberately to control your movement. In legal terms, such a deceptive inducement to surrender a God-given right is called fraud. Thus, if you have such a document, in a sense you have been robbed. To put it plainly, the national passport system is a swindle, the conscious theft of the individuals right to freedom of movement. In the world of nation-states, claims that citizens have freedom of travel are a hollow mockery. All states collude in perpetuating this fraud, beginning with their use of the word ‘passport’ itself. The name of the document implies that it recognizes the right to travel when, in reality, it does just the opposite.
The basis of this argument centers around two basic tenets dear to all servants of Christ. One: "What is required to fulfill the Law?" And, two: "By whose authority do the licensers do the things they do?" The answers can be summed up in two Scripture verses. To answer the first, turn to Romans 13:8, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." When you have fulfilled the law of God, what other duty is there? (Ecclesiastes 12:13). All other duties are an interposition between yourself and God. Thus, licensure is such an interposition, because it creates a new obligation to another outside of love and God. It becomes an addition to the Word of God. Licensure is not love; licensure is loveless and lawless. The term "license" is from the word "licentious", which means "morally unrestrained, disregarding rules, lascivious".

To answer the second, turn to John 3:17-18. Can the condemned create law? Can one who does not believe in Jesus Christ create law? Can one who only believes in the limited reason of man be fulfilling the Law of God? We shall see in this article.

The spirit of fear always drives you to self-will. The problems and the errors of our ways are from a spirit of fear. If you're going to allow somebody to drag you around with your fears, then you're no longer worshipping God, but you're worshipping the man who has control over you through fear.

When we succumb to intimidation from the godless rulers of our time to submit our private property, our household pets, and even our children to licensure from the State, we are acting as if Christ, the King, no longer owns and rules over all things, but has been Himself vanquished by His enemies. Simply put, we are violating the very First Commandment, which tells us, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3).

What does God’s Law say about licenses?

Numbers: All licenses have numbers attached to them. These numbers are used as an identifier. God considers it an abomination for people to be numbered by the government. For example:
In the Old Testament era, King David gave a command to number the people (1 Chronicles 21:2). Joab warned King David that he would "be a cause of trespass to Israel" if he numbered the people (verse 3). But King David numbered the people anyway, knowing it was a trespass against them (verse 4). God was displeased with King David for numbering the people, so God smote Israel (verse 7). David admitted he sinned greatly (verse 8), and because the people themselves willfully took a number from their government, God sent a plague upon those people and 70,000 were killed (verse 14) [See also 2 Samuel 24 for a parallel account].

In the New Testament era, we are told that governments will, likewise, try to mark all people with a number, and that whoever refuses to take this number from the government will not be able to interact with society, such as being able to buy or sell (Revelation 13:16-18). God says those who take this mark will be punished by Him (Revelation 14:9-11; 16:2; 19:20). [Note: the term "beast" is defined as the government of a people; specifically as kings (Daniel 7:17, Revelation 17:10-12), and kingdoms (Daniel 7:18,23, Revelation 16:10) that have power to make war and kill (Revelation 11:7; 17:14)]

Now, most people are taught that the "numbering" of the people, by King David, was simply him counting the people. Well, we have to look at the intention. It is no sin to count people. There are many examples in scripture of counting the number of people in the camps in Old Testament Israel (Numbers 10); scripture records 3,000 people being added to Christ's assembly (Acts 2:41); did the ones who count these people commit a sin? Of course not. Because their intention was for God's glory, and not for evil, selfish purposes.

What appears to us harmless, or at least but a small offence, may be a great sin in the eye of God, who sees men's principles, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. But his judgment, we are sure, is according to truth.

The purpose for numbering people should be done for God's righteous purposes, and not for man's evil purposes. The law that David and the people violated can be found at Exodus 30:12-16. After being numbered, each man and woman was to give money to the sanctuary of God to attone for their souls (Exodus 38:25-26, Numbers 1:2-5; 26:2-4). Hereby they acknowledged that they received their lives from God, that they had forfeited their lives to him, and that they depended upon his power and patience for the continuance of them; and thus they did homage to the God of their lives, and deprecated those plagues which their sins had deserved. The redemption money given was used in the service of the sanctuary to further God's Will.

These people partook of David's sin, and did something to deserve death. Numbers are usually used for commercial and evil purposes by governments, and God knows this. When someone accepts being numbered for any purpose other than God's glory, these people sin. When the people allow themselves to be numbered and tracked by the government for their own purposes, that is when both the people and the government have sinned.

To accept a license from the government is to replace the name given by God with a number given by man.

Date of birth: The government will not give you a license unless you tell them when and where you were born. Now, there’s a problem with this. A bondservant of Christ is to always tell the Truth (Zechariah 8:16, Ephesians 4:25). But if a bondservant tells somebody when or where they were born, they would be lying. Simply because nobody remembers the day they were born! To venture a guess would be telling a lie. It would be a conclusion based upon hearsay only. Hearsay is not the truth.
For example, in a court of law, before someone takes the stand, they swear, "To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Now, if a witness is asked a question about the date of a particular event that happened in the passed, and the witness on the stand says, "Well, I do not have any recollection of that event at all! But my mother says it occurred at…". Objection! This statement that "someone else" told him "when" it happened is not allowed in court because it is based upon hearsay, and the law says hearsay is not the truth. If a witness did not witness an event, they cannot claim to be a witness! Period.

Someone may object by saying, "Well, if you believe in scripture, that's hearsay." But the scripture itself is not hearsay, it is a testimony, recognized by Law as Truth. Someone may also object by saying, "Well, a birth certificate is a signed testimony. Therefore, one knows when one was born if they have a birth certificate." Again, this is hearsay.

For instance, if I got on the witness stand, and was asked my birthdate, and reply, "Well, according to this birth certificate, it says I was born on so and so," the court would not admit my testimony as evidence. What good will it do to enter as evidence someone saying, "This birth certificate says so and so." The jury can see for themselves what it says! My testimony would be meaningless. I did not witness that event. Likewise, 500 people can get on that stand and say, "According to this birth certificate, it says he was born on so and so." All 500 testimonies are meaningless. Now, the court can enter the birth certificate itself as evidence, what the certificate says may be evidence, but not what someone says the certificate says. That's hearsay. On the other hand, if a nurse went on the stand and said, "I witnessed his birth." Well, now her testimony can be entered into evidence because her testimony is evidence of an event. However, someone simply saying, "This birth certificate says..." is not a witness of the birth.

Some may say, "Well, you're not in court when a cop asks you when you were born." This is not true. We set a record of our walk on earth every day. Everything you say to a cop may be used against you in a court of law. Therefore, "court" does not begin when you swear an oath to tell the truth on the stand, "court" does not only begin when the blue lights start flashing in your rear-view mirror, "court" takes place every second of every day of your life. We are not to tell the truth just when we're on the witness stand, we are to speak the truth always.

In addition, if someone asked us when we were born, they are asking us to be a witness against ourselves! They are asking us to give them information to use against us. It is their duty to gather evidence, it is not our duty to do their job for them and give them evidence to persecute us with. It is against their own laws for them to do this, as verified by their Constitution!

When someone is asked when or where they were born, do they answer according to their own personal memory of that event, or by hearsay? They go by hearsay; by what someone else told them, or by what a piece of paper tells them. The disciples of Christ are witnesses (1 Thessalonians 2:10). Therefore, we cannot answer that question truthfully as to when or where we were born because we were not a witness to that event. Remember, when you sign a license, you are swearing that you are a witness to everything stated on that piece of paper. God’s Ninth Commandment tells us never to bear false witness (Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20), but this is exactly what one does (though unintentional it may be) when they claim they are a witness to ones birth, or if they rely upon hearsay (which is not the truth, according to both man’s law and God’s Law).

"Testimony by a witness in court in response to a question as to his own status, for example age, legitimacy, nationality, is closely related to the subject of pedigree declaration (pedigree has to do with animals). A person cannot know these facts except from hearsay information, for he cannot even be informed of these facts until an appreciative time after his birth." People v. Rath, 115 Ca.132.
So, your birth date is hearsay information. This is a presumption, and they want you to confirm those presumptions. And you avoid confirming those presumptions and you rebut that with the Word of God. When someone wants to identify you, you tell them who you are according to the Word of God; how He has described you, and not how the world would like you to be described.

Name: Names, in general, are given by those in authority to those in subjection to that authority, to mark and note them.

God calls his servants by name (Isaiah 43:1; 45:3; John 10:3, Revelation 2:17). Everyone’s name is sacred, it demands respect as a sign of the dignity of the one who bears it. Now, here’s a question for you, dear reader. Have you ever, in your entire life, "signed" your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? Of course not! Haven’t you always used both upper and lower case letters to sign your name? Yes. And why is that? Because that is what you have been taught since a child. Because the standard Rule of Law governing the use of English Grammar states that the correct Capitalization of Proper Names must begin with a capital letter, and the rest of the name must be spelled in smaller case letters. At Law, this lets others know you are an entity created by God, and not an entity created by man.

Now, there are entities created by man. Corporations for example. Corporations are known as "persons" created by the government. They are created on a piece of paper and brought into existence by the government. To differentiate between those created by God and those created by the government, those created by the government have their names spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This lets others know that this entity does not have a body, soul, and spirit like man has, but that this is a fictitious entity created for the purpose of making a profit.

Now, if you look at a license, you will notice the name that appears on it is spelled in all capital letters! What this means, at law, is that the entity that is named on this license is a creature of the government, and not a creature of God. It means that entity is a servant of Caesar, and not a servant of God. In order to get a license, one must substitute one’s lawfully spelled name for a fictitiously spelled name; you must deny the name given to you by God, and accept a name given to you by Caesar in its place. Since your name is not spelled in all capital letters, the name that appears on a license is not yours! That is not who you are. And you must lie and say that this name is yours to get a license.

James 2:6-7, "…Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?"

Address: Again, an address uses numbers forced by the government, including the house number, street number, and zip code [See #1 above]. These are fictions and do not exist at law. For example, the Rule of Law governing the English Language states that all numbers must be spelled out! That's why in scripture, all numbers are spelled out completely (note: chapter and verse numbers were added by man for a reference and are no part of scripture). That's why on dollar bills, you see the amount of the dollar bill spelled out completely (FIVE DOLLARS). If the writer of a bank check does not spell the amount of the check completely, the bank will not cash that check, because it is not a lawful document until all numbers are spelled out according to the law.

State: A license has a two letter word in place of the State’s name. Many people assume this is an abbreviation for their State, but it is not. The Rule of Law governing the use of English Grammar and Correct Punctuation states that all abbreviations must have a period after it, otherwise it is no abbreviation at all. For example, the abbreviation "No." with a period after it, is short for "number". But if "No" doesn’t have a period after it, its meaning is changed completely. The State name listed on a license is neither an abbreviation nor a name of a State. It is a fiction. It does not exist in Law.

Pictures: Most licenses display an image of the male or female that is being licensed. God's Second Commandment tells us not to make "any graven image or any likeness of anything...that is in the earth...Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" (Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 5:8-9). Also:

Deuteronomy 4:16, "Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,"
In Webster's Dictionary, a picture is defined as "an image or likeness of an object, person, or scene produced on a flat surface, esp. by painting, drawing, or photography". The term "pictures" is specifically used in the scripture to describe what is evil to the Lord (Numbers 33:52, Isaiah 2:16).

Now to clarify, the mere making of an image is no sin, because God commanded Moses to make and image of a brass serpent (Numbers 21:8); God commanded the priests to make images of pomegranates on their garments (Exodus 28:33-34; 39:24); God commanded to make images of cherubim's out of gold on the mercy seat (Exodus 25:18-22; 37:7); and the sanctuary, as a whole, was richly ornamented with images. Therefore, images, or pictures, are not evil in and of themselves.

However, it is the making with the intent to give idolatrous worship that is evil in the sight of the LORD, and provokes him to anger (Deuteronomy 4:25). When the Israelites made a molten calf, it was not the image of the calf itself which was a sin, it was what the people did with the image of the calf that made them sin. It was their act of idolatrous worship with that image, not that image itself, that was an abomination to God (Exodus 32:8). And looking to the soulless state for your authority to do things is idolatrous worship.

Why does God prohibit looking to images for authority? Because God prohibits all attachments to worldly things. As God is the fountain of happiness, whoever seeks happiness in the creature is necessarily an idolater; as he puts the creature in the place of the Creator (Romans 1:25). God's Law is divinely calculated to prevent man's misery and promote his happiness, by taking him off from all false dependence, and leading him to God himself, the fountain of all good.

For example, when someone asks you to show proof of your authority for going from one place to another, what do people usually show them? Answer: a piece of paper with an image on it, which is created by Caesar. What does this "drivers license" tell people? It says you look to Caesar for your authority to do the things you do. It says you "bow down and serve" those who created that "image" that you proudly display to others, by obeying everything they tell you to do. But, for those who believe their authority comes from God himself, the scripture is all the "proof" you need to go from place to place.

God will not give his praise to images (Isaiah 42:8). Those who trust in graven images will be "greatly ashamed" (Isaiah 42:17).

Signature: By signing this ungodly piece of paper, you are claiming you are a "citizen" of some man’s government, but the scriptures say we are "...fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Ephesians 2:19). Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). We are in this world, but not of this world. A license is a contract, and you are bound to abide by the terms of that contract. By signing a license, you agree to place man’s law above God’s Law. This is idolatry. This is placing something else higher than God. By signing a license you are signing away God's existence. Man says, "We ought to obey men rather than God." But God says, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Who will you follow? The will of man or the Will of God?

When you sign a license, you stand as surety for the fictitious entity created by the state. Similar to how a man stands as surety for a corporation (meaning if the corporation does something wrong, the man will go to court and answer to the charges against the corporation). This is what you do when you stand as surety for that fictitious name on that license. But the scripture is clear that we are not to stand as surety (Proverbs 6:1-2; 11:15), In 2 Kings 18:23,31, the people refused to stand as surety (pledges) for their king (government).

License: The lawful definition of a license is, "A permit to do that which, without the license, would be illegal to do". In other words, the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal. Then they tell you that if you pay the government money (a bribe), then they will turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do!

All licenses issued by the government are ungodly. Here are a few examples:

Marriage license: Marriage was ordained by God (Genesis 2:23-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 5:14, Hebrews 13:4). Speaking of marriage, Jesus himself said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). Yet, this is exactly what the men of government do today by saying marriage is illegal; they put asunder the institution of marriage! Remember, if anyone does anything today without a license from the government, it is an illegal act; and there's a strong possibility of getting penalized, fined and imprisoned. Marriage is no exception. Marriage is illegal!

If it is God’s Will to bring two souls together in Holy Matrimony, what right does mere man have to say two souls cannot get married, until they ask the government for permission?! Until they pay the government their hard earned money to get a license to exercise God’s Will? Does mere man have authority, at law, to interpose himself, or his purported law, between God’s Will, and to bring punishment on a servant of Christ for exercising God’s Law? Could it be evil to execute the Law of God? Could it?

Preaching license: Jesus commanded us to preach (Matthew 10:7, Mark 16:15, Luke 9:2,60, 1 Corinthians 1:17; 9:14,16, 2 Timothy 4:2). What right has man to say we cannot preach anymore until we bribe the government with a fee to get a license to do what God has already commanded us to do? According to the scripture, man is forbidden to charge a fee to preach the gospel of Christ: "What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:18).

Fishing license: God has already given us permission to fish freely (Genesis 1:26,28, Habakkuk 1:15, Matthew 17:27, John 21:10). What right has mere man to say it is now illegal to do what God has already told us is lawful to do? Who owns the fish and water anyway? (Exodus 19:5, Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 44:24, 2 Corinthians 5:18).
The Lord has provided those fish for us. The natural man does not have dominion over those fish. The Lord uses him to make sure those things are not ravished, but if you're fishing for whatever you need at that time to eat, then there's no license that controls that; those are a gift from God. And if someone says to you that you must have a license to fish, you may reply, "My Father has provided these fish for me. And nowhere in His Word does it say that I have to have a license to eat those fish. I'm not here for my wants. I am not abusing the fish, I am only going to take what I need."

Now, if you're fishing for commercial gain, then you're engaged in commerce and you've come under the commercial laws, because you're trying to profit off of God's creation. And the natural man will have jurisdiction over that because you're engaged in evil. We're not to profit off of His creation; we don't need to because he provides for our needs through our labors. When one goes to commercial activity and gain, they're actually trying to grasp more than what we really need, and that goes to the wants.

If you have enough, then you're blessed. Why do you need to spend your life constantly trying to scrape up more? And when all of your needs are met, you have less than everyone else but that's actually a blessing because of the Peace in it. And that's the true Peace of the Lord, not the peace that the world thinks they know, because there's no peace in the world.

Pet license: God’s very first command to man was to take care of the creatures upon the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). What right has the government to say it is now illegal to take care of God’s creatures? Who owns the animals? (Exodus 19:5, Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 44:24, 2 Cor.5:18). How can we register with Caesar (the State) those things (animals) that belong to God? (Mark 12:17).

Birth license: Also known as a birth certificate. Since it is almost impossible to get a license today without a birth certificate, and it is almost impossible to do anything today without a license, then one cannot interact in society without this permission slip issued by Caesar. How ridiculous that anyone would ask for "proof" that you were born! That is basically what a birth certificate is. But is not the fact that you are breathing proof enough that you were born?
God says he knows us and sanctifies us before we are formed in the belly and before we are physically born (Jeremiah 1:4-5). So, according to God, we come into existence before our physical birth. The government says we come into existence after our physical birth, thus denying the scriptures. To a bondservant of Christ, it is not the first birth from corruptible seed that’s important (1 Peter 1:23), but our second birth, when we’re "born again" (John 3:3,7), that’s important. The first birth is of the world, the second birth is of God (John 1:12-13). If we say we were "born" after we came out of the womb, then we are denying we were born of God. We are then of the world, and not of God.

Work license: God says, "...the labourer is worthy of his hire" (Luke 10:7) and "six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work" (Exodus 20:9), but man says the labourer is not worthy to be hired, and shall work zero days per week, especially if he doesn’t have a number issued by the government. God says, "... The labourer is worthy of his reward.." (1 Timothy 5:18), but man says the labourer is only worthy of half his reward, the other half must be withheld from his pay. God says, "...the workman is worthy of his meat." (Matthew 10:10), but man says the workman is only worthy of half his meat, the other half must be withheld from his pay. But God condemns the withholding of wages (Jeremiah 22:13, Malachi 3:5, James 5:4, Deuteronomy 24:14).

Drivers license: Liberty is given to us by God (Galatians 5:1). Liberty is the freedom to go from one place to another without interference. Jesus Christ already set us at liberty (Luke 4:18, Romans 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:17), and there are already restrictions in the scripture for using our liberty (Galatians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:16).

As Paul says, "…why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?" (1 Corinthians 10:29-30).Why does government, "…spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Galatians 2:4). "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage" (2 Peter 2:19).


To summarize, a license requires us to

make an image, a picture,

accept a number (mark) from the government (beast),

lie about being a witness to our own birth,

deny our lawfully spelled Christian name and accept a fictitiously spelled name in its place, and,

commit idolatry by giving allegiance and preference to the laws of man above the Laws of our Creator.
All of which provokes God to anger.
Dear reader, who do you place as Lord over your life? Who do you look to for your authority for doing the things you do? What do you claim is your authority for marriage, preaching, fishing, having pets, working, or driving a car? If you have a license from the government to do these things, then you look to Caesar for your authority to do the things you do. If you rely solely upon the Scriptures to do these things, then you look to God for your authority to do the things you do. Either you believe, "I can do all things through the government which strengtheneth me", or you believe, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13). You cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13).

The Purpose of Licenses

The only purposes of a license is to regulate commercial activity which is subject to the police power.

A license is "a permit granted by an appropriate governmental body generally for consideration to a person, firm, or a corporation to pursue some occupation, or to carry on some business, which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California Board of Pharmacy, 69 Cal. App. 2d 69, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
Are the godly works of God done as business? Are godly works under the police power? You decide. Also, if you get a drivers license, they require you to get insurance. But what does the scripture say about insurance?


If the scripture could be summed up in one word, it would be "accountability". Every man is accountable and responsible for his own actions (Exodus 21:32-34). If you sin, you'll be punished. If you are righteous, you'll be rewarded. If you steal or damage someone's property, you must pay restitution to the victim. The scripture teaches us that only the one who commits a wrongful act must take the responsibility.

If I were to take insurance, I would be forsaking God's Law by taking accountability away from myself, and forcing it upon others. If I were in an accident, others would pay the cost of my negligence, and not I, as God commands. When responsibility is taken away from people, and accountability is not a deterrent, then people are free to commit wrongful acts without fear of punishment. How many times have you heard someone say the phrase, "I don't care what happens to that, it's insured!"?

Getting insurance is done out of the "fear of man", Out of the fear of having an accident, out of fear of having your car stolen by a thief, out of fear of being fined and thrown in jail for not having insurance, or out of fear of having your car impounded for not obeying man's insurance laws. But we are commanded to not fear man.

Hebrews 13:6, "...The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me." (See also Psalm 56:4; 118:6, Isaiah 51:7, Matthew 10:28).
Insurance is saying God is not sufficient. We don't need insurance from man, because we have assurance from God:

Isaiah 32:17, "And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever."
Hebrews 10:22, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

Another form of Taxation

In addition, licenses cost money. The government is giving us things at a cost. God himself said he would "freely give us all things" (Romans 8:32). What right has man to charge for something God already gave us for free?

A license is just another form of taxation. By requiring a license, the state is claiming complete control and ownership over a disciple's life, liberty, and property. In demanding licensure from the servants of Christ, the State is asking that we render to it the submission and tribute that scripture requires us to give to God alone (Matthew 4:10). Christ's assembly does not exist on paper, but in the hearts of men, and is expressed in their outward acts. Because there is no breath of Life from God in such pieces of paper, we should not look to them for any authority for doing anything. Christ is our authority for doing the things we do (Philippians 4:13). Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man.

The most important Law to Know

We should indeed obey that government instituted by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus; but not a usurper or pretender to His Throne (Hosea 8:4). It is necessary to draw the distinction between those who exercise Godly Power in Lawful Execution of God’s Will from those who exercise a "power" for their own private purposes and claim to be doing God’s service. The giving of a "name", "birth date", "address", and a "socialist security number" are all identifiers of crafty men that confirm one to be the property of the Babylonian system which created and uses those identifiers to mark its property. That's why it's so very important not to carry an I.D. because any kind of identification you carry describes you according to the State and not according to the Word of God. It's not you, it's an image of you, and it's an image described by men

The giving of a "name," "birth date," "address," all forming a "legal description" of a "legal personality" are all identifiers of crafty and deceitful men forming their seal made in their image and likeness that confirm one to be the property of the Babylonian system which created and uses those identifiers to mark its property.

A King rules by his law; likewise, God rules by his law, and His Law is the Word of God. We honor Christ by obeying him (John 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments"), not by substituting man-made requirements in place of His. When there is a conflict between God’s law and man’s law, we must choose whom we will serve, because "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24). All one must do to decide which law to follow is to search the scriptures:

Acts 5:29, "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." .

Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us." (see also James 4:12).

Jeremiah 17:5, "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man."

Psalms 118:8-9, "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man…than to put confidence in princes."

Psalms 146:3, "Put not your trust in princes."

Ecclesiastes 12:13), "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God [*not man], and keep his commandments [*not man’s commandments]: for this is the whole duty of man."

The most important law to know is God's Law because it is our standard by which we measure and judge all other systems of law. Then, when we confront other laws and measure it by God's standard, we can judge whether such laws are godly or not.

Think about this. We are "to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29), which is Jesus, the Christ. When we look to a State ID and say, "Yea, that's me, that's who I am," then who are we being conformed to? When we receive identification from the State, then we're made in the image and likeness of Caesar.

True Accounts of Believers not needing Identification

Flying on an Airplane:
It is very hard to fly today without ID, unless one uses a private airline. However, the following is a true account of two brothers who flew on a commercial airline a week after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, without any identification.

"Well, I was in the Hotel across from the Airport for my flight the next morning. I awoke at 3:32 AM who knows why? I turned on the TV and there was the burning building on TV. I phoned Mara in Hawaii, woke her, and said turn on the TV. Just then the second plane hit the second tower. One week delay.
"My friend William and I went to the Airport for our flight to Hawaii. Both under the name of: Sonne of man: house of Israel . After we waded through agents three deep in the terminal, with not one look at them, we waited for about 40 minutes in line. The lady agent was greeted in the name of our Lord and Saviour, and when she asked for our ID I told her, 'We are not permitted to have those things by our Father and it says that right here in the second commandment.' She asked if we had any luggage to check, we said no and she said, 'Fine. Here's your ticket.' Easy.

"We than proceeded to the tram ride to our gate but before we could get on the tram they had an ID check and ticket check. The guy asked for ID and I told him we weren't permitted to have those, and he said, 'Well, I'm not permitted to let you through because I have my orders.' So I told him that I would go and get a note from our teacher and that I'd be right back.

"I went to the lady and told her that some guy was downstairs scaring all the people with some ID thing. Then I asked her if she could she help. She called over a supervisor and asked him nicely if he would accompany us. He led us to the security check and told the guy that we were permitted to go without ID and everybody was happy. I gave the supervisor a hug and thanked him for being a brother and off we went. My Father and my brother were at my side every moment. I could feel them."

Riding on Trains and Buses:
In September of 2002, I (Richard Anthony) was to take a trip from Canoga Park to Anaheim, California, some 50 miles distance, to meet with my Dad who would be there for a week. Metrolink is the name of the county train system here. The same train track is also used by Amtrak. I called "Metrolink Information" by phone, and the "computer-assistant" said it would cost twelve "dollars" one-way. When Randy Lee and I went to the local Metrolink Station, the only way to acquire the tickets was through a vending machine. However, to go between the two cities, the machine only required $6.25 for the ticket. We wondered why it was almost half the price quoted, vended the ticket, and inquired no further.

Shortly thereafter, a double-deck train pulled up to the station (Metrolink has double-deck), and I waited outside for a while before boarding. From inside of the station, Randy Lee got a current train schedule for me. The train was supposed to depart at 11:13 A.M. I boarded the train shortly before this time. After I sat down, in front of me was a digital sign that displayed the next stop. I looked at the train schedule to verify that was the next stop. And sure enough, it was the same. The train departed at 11:13 A.M., and according to the schedule, it was supposed to depart at 11:13 AM. There was no other train in the station, so I was confident I was on the right train. I laid back in the chair and relaxed. There were a few people sleeping in their chairs next to mine.

Little did I know that God was going to tap me on the shoulder and remind me that things are not always as they appear, but that no matter what happens, all things work together for good to them who love Him.

Soon after departure, the train conductor approached me. The following is a paraphrase of what happened.

Conductor: Where ya headed?
Richard: Anaheim! (I said this with a smile. The conductor took out the Anaheim colored strip of paper and inserted it into the slot above my seat. Then I handed him my ticket).

Conductor: You're on the wrong train!
Richard: Pardon? (I thought he was jesting. A visual checklist ran through my head.

Train pulled into station on time.
This is a double-deck train. Metrolink is a double-deck train.
The next stop for this train was the same stop as stated on the Metrolink schedule.
Train departed on time, and was the same departure time as stated on the Metrolink schedule, and the same departure time as the previous phone call to Metrolink confirmed.
There was no other train in the station for me to board!
(I thought I heard that too familiar voice from the 1950's…"You have just entered the Twilight Zone…")
Conductor: Your ticket is for the Metrolink.
Richard: Yes.

Conductor: This is Amtrak.
Richard: (I was dumbfounded. But then I realized that there must be a purpose for this. So I put my faith in God and just went with the flow.) What do I do?

Conductor: (He took out an Amtrak book from his pocket and flipped through the pages. This train had the same stops as Metrolink, and ended up at the same destination). How much did you pay for your ticket?
Richard: (I looked at the ticket) It says six-twenty-five.

Conductor: Amtrak charges twelve dollars....
Richard: (My thoughts were—Well, this explains why the telephone call to Metrolink said it would cost twelve dollars. But there is no explanation why there is such a large difference in the price. Before I could answer, he said:).

Conductor: Let me see your I.D.
Richard: Oh. I don't have any.

Conductor: You don't?!?!? (As he raised his voice with this question, he woke up those on the train who were sleeping. Now all eyes were on us).
Richard: No. Why?

Conductor: You must have I.D.! You cannot be on this train unless you have I.D. You can't even buy an Amtrak ticket without I.D. (He was looking at seated passengers as he spoke, as if to warn others that there was "a possible criminal" in their midst).
Richard: Well, I'm a minister for Christ Jesus. I don't have any I.D. I go from place to place doing the Lord's Will. (I grabbed my bible cover, which had my bible in it).

Conductor: Well, let me see what you have there.
Richard: (He was expecting to see some kind of identification papers, but when I opened it up, there was only my bible).

Conductor: (He scoffed and turned his head away). The Bible! (Shaking his head, as if to say, "Poor fella. That won't do you any good.")
Richard: The scripture "identifies" me as a Minister for Christ. That is who I am.

Conductor: You must have I.D. It's the law!
Richard: Well, yes, it might be the law for residents, but I am not a resident. The government will only give I.D. to residents. If I were to try to get California I.D., and they asked me if I'm a resident, I would have to say, 'No, I'm just passing through,' they would then say, 'Oh, we can't give you I.D. unless you're a resident.' (I could have additionally pointed out to him that they also require a Social Security Number, which I don't have, in order to get an I.D. card).

Conductor: Well, things have changed since 9-11.
Richard: Hmmm. I'll have to look into that. Is there someone higher-up here that I can talk to?

Conductor: (He pointed to himself, implying that he is the one who will determine my "fate." Then he showed me his walkie-talkie). If I contact Amtrak, they'll tell me to kick you off the train.
Richard: So, what do you want me to do? Do you want me to get off at the next stop? (Which I was willing to do without any argument).

Conductor: (After a long pause, and with a squinty-eyed stare looking deep into my eyes, as if to see if my eyes will suddenly yell "I'm a terrorist!" he said…) Naaaa. I'll let you stay on.
Richard: Thank you. What do I owe you for the ticket?

Conductor: Don't worry about that (he didn't even charge me!).
Richard: Well, thank you.

Conductor: But look into getting some kind of I.D. (Then he walked off down the isle).
Richard: God Bless you! (He acted like he didn't hear me).

God has blessed me in similar situations previously, since the September 11th terrorist attacks. About a month after the "attacks," my mother and I took a train from North Carolina to New Jersey for a family reunion. We were told that we needed I.D. to buy the tickets and I.D. to get on the train. However, Mom bought two tickets through a travel agent, and the agent just warned my Mom that her son (me) needed to show I.D. when I boarded the train.

Well, when we got to the train station, we checked-in our luggage and showed them our train tickets. The clerk did not ask for I.D. I can only presume that he thought we must have showed I.D. when we bought the tickets. None asked for I.D. during boarding and the entire train ride, either. Not even when we picked up our baggage at the final destination.

And in November of 2001, I left North Carolina to sojourn with Randy Lee in California. I took a Greyhound bus. Since the bus ticket was half-price if purchased a week in advance, I bought the ticket in advance. I was told by Greyhound that I.D. would need to be presented when using this advanced ticket ("to avoid people buying tickets for somebody else"), and that I would also need to show I.D. to pick up my baggage at my final destination.

Well, I was never asked for I.D. at the bus station when I left North Carolina, during the bus ride, nor at my final destination to claim the baggage.

An interesting thing happened while I was changing buses in Houston, Texas. After exiting the bus, and going into the bus station to re-board another bus, there was a very, very long line for that bus. I was waiting towards the end of the line, when several local policemen went to the front of the line, and were physically searching everybody's "person" and "belongings," and asking for I.D., before boarding the bus. The police had a cart with them, which was full of people's confiscated items, such as Swiss army knives, files, tools, and anything else that they thought could be used as "a weapon."

However, somebody behind me noticed an unguarded door further past where the police were, with a bus parked in that space. He walked to the door, and onto the bus, and asked the driver something, and then walked back towards me (he left his luggage and friend behind me). I heard him say that that bus was heading to the same place we were going! It must have been a bus in reserve since the one we were boarding was so overcrowded. So, we all casually walked past the police, to the unguarded door, and walked onto the empty bus, and avoided the Gestapo search to get onto the other bus!

The Lord works in mysterious, but always wonderful, ways. And He always provides a way out.

Riding in Cars:
Randy Lee, from the Christ's assembly at California, has been exercising his duty of movement on the common ways for many, many years. He has been pulled over many times. Most of time, after Randy spoke the truth to them, and knowing that Randy had no license, tags, registration, title, insurance, and so forth, the police would let him go and continue on his way, and did not arrest him nor impound the car .

It is interesting to note that every time the police let Randy go, the car he was in did not have any marks of Caesar (i.e., no State issued license plates, title, registration, insurance, etc.). There were only two times when the police impounded the car, and both times were when Randy was in a car that had State issued license plates.

The first time the car was impounded was when he borrowed his friend's car (which was registered with the State). After the police pulled him over, the only thing Randy gave them was his "name." They arrested Randy Lee and impounded the car. However, Randy did not sign anything nor give them fingerprints or a mugshot while in their custody. He also went on a fast while in jail (which concerned the jailers greatly).

When they brought him before the judge, the judge told Randy that he could go home if he would pay a $400 fine and agree to 6 months of probabtion. Randy replied, "I cannot pay a fine because I have no money. And I cannot agree to probation because I cannot enter into any agreements with you." The judge did not even ask why, and sentenced Randy to a legthy jail term. (Keep in mind that the courtroom was filled with many people, and the judge had to act like he was in charge).

However, that same night, Randy received a note from the judge stating that he would be released in three days, and he was! Why? Because without an address, birth date, birth place, social security number, signature, etc., the COUNTY is not able to bill the STATE for the cost of keeping you in their facilities!

Anyway, in California, when the State impounds the car, they must hold it for 30 days. After the 30 days, the cost to get it back might be more than the car is worth. So Pat (the "registered owner" of the car) visited the police chief in person and begged for his car back. The police chief agreed to give him the car back and waive the 30 days law, but he warned him that if it happens again, they will hold it for the full 30 days.

The second time the car was impounded, Randy was in the same State registered car when he got pulled over again, but this time, when Randy gave them his name, the cop ran his name through his computer in his police car. Obviously, what transpired with Randy the previous time must have appeared on his terminal. When the poilicman approached Randy, he told him that he was free to go, but he had to impound the car.

One may ask "Why did they impound the car, but not arrest Randy?" Well, the car was registered with the State, and was under the jurisdiction of the State. They had full control over it, since it had the identification marks of the State. However, Randy Lee did not have identification from the State, and since he did not commit any evil acts against another, they had no jurisdiction over Randy, and they let him go.

Riding in Ships:
An alternative to flying in planes to go overseas is to sail on a freighter ship (the kind where they transport cargo on board, not a cruise liner). There are usually a few cabins set aside for passengers. These ships do not require a passport to take passage on their ships. And there is usually no border patrol where they dock. If there happens to be a border patrol, simply go to an area where there are no border guards and cross there! "Borders" are huge, and 99.999 percent of borders have no guards.

Identification Card and Residency Requirements
(from the California Motor Vehicle Code):
§ 516. "Resident' means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency. The following are evidence of residency within this state:

(a) Address where registered to vote.
(b) Location of employment or place of business.
(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.
(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.
(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption
(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.
(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a non-resident.
(h) Possession of a California driver's license (or identification card).
(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.
§ 12505. (a) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person's state of domicile. "State of domicile" means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home or principle residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.

§ 13005. (a) The identification card shall resemble in appearance, so far as is practicable, a driver's license issued pursuant to this code.

§ 12800. Every application for an original or a renewal of, a driver's license (or identification card) shall contain all of the following information:

(a) The applicant's true full name, age, sex, mailing address, residence address, and social security number.

God does have patience with us, but His patience, as His Word shows, does run out. And we have to take those things into consideration. In other words, when you learn these things, you don't have to go out and get rid of all your licenses immediately, we're not promoting that idea. But consider these things and say, "Am I attached to these things through the Will of God or though the will of man?" That's what we're talking about. We need to proceed cautiously as the Spirit of God leads us, and don't make any rash decisions. You have to go to Him and pray, because He will show you the way out of these things. Everybody's situation is different.

We are not here to judge anybody and say, "Well, you're a heathen because you have all these licenses." Well, we used to have all these licenses, we don't have them anymore, but we understand your situation. We have all had this over-whelming feeling when this Truth was revealed to us. And it looks like an insurmountable thing to do away with them, but it isn't because we have eliminated them all out of our lives, but we've done it over a period of time. Sometimes it takes years. In most cases, especially when you have a family, we have to consider that the Lord says he who does not take care of his family is worse than an infidel. We have responsibilities before the Lord, and if we have to remain in servitude and slavery to fulfill those obligations, then we have to do that with patience, looking to the day when you can be free from debt, free from licensure, and free from all these obligations that you've gotten yourself into.

The important thing is to know that they are not of God, and once you do that, He knows your heart and He will give you the time to do those things, if you willingly submit to Him. By "willingly," I mean when that call comes to you, you don't resist it. Only God can set you free. Once you get rid of all the licenses and burdens of the world, your heart still has to be true

Monday, June 13, 2011

U.K.: Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System - Queen not valid monarch
Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System

Written by Debra Siddons
Friday, 27 May 2011 07:51

If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days."

For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH) Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the 12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice". For those of you less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the Producer of the documentary film "7/7 Ripple Effect". For more details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please visit the following links:-

7/7/ Ripple effect

There are two very important precedents that were established with this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus has never been lawfully crowned.

There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years. In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract, requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second point.

At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.

The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect. To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times, which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.

All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any of "her majesty's" courts or judges.

Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth.

No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause. That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do, they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority. That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case. If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days.

The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the Laws of God.

These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.

To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined.

Whilst E2 is committing treason, explained in full detail in the Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God.

Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but didn't know. We know now.

For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand for the British Accreditation Registry. It doesn't matter whether it is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head of the BAR.

So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all know a peaceful way to bring the system down. If enough people ACT and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this insanity and injustice. All that is required now is for YOU to spread the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can begin immediately. Or you can watch the last remnants of your freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order".

For additional details about this bullet-proof defence, please visit:

By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second precedent set during this landmark case.

While the official reason for this trial was to address this trumped-up and frivolous charge of attempting to "pervert the course of justice", the real reason for this trial was so the authorities could punish John Anthony Hill for making the "7/7 Ripple Effect" which, in less than an hour and using strictly mainstream media reports, completely dismantles the official government conspiracy theory. The film is so credible that even the prosecution at the trial, after showing it in its entirety to the jurors, admitted that the film was made in such a way that it "changes the minds of people who see it." That's how powerful the truth really is.

This was the first time this information was shown at an official proceeding and the results were impressive. At least 83% of the jurors felt the film accurately depicted what happened in London on July 7th, 2005 and that John Anthony Hill did the right thing. For those unfamiliar with the case, JAH forwarded copies of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the Kingston Crown court in 2008 in the hope of correcting misleading statements made by the judge and the QC at the outset of the first trial of the supposed "7/7 helpers" (who were also found not guilty).

John Anthony Hill was also able to enter into the official record his testimony about what happened on September 11th, 2001 in the United States and that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flag attacks. He went on to show the jurors the now infamous BBC report of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) by Jane Standley on 9/11/2001. She reported the collapse 25 minutes before it actually occurred, and with the building clearly visible and still standing in the window behind Jane Standley's left shoulder, leaving no doubt that the BBC had foreknowledge of the event.

As a result of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" being shown to the jurors by the prosecution and John Anthony Hill's testimony about 9/11, the truth that those two events were false flag attacks and that the mainstream media is nothing more than a government propaganda machine is now officially on record.

And the "Not Guilty" verdict by the jury is a ringing endorsement of that official record.

This case brings with it a New Hope and the opportunity for a new beginning, where liberty, justice, and peace aren't just nice sounding words, but a reality. This could be heaven on earth instead of the hell we have let it become by allowing all of this evil to grow up around us. Just as John Anthony Hill has shown us by example, all it takes is a dauntless faith that good will always triumph over evil and the courage to take action to do the right thing, regardless of the personal cost.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

by Debra Siddons

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Who owns the Bank of Canada?

Most Canadians are aware of the existence of the Bank of Canada (BoC) but beyond that, very few know little more. It is assumed that the BoC is owned by the federal government, i.e. a public asset. Under Section 3(2) of The Bank of Canada Act, the BoC is described as a “body corporate”. Black’s Law dictionary, 6th edition (page 175) defines a body corporate as “a public or private corporation”. In a recent communication received from the BoC, a representative stated that the BoC “is not a public corporation.” The BoC is, therefore, a private corporation! But who owns it?

The Bank is made up of a Governor, Deputy Governor and twelve directors. The directors are chosen by the Minister of Finance with the approval of the Governor in Council and the twelve directors are responsible for the appointment of a Governor and Deputy Governor with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Deputy Minister of Finance is a member of the board but he has no vote!! There is no provision in the BoC Act for the appointment of elected representatives to the board of the Bank. (I think it is safe to assume from this set-up that the duly elected Parliament has no say in the policies and operations of the BoC). The capital of the bank is divided into one hundred thousand shares with a par value of $50.00 each. (Section 17.1 and 17.2) and the shares are held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada! (Section 17.3 of the BoC Act.) It would seem that the BoC is owned by the Queen, a foreign head of state and not owned by the Government of Canada. (This fact was also confirmed by an official of the BoC) It is certainly clear however, that the Federal Parliament and the people of Canada do not own it or benefit from its activities.

So what was the purpose behind the creation of the Bank of Canada? The answer to this can be found in the preamble to the BoC Act. It states “Whereas it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices, and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada.” Very noble, but has the BoC lived up to its principles? You decide.

Under Section 18(h), (i) and (j) of the BoC Act “Business and Powers of the Bank”, the Bank may make loans or advances to the Federal or Provincial levels of government. These loans can be for any amount, be secured or unsecured and the Bank is free to charge whatever rate of interest it chooses – presumably even a zero rate of interest. There are a number of restrictions, which apply to these loans, a very few of which have been made in the past. BoC correspondence indicates the Bank has made 19 loan advances to the Federal government and one loan to a Province in the past (3 million dollars to Saskatchewan in 1936). The last loan was made in 1961. BoC correspondence states “it is not the bank’s role to be a source of financing for governments nor a source of financing government deficits.” This would seem to contradict the Bank’s primary purpose as expressed in the preamble and renders Section 18 (h), (i) and (j) as redundant. So why does the BoC act this way? To better understand the actions of the BoC, people need to understand how the existing private debt money system works.

The Bank of Canada began as a privately owned institution and at the time of its inception (1934), Alberta was in the midst of a revolution of sorts. A small group of people came to understand the origin of recessions and depressions and the corruption of bankers and were moving with plans to control the vitriolic policies of these same bankers. Big finance moved to have itself established as a central bank in Canada through the passage of the BoC Act, giving it exclusive authority over the money supply of this country. (This was and still is in contempt of our so-called constitution, Section 91.14 and 91.15.) It didn’t take long for people everywhere, especially Alberta to recognize this same group of unscrupulous individuals (bankers) as the ones behind the passage of the BoC Act. The depression was to continue unabated through the twenties and early thirties, but Alberta was determined to get control of what it believed was the ultimate social responsibility of a government – to provide a mechanism of debt free money creation as a means for the people to live and prosper without having the private banks stealing our wealth through usury, the wealth of those who create it in the first place, YOU!. The Alberta Credit House Act – An Act to provide the people of Alberta with additional credit, was passed and led to the setting up of a number of Treasury Branches throughout the Province. (This law has never been disavowed by any government in Ottawa.) Alberta acted according to the terms of the laws of 1867 (our Constitution), which allowed the provincial legislatures to “borrow money on the sole credit of the Province”. That is to say, upon the real wealth of the province, which means that there is no doubt that there is actually a provincial credit. And the Province can certainly establish its own mechanism to use this credit directly, without mortgaging its wealth or going into debt to individuals or corporations like the private banks.

The BoC responded by changing its shares from class shares to completely benign shares and depositing them with the Minster of Finance in exchange for a sum of tax dollars ($5 million). This idea gave the illusion that the bank was now owned and controlled by the government. So how could a privately owned corporation, with the power to bring a government and a country to its knees within hours, be taken over without as much as a whimper? Could it be that the Bank of Canada preferred to appear that it had been taken over (nationalized) while it maintained its independence and powers? Unfortunately, with the start of the Second World War, the Province of Alberta suspended implementation of their credit plan and it was ultimately abandoned.

Well, those who knew and understood the bankers and how their monetary policies and system operated weren’t fooled. Hundreds of pages of evidence was brought before a Standing Committee in 1939 which showed clearly how deeply indebted the Provinces were to the private banks as a result of the depression and the monetary policies in effect at that time. (The first Governor, Graham Towers was also present at these hearings to answer questions as well.) Provinces had been seeking loans from the BoC but were being denied and forced to borrow from the private banks and abroad. The reason finally given for the BoC’s unwillingness to lend to the provinces was that the provinces were not willing to enter into an arrangement with the BoC similar to that of the arrangement the BoC had with the federal government. This arrangement gave the BoC the lofty position of being the government’s fiscal agent. Only the BoC sells government securities - bonds and T-bills. The BoC also "sells" notes at face value to financial institutions for circulation throughout the country. If the Bank of Canada wants a tight monetary policy, the Bank of Canada can limit the amount of money the government can borrow by decreasing the number of securities it sells. The BoC uses other measures to tighten the money supply as well, such as increasing the interest rates and making it more difficult for borrowers to borrow money. Through these actions, a recession is born. The effect is the government receives less in taxes at every level and, of course, the demand for government assistance rises. To compound the problem, the government has no ability to refuse the high interest rates the BoC imposes on it and the taxpayers. The government has no ability to circumvent the decisions of the BoC. All revenue to the government flows through the Receiver General, who happens to be a servant of the BoC and not the government.

The Bank of Canada appears to have other controls over government. While reading the evidence of the Standing Committee on Banking and Finance held in 1939 and Hansard, members of the committee raised the issue of the bank’s control over spending decisions of the government. There was reference to questions by low-profile backbenchers of the House of Commons about why this was so. Or, why any other policy was not being carried out even though it would greatly assist the economy. The response in the House of Commons would indicate that, although the government wished to proceed, the money was not available because of decisions made outside of government! This was confirmed many years later when the governor of the BoC told the government on more than one occasion that Canada was in no position to kick-start the economy. (As if the government could have done it without the blessing of the BoC.)

During the Standing Committee on Banking and Finance in 1939, Graham Towers admitted the only thing that would limit Canada’s involvement in the war was manpower. Money would not be a problem! Yet the Bank of Canada refused to put out money for any job creation, infrastructure expansion, or aid for the poor, the old, the sick, the unemployed, the farmers, small business or any other policy suggestions that had been put forth by the federal or provincial governments.

The reality is that the federal government can’t by pen and paper without the permission of the Bank of Canada, and all money the public considers “waste” is willingly and culpably paid out by the Bank of Canada. When Canada is in a recession (created by the BoC), the Bank of Canada will do nothing to help the country out of it until it considers the timing to be right and the solutions offered are usually a further detriment to the economy over the long run for most of us except those on the “inner circle” who really know what is going on and can profit from it.

Canadian banks and Credit Unions are now controlled by both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) as well. Located in Switzerland, the BIS holds deposits (i.e. they control) of about 120 central banks and other international financial institutions throughout the world, including the Bank of Canada. In other words, the BIS financially controls the globe. It has direct influence over the direction of the economy of every country and, indeed, the world through its banking and monetary policies.

The weapon that all banks have is the power to withhold loans, thus driving an economy into the ground in a hurry. Personal and corporate bankruptcies, lost jobs, disintegrating social programs and other unpleasant consequences are a direct result of these policies. There is no government that can afford to offend its central bank. The Bank of Canada will do what it wants to do, and what the BIS wants it to do. No amount of pressure from anyone will influence it in any way.

A quote from a 1924 edition of the American Banker's Association not intended for the public sums up what is currently happening all around us:

"Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished."

The bottom line is that our present situation will not improve, ever, until we have significant reform to our banking and monetary policies. What has happened in this country is a result of lack of knowledge as to how we are being shafted by the present system and it must be changed. We must all make the effort to educate ourselves and our family, friends and neighbours as to the truth behind the financial demise we face today. Again, this is the purpose of this website, to inform and educate. Please take time to read through and understand how we are being robbed under the present system and how we can change it for the benefit of all Canadians.

How Ontario folk beat radar...If they gets tired of whining to their buds and wanna effect a conclusion to the matter

So I've been looking around here for a bit, and thanks to all the info on this site I managed to have two tickets dismissed this morning, so I figured I would post up the story in case it can help others.

First off, thanks to everyone here, and a BIG thank you to, seriously, that guy needs to put a paypal donation box on his site. So, my story (I'll keep it short):

I was driving in Caledon, ON, along one of the town lines, and I had a car in front of me that was at least 10 under the limit, so after making sure I had room, I went around him. Unfortunately for me, there was a speed trap sitting right there, the cop stepped out, and waved me over. Got me for 104 in a 60 using the Decateur VP. To this day, I still have no clue how my unmodified compact car managed to achieve that acceleration, but I digress.

I went looking around on-line, and came across this site, and through it After looking everything over, I put together a request for disclosure form for the site, and sent it off. Now, I work in the Industrial Equipment sector, and deal with regulation, upon regulation, upon regulation, so I added a few points to the request form:
- Calibration Certificate for the Radar
- Calibration Certificate for any calibration equipment (may sound stupid, but in a proper calibration, you should be able to trace the equipment back to the standard)
- Certificate of Conformance (a written record indicating that the unit was manufactured to standard, and more importantly calibrated properly, available from all ISO9000 companies)
- Industry Canada certificate certifying that the unit has been approved for use in Canada

My first appearance was adjourned quickly, the officers notes had been hand written and illegible, when I had asked for typed. The prosecutor told me the officer could sit down with me and go through the notes, which I declined stating this wouldn't give me time to prepare. They had also only sent me over a few pages of the manual, where I had asked for the entire thing. The other more interesting parts of disclosure I had asked for hadn't been given, but the first two items were enough to postpone. The JP agreed with me and set a new date.

My second appearance was the interesting one. I had been e-mailing the prosecutor asking for my disclosure, and they kept saying that the Cert. of conformance, and the Industry Canada certs were not items that they would give to me, I disagreed. So in court, I made the following arguments:

1. The certificate of conformance is available from all ISO9000 companies, of which Decateur is one. In fact it is one of the core principles of the ISO9000 doctrine that documentation be available to prove that the device had been made according to spec and that the initial testing proved that the device was within limits. Without that certificate, there was no way to prove that the unit had been manufactured and tested in the appropriate manner.
2. I had not been able to find any listings for Decateur, or their distributors on the Industry Canada site, and there is no mention in the manual that the device has been tested to Industry Canada standards, however there is a notation that the device has been tested to FCC standards (which are not accepted as IC acceptance). If the Industry Canada Certificate cannot be produced, or a test certificate (using Certification Body recognized by the Standards Council of Canada) proving that the radar falls within the levels prescribed for an acceptance, then the unit is not legal for use in Canada.

So after helpfully educating the JP, and smacking down the prosecution a couple of times ("With all do respect to the prosecution, here is a list of the reasons he is wrong" <-- along those lines), and indicated that there was a possibility that the OPP was in contravention of the Radiocommunications act, the JP agreed with me again and ordered the prosecution to provide me with the documents I was looking for. However, he also told me I needed to provide them with some guidance on where to look.

After I left the court, I fired off a quick e-mail to the head prosecutor stating who they needed to contact, and where they needed to go to look for the documents. A week later I got the certificate of conformance, but since in my initial disclosure I had asked for traceability documents, I went back and told her that the cert. of conformance was incomplete. I also reminded her that she was missing the Industry Canada docs, to which I got an e-mail stating they didn't provide such documentation. I quickly reminded her that a JP had disagreed with that, and didn't hear from her again.

Fast forward to this morning, and I am standing in line to meet with the prosecution, and I hear my name being called. I look over and it is the head prosecutor. She motions me to follow her over to another room, and we have the following discussion:
Prosecutor: So, what are we doing today?
Me: Good question, I'm still waiting on a bunch of documentation from my initial disclosure.
P: I told you we don't supply that, and you are not getting it.
Me: The JP ordered you to get me that documentation.
P: Well, you're not getting it, so go have a seat and get ready for trial.
Me: Ok, works for me.

About six cases in, my name is called, which I figured was a little early, I get up, state my name and the prosecutor (different one) states that all charges are being withdrawn. Judge tells me I am free to go. I walk out of the courtroom, see the head prosecutor, flash her a little "f*** you" smile and off I go.

After all this, I've come to the following conclusions:
1. There is still no firm evidence that the Decateur Radars have ever been tested against IC standards, and if applicable, certified. If this is correct, they should't be being used in Canada, plain and simple.
2. While there is (surprisingly) a massive amount of case law that goes against proper calibration procedures, the Certificate of Conformance is an item that validates the radar unit, and even if it is available, it appears to be an absolute pain in the ass to get.
3. Somehow the police manage to get away with no calibrations, in any industrial sector they would be fined out of existence. How they get away with that I do not know.
4. Do not be intimidated by the prosecution, they seem to be full of nothing but bluster and b.s. The ones I dealt with didn't seem to be able to follow up on any of their threats. In fact most of what they said seemed to be nothing but a bluff.
5. Read this forum, and, both are absolute essentials.

Anyways that's my story, sorry its a little long, but hopefully someone will be able to be able to pick something up that will help them.

basic definitions of driver transportation carrier vehicle as relative to commercial for hire activity


The Motor Vehicle Conference bill of 1923 was introduced by Senator Arthur H. Breed, President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate. Senator Breed was the author of practically all motor vehicle and highway legislation enacted during the period 1923 to 1931, inclusive.

The 1923 Vehicle Act was logically arranged in thirteen titles: Title I, Definition of Terms; Title II, Division of Motor Vehicles; Title III, Registration of Motor Vehicles; Title IV, Violation of Provisions Relating to Registration and Licenses, Penalties; Title V, Miscellaneous Notices Required; Title VI, Operators' and Chauffeurs' Licenses; Title VII, Registration and License Fees; Title VIII, Regulations Concerning Construction and Equipment of Vehicles; Title IX, Regulation as to Operation of Vehicles; Title X, Miscellaneous Offenses; Title XI, Penalties; Title XII, Procedure Reports, Disposition of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures; and Title XIII, Title and Effect of Act.

This act established the framework for all subsequent amendments until the vehicle laws were recodified in the Vehicle Code of 1935. In the 1923 act the length of sections was restricted and much of the verbosity prevalent in prior acts was eliminated. For example, the definition of "person" was stated as follows:

See. 15. "Person." Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association or corporation.

The prior act defined the same term as follows:

"Person" shall include any corporation, association, copartnership, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals; and where the term "person" is used in connection with the registration of a vehicle, it shall include any corporation, association, copartnership, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals which owns or controls such vehicle as actual owner, or for the purpose of sale or for renting, whether as agent, salesman, or otherwise.

It would not serve any useful purpose to make other derogatory comparisons between the modernized drafting in the 1923 act, Chapter 266, and the prior archaic and utterly verbose drafting of the traffic laws. Rather, we point out certain of the major features of the California Vehicle Act of 1923 as finally enacted in the closing days Of the legislative session.

In Section 30 we find that the Chief of the Division was authorized to appoint a sufficient number of State inspectors and traffic officers to enforce the provisions of the act in each of the counties of the State, Such officers being vested with 'he authority of peace officers for the Purpose of enforcing the provisions of the act. The Chief of the Division and boards of supervisors were authorized to enter into cooperative agreements in regard to the appointment of such inspectors and traffic officers. This represents the rather humble beginning of a traffic enforcement body which later became the California Highway Patrol.

Registration provisions were completely rewritten. The Division was required to register motor vehicles in suitable books or on index cards under at least three systems: (1) under a distinctive registration number assigned to the vehicle and to the owner; (2) alphabetically under the name of the owner; (3) numerically under the motor number of the vehicle; (4) the Division was authorized, but not required, to register the vehicle under the serial number of such vehicle or otherwise. This furnishes substantially the basis for the maintenance of registration records during all subsequent years.

Previously, registration certificates carried in vehicles included space for endorsements by the owner and legal owner, thus affording opportunity for a thief to steal a vehicle and the document, the endorsement of which permitted its transfer, even though accomplished by forgery. The new act required the issuance of a certificate of registration, to be-carried in the vehicle for the purpose of identification and a certificate of ownership, not required to be carried in the vehicle, but intended to be kept separate and apart and to be used in effecting transfers of ownership. This basic plan has been carried through all subsequent editions of the State vehicle laws.

Nonresidents were required by Section 47 to obtain nonresident permits, without fee, and were entitled to receive a registration certificate of a distinctive form for purposes of identification.

Section 50 enumerated the grounds upon which the Division could refuse registration. We should note No. 4:

If the division shall determine that for any reason a vehicle is unsafe or is improperly equipped or is otherwise unfit to be operated. This provision has been retained and expanded in later revisions of the Vehicle Act.

The law relating to operators and chauffeurs was completely revised, but without requiring examination as a prerequisite to the issuance of a license. Minimum age limits were set--driver of a school bus, 21 years; chauffeur operating for-hire passenger vehicle, IS years; operators, 14 years. The application of any minor would not be granted unless signed by both the father and mother having custody, and the negligence of the minor was imputed to the person or persons signing the application. Again, this established a basic principle included in all subsequent editions of the vehicle laws.

In respect to registration and license fees, the 1923 act abolished the old horsepower tax and adopted a flat registration fee of $3.00, together with a schedule of weight fees for commercial vehicles.

Senator Arthur H. Breed was the author of a companion measure in 1923 which levied the original gasoline tax in this State at the rate of two cents per gallon, one cent was appropriated for county roads, and the other one cent'16r maintenance and reconstruction of -state highways. As a matter of precaution, the California Vehicle Act of 1923 contained in Section 77 a subdivision effective to reinstate the former horsepower tax in the event the courts declared unconstitutional the license tax levied on the manufacture and sale of motor vehicle fuel.

Title VIII of the California Vehicle Act was devoted to the construction and equipment of vehicles, including a complete rewrite of the standards to be applied to headlamps, and regulating the amount of light, both above and below the horizontal plane of the headlamps. It was required that every such headlamp device be subject to test and approval.

The rules of the road were reworded. The speed limit in open territory was set at 35 miles per hour, subject to the basic rule that speed should always be reasonable and prudent, having regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway. Further, the revised speed limits were declared to be prima facie, rather than maximum limits. That is, any speed in excess of the limits set forth was presumed to be in violation of the basic rule, but did not constitute conclusive evidence of such violation. The act required sign posting of certain restricted districts.

Detailed provisions were included in reference to overtaking and passing, method of turning, and right of way. The act also established the three-way hand-and-arm signal method now retained in our Vehicle Code.

Section 140 indicated continued concern for the safety of animal drawn vehicles, requiring extra caution under certain circumstances.

The legislature, by Section 145, indicated its intent that the Vehicle Act should not be deemed to occupy the entire field in certain respects, enumerating the subjects which might be dealt with by boards of supervisors and legislative bodies of cities.

In reference to procedure upon arrest, we find the first requirement for issuance of a citation to appear in court after five days for certain offenses and for the release of the person arrested upon his giving a written promise to appear at the time and place specified. It was made a separate misdemeanor for any person to violate such promise to appear. A promise to appear could be complied with by an appearance by counsel.

Section 155 prohibited the use of speed traps, as defined, for the Purpose of obtaining evidence as to the speed of a vehicle on a public highway.

Due to a number of factors, the California Vehicle Act in 1923, in Section 85, was made effective to reduce former permissible truck weight limits as follows. The previous limit of 30,000 pounds on four-wheel vehicles was reduced to 22,000 pounds. The former permissible weight of 40,000 pounds on vehicles with six wheels and three axles was reduced to 34,000 pounds. A temporary exemption was allowed previously registered four-wheel commercial vehicles permitted to carry 24,000 pounds.

Also, by Section 118, the speed of any vehicle of a gross weight of 16,000 pounds or more was restricted to 20 miles per hour. As explained by Senator Arthur Breed in an article dated July, 1923, the State Highway Commission during the years 1910 to 1922, inclusive, had expended approximately $125 million in constructing, maintaining and repairing our system of State highways. Nevertheless, it had become increasingly manifest that the State highways were rapidly deteriorating after a very short life. It was recognized that over a million vehicles were registered in the year 1923, of which a substantial proportion were heavy-type commercial vehicles.

After thorough studies and surveys, additional highway construction funds were provided, as previously described, and it was deemed necessary to restrict the weights and speed of heavy commercial vehicles as set forth above.

1925-1933, INCLUSIVE

We mention only the following more important amendments in the year 1925.

The requirement for annual renewal of certificate of ownership was omitted and the same remained valid until canceled by the Division upon a transfer. In the event a deceased owner left one vehicle and no other property, the surviving wife or other heir could secure a transfer to the name of the surviving person upon filing an affidavit.

The Division was authorized to investigate accidents and to suspend or revoke the license of any person who had driven a motor vehicle in a reckless or negligent manner, and thereby had caused death or injury to any person or serious damage to property. Such action could be taken only after a hearing within the county of residence of the licensee, and the latter was given the right to appeal to the local Superior Court.

In the field of drivers' licenses, chauffeurs' licenses were required to be renewed annually. Other outstanding licenses were deemed valid until suspended or revoked. An application for a license must be verified and contain the applicant's qualifications. The Division was authorized to examine applicants and directed not to issue a license if, in its opinion, the applicant was unable to exercise reasonable and ordinary control over the operation of a motor vehicle, or was subject to defects affecting his ability to drive.

Technical amendments were adopted in respect to headlamps, including authority granted the Division to accept the report of a headlight test from the Bureau of Standards of the Department of Commerce of the United States. During a later session the latter provision was repealed.

An amendment in Section 145 permitted boards of supervisors to overcome the usual right-of-way rule by erecting stop signs at the entrances to designated boulevards.


Senator Arthur H. Breed, President Pro Tempore of the State Senate, introduced and secured the enactment in 1927 of extremely important highway and motor vehicle legislation. One measure increased the rate of the State gasoline tax from two to three cents, the additional one cent permitting expansion in the development of the State highway system. We may note that the State gasoline tax was not again increased until the year 1947.

A companion bill by Senator Breed designated a primary and secondary State highway system, allocating funds in respect to each such system and as between County Group I in the north and County Group II in the south, thereby resolving a conflict which had existed for several years over the expenditure of highway funds in the northern and southern portions of the State.

Senator Breed also introduced and secured the enactment of amendments to the California Vehicle Act substantially as recommended by the Motor Vehicle Conference. This bill, as finally enacted, strengthened the drivers' license law, making compulsory the examination of new operators, including test of the applicant's knowledge of the rules of the road included in the Vehicle Act. Previously, examination of new operators had been discretionary with the Division. The new provisions were designed to authorize the Division to deny operators' licenses to the incompetent and to those suffering such physical or mental defects as to render them incapable of exercising proper control in the operation of motor vehicles.

The Division was also authorized from time to time to cancel operators' licenses outstanding three years or more and to require renewal without fee. The purpose was to enable the Division to weed out the constantly flagrant violators of the traffic laws and those repeatedly causing accidents on the highways.

Another amendment required the forwarding of motor vehicle accident records involving personal injury or death to the Division, which was authorized to tabulate and analyze such statistics for the purpose of determining the number, cause and location of highway accidents. Previously, no State agency was charged with the duty of recording or investigating highway accidents.

Various other amendments related to equipment and rules of the road. The existing speed regulations were retained, except that the prima facie limit in open territory was increased from 35 to 40 miles per hour.

The legislature refused passage of a series of bills to create a bureau of inspection and require monthly inspection of motor vehicles; to require operators of motor vehicles to stop before crossing any steam, interurban or electric railway, except street railways in cities; and to require the licensing and examination of motor vehicle mechanics. The legislature refused to sanction several measures designed to require every motorist to provide automobile liability insurance or otherwise to file indemnity agreements against any negligent act by such owner or operator.

Such controversy had arisen in respect to compulsory automobile liability insurance that the legislature adopted a resolution, Chapter 47, to provide for the creation of a joint committee of the Senate and Assembly to study the problem and to render a report to the succeeding legislative session in 1929.


The legislature, in 1929, received a comprehensive report of the Joint Legislative Committee of the Senate and Assembly relating to traffic hazards, other traffic problems, and compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance. This Joint Legislative Committee, of which the Honorable Edgar C. Levey, Speaker of the Assembly, was Chairman, was appointed in 1927, pursuant to Concurrent Resolution No. 19. It made an extensive study, extending over a two-year period, of the traffic accident problem in California and the advisability of a law requiring motorists to give some security that valid traffic accident claims should be paid.

The report of said committee, available at this date in pamphlet form, comprised approximately 90 pages of. discussion, statistical material and proposed legislative measures. It pointed out numerous difficulties in connection with the compulsory insurance law in Massachusetts and recommended against the enactment of such a law in California. The legislative committee recommended, and the legislature enacted, a series of amendments to the California Vehicle Act, known as the original Financial Responsibility Law, and conforming substantially with Section 16370, et seq., of the 1959 Vehicle Code.

These amendments required the suspension of the license and registration of any motorist who failed to satisfy a traffic accident judgment in excess of $100 for property damage or for damage in any amount on account of bodily injury or death. Any such suspension could not be set aside unless and until the judgment debtor paid the judgments up to certain amounts set forth in the statute and gave proof of financial ability to pay any future claims based upon negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

The Joint Legislative Committee also recommended, and the legislature enacted, a measure, new Civil Code Section 1714.5, imposing liability upon the State, county, city and other governmental agencies for damages caused by the negligence of officers and employees in operating motor vehicles in the course of their official employment or when operating publicly owned motor vehicles. This measure conformed substantially with present Section 17001 of the Vehicle Code.

Another measure, adding Civil Code Section 17141/4, extended the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles. It had always been the law in California that an owner would be held liable for the negligence of an agent or servant operating a vehicle upon the owner's business. However, in many instances, agency could not be proved and the owner escaped liability. The new measure, substantially as now included in Vehicle Code Section 17150, declared that the owner of a motor vehicle shall be responsible for the negligence of any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner whether on the latter's business or not. This liability was subject to the limits as set forth in the 1959 Vehicle Code, Section 17151.

An amendment of Vehicle Act Section 62 declared the same limitations as to the liability of parents signing the application of a minor for a driver's license in respect to negligent operation by such minor.

The legislature also enacted the motor vehicle bill introduced by Senator Arthur H. Breed, and supported by the Motor Vehicle Conference. This measure created the "California Highway Patrol," to be administered by the Chief of the Division of Motor Vehicles and by a Superintendent of the Highway Patrol. The measure blanketed in those traffic officers who previously served by virtue of contracts between the State and the several counties. Thereafter, members of the Patrol were paid by the State out of motor vehicle revenues and the officers, after a probationary period, attained civil service status.

The creation of the California Highway Patrol rendered it possible to secure uniform interpretation and enforcement of the motor vehicle laws on all highways patrolled by State officers. Neither the Act of 1929 nor any subsequent act has operated to prevent cities from employing city traffic officers.

The Breed motor vehicle bill made extensive changes in respect to operators' and chauffeurs' licenses. Amendments provided that all new operators' licenses thereafter issued should be valid only for a period of two years from date of issuance and should then be renewed, the date for renewal being stamped on the card. No fee was imposed for either original or renewal of an operator's license. The Division was authorized at any time to call in any licenses theretofore issued and outstanding two years or more and to require their renewal. These provisions enabled the Division of Motor Vehicles to clear out its obsolete operators' license records, and the renewals, coming due intermittently, enabled the Division to determine each applicant's qualifications, which it could not do in the event all operators' licenses had to be renewed on the same date, annually or biennially.

Under the 1929 amendments a new type of operator's card was issued, with space thereon for notation of traffic convictions for serious offenses under the motor vehicle laws. Traffic court judges were required to endorse upon the card the record of convictions for driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, speeding, cutting in, improper passing of street cars while passengers are alighting or boarding, and for failure to stop and render aid in the event of an accident. It may be surprising, but this plan did not work out satisfactorily. Some courts endorsed the convictions on the license cards, although most courts did not do so, in part, due to the clerical work involved and the inconvenience occasioned by the transmittal or surrender of the license card to the court and its return to the licensee. The requirement for endorsement of convictions on the operator's license card was omitted in the year 1935.

Other amendments to the California Vehicle Act set up definite standards for brakes, also a practical road test to be used by traffic officers in determining whether headlights on motor vehicles were in proper adjustment.

Important rules of the road were simplified and brought into almost complete harmony with the National Uniform Vehicle Code, which was in the process of wide adoption throughout the country. Later, we give a brief history of the development of the Uniform Vehicle Code.

The 1929 amendments revised the right-of-way rule at intersections. Previously, the California Vehicle Act, in Section 131, declared a very definite rule, and without exception, that when two vehicles approached an intersection of public highways at approximately the of way, provided such vehicle is traveling at a lawful speed. It was found that this comparatively simple rule would work admirably if only two vehicles were involved at any given intersection. With increase in the volume of motor vehicle traffic, it frequently occurred that substantial numbers of vehicles would approach an intersection from all four directions at the same time. Under the strict rule abovementioned, each driver would be required to yield to those drivers on the right, who in turn would be obliged to yield to others on their right, and thus around the circle, resulting in a prohibition of movement on the part of any of the drivers approaching from the four directions.

The new rule declared that the "driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection," and further, that "when two vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield to the driver on the right." From a practical point of view this meant that the driver on the left must yield to the driver on the right, except under the one circumstance that the driver on the left has first entered the intersection. In this event, he may proceed across and clear the intersection while the vehicle on the right slows up and waits at the entrance to the intersection.


As previously noted, Ex parte Daniels (1920) 192 P. 442, 183 C. 636, 21 A.L.R. 1172, clarified and firmly established the basic principle that any local traffic ordinance in conflict with the State Vehicle Act is invalid.

During the period 1925 to 1930 several conferences of statewide or regional organizations sponsored successive drafts of a proposed uniform or model traffic ordinance for California cities. These proposed ordinances were so drafted as to include those regulations found desirable, supplemental to, and not in conflict with the California Vehicle Act.

In the year 1930 a revision of the uniform traffic ordinance for California Cities was prepared and recommended jointly by the following organizations: California Committee on Public Safety, Municipal Traffic League of California, League of California Municipalities, California State Automobile Association, and the Automobile Club of Southern California.

The preface recited that certain former provisions in the proposed ordinance were deleted by reason of the subject matters having been included by the 1929 amendments to the California Vehicle Act. The necessity for uniformity in the city traffic regulations was emphasized in an introductory note by the following statement:

The automobile has made all of California one community. Interurban travel in large volume is a constant fact which necessitates elimination of the existing variety of local rules. Uniformity in traffic regulations in all the cities of California will result in a stricter obedience to the law, which in turn will be reflected in greater public convenience and safety.
The uniform traffic ordinance of 1930 included articles covering the following subject matters: definitions; authority of police, traffic signs and signals; pedestrians; rules for driving; stopping, standing and parking; street cars; and penalties.
The uniform traffic ordinance was revised in July, 1936, for the reason as stated in the foreword as follows:

Since 1930 the State Vehicle Code has been revised and amplified, incorporating additional regulations formerly covered by city traffic ordinances. For this reason, also, due to increased traffic problems in California, many cities are now proposing to revise their traffic ordinances and have suggested that there is need for a revision of the uniform ordinance as published in 1930.
The proposed uniform traffic ordinance submitted herewith has been prepared following careful consideration of the California Vehicle Code as recodified in 1935.

Revised editions of the recommended uniform traffic ordinance were published by the League of California Cities in 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1952. The latter edition omits many of the provisions of the earlier ordinances, since incorporated in the State Vehicle Code, as, for example, the traffic signal legend included in 1959 Vehicle Code Sections 21450 to 21454.
During the period 1926 to 1955 most California cities from time to time have revised their local traffic ordinances to bring them into approximate or complete harmony with the uniform or model traffic ordinance as recommended by the League of California Cities and other sponsoring organizations. Thus, today, most city ordinances in our State avoid conflict with the State law and include such local provisions from this model ordinance as are deemed necessary.


It is desirable that this history make reference to the Uniform Vehicle Code, its history and present status.

In 1924 the Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, called a National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, attended by representatives from every State. This conference appointed a committee on uniformity of traffic laws. This committee prepared the original text of the Uniform Vehicle Code, which was approved in 1926 at the meeting of the Second National Conference on Street and Highway Safety.

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws participated to a large extent in the drafting of the text of the Uniform Code, which was approved by the Commissioners and by the American Bar Association.

The National Conference on Street and Highway Safety reviewed and revised the text of the Code in 1930 and 1934. Both the original text and the revisions were based upon studies of then existing State traffic laws and it was the endeavor of the committee to assemble from such State laws the most appropriate and desirable regulations.

In this present history of California motor vehicle legislation it is pertinent to point out that many of the new or revised regulations included in the California vehicle laws during the period 1926 to the Present date have been incorporated from the Uniform Vehicle Code. It is equally interesting to note that many provisions of the Uniform Code developed during the years were taken verbatim or adapted from corresponding sections of the California Vehicle Act of 1923, as amended, or the Vehicle Code as codified in 1935 and later amended.

A report of the Committee on Laws and Ordinances of The President's Highway Safety Conference in 1946 reviews the history of the Uniform Vehicle Code and the extent to which it has been adopted throughout the United States. Said Code was revised in the years 1938, 1944, 1948 and 1950.

During a long period the Uniform Code was divided into five acts, entitled as follows:

Act I-Uniform Motor-Vehicle Administration, Registration, Certificate of Title, and Antitheft Act.

Act II-Uniform Motor-Vehicle Operators' and Chauffeurs' License Act.

Act III-Uniform Motor-Vehicle Civil Liability Act.

Act IV-Uniform Motor-Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act.

Act V-Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, in the year 1954, consolidated the several acts as listed above into one text, entitled "The Uniform Vehicle Code." Said code is divided into nineteen chapters covering substantially the same range of sub

ject matter as the California Vehicle Code.


The Motor Vehicle Conference held various meetings during the latter part of 1930 and recommended a measure introduced by Senator Arthur H. Breed, which was enacted after thorough review and with certain amendments adopted during the legislative session. Among the more important we may note the following:

The California Highway Patrol was specifically authorized to direct traffic and, upon probable cause, to stop and to inspect vehicles.

Various changes were made in the registration provisions, including required issuance of a different colored certificate of registration and ownership for vehicles previously registered in another State.

New Section 453/4 attempted to relieve the owner of a motor vehicle from liability for negligent operation by a bona fide purchaser, provided the owner immediately notified the Division of Motor Vehicles of such sale or transfer. This was substantially to the same effect as present Vehicle Code Section 5602.

Amendment of Section 47 permitted nonresidents to enter or leave the State or remain for a period not exceeding one year without payment of any fee, when displaying home State license plates, although the section still retained the requirement that the nonresident, within five days, obtain a visitor's permit, which was granted without charge.

Special provisions related to nonresident commercial vehicles, which might be registered for limited periods or for a full year, paying fees accordingly.

Section 471/2 permitted service of civil process on a nonresident by service on the Chief of the Division of Motor Vehicles and by sending a copy by registered mail to the defendant. This was based upon a similar Massachusetts statute, held valid by the United States Supreme Court in Hess v. Pawloski (1927) 47 S.Ct. 632, 274 U.S. 352, 71 L.Ed. 1091. The above subject is now covered by Vehicle Code Sections 17450 to 17458.

The newly created Division of Motor Vehicles (Chapter 478, adding Political Code Section 360, et seq.) was authorized to issue restricted operators' or chauffeurs' licenses, and an amendment of Section 72 omitted certain minor offenses from those to be endorsed upon an operator's license card.

New Section 73.5 required a showing of financial responsibility for the future following conviction for driving while intoxicated or for hit-and-run.

The weight limitations were revised so as to permit a total gross weight on a combination of vehicles of 68,000 pounds, although the weight of any combination should not exceed that permitted by a formula declared in the section. Also, a total length limit of 60 feet was imposed.

Extensive revisions were made in the rules of the road. The prima facie speed was increased to 20, 25 and 45 miles per hour, respectively, in business, residence and open territory. A new Section 113 imposed a minimum speed regulation substantially as now found in subdivision (a) of Vehicle Code Section 22400.

A prior right-of-way rule, sanctioned only by custom, was incorporated in Section 124 to provide that,

Whenever upon any grade the width of the roadway is insufficient to permit the passing of vehicles approaching from opposite directions at the point of meeting, the driver of the vehicle descending the grade shall back his vehicle to a place in the highway where it is possible for the vehicles to pass.
An amendment of Section 125 permitted overtaking and passing upon the right on wide city streets. This was brought about by reason of the practice of enforcement officers in arbitrarily arresting any motorist who approached an intersection on the right of vehicles standing next to the center line, which latter had first reached the intersection.
A new Section 1451/2 declared standard colors for curb markings to indicate no parking or parking for loading only or time limit parking, substantially as now included in Vehicle Code Section 21458.

It will be observed from the foregoing that the legislature in 1931 adopted a series of desirable amendments which have proven their worth during the intervening years. At the same time, during said session, many measures which would have proven burdensome and expensive to the motoring public were defeated.


An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, issue of Tuesday, May 12, 1931, bears witness to an attack at that time on motor vehicle legislation designed to benefit the proponents of certain amendments. The article is entitled '"$50,000 Lobby Grab Charged on Auto Bill." The opening paragraph recites:

A pot of $50,000 is the prize for which lobbyists are striving in their fight to amend the California motor vehicle act to obtain a 15 per cent reduction in the weight tax levied against trucks operated solely in cities.
The controversy developed as follows. Senator Breed's bill, amending numerous sections of the Vehicle Act, all supported by the Motor Vehicle Conference, passed the Senate without difficulty. It continued in effect a schedule of weight fees ranging from $8 to $70. The Assembly Motor Vehicle Committee adopted an amendment cutting these weight taxes fifty per cent. The Director of Finance immediately advised that this cut would mean a loss of $950,000 to the State highway funds. Later, the proposed reduction was reduced from fifty per cent to fifteen per cent. This would have resulted in a loss during the succeeding two-year period of approximately $285,000 in appropriations for the highway funds.
This attempt to raid the highway funds was vigorously opposed by Senator Arthur H. Breed, the Director of Finance, and members of the Motor Vehicle Conference. The attempted raid on the highway funds was unsuccessful. The Senate refused to concur in the objectionable amendments, the bill went to free conference, the Senate remained firm, and the previously adopted Assembly amendments were deleted from the bill, which was then passed by both houses, and signed by the Governor.

The foregoing illustrates only one type of the many controversies that arise in connection with motor vehicle legislation.

During the succeeding 1933 legislative session the Division of Motor Vehicles was transferred to the Department of Public Works by Chapter 318. Otherwise, only two sections of the Vehicle Act were affected. Section 159, relating to the use of motor vehicle funds, was amended. Further, a Section 159.5 as added by Chapter 1026, Statutes of 1931, was repealed.


An article in the Los Angeles Times under date of Sunday, March 5, 1933, is entitled "Freaks Among Proposed Laws," and enumerates various measures, the enactment of which would have proven detrimental to all motorists. Quite a number of the bills would have required that every owner equip his motor vehicle with certain special devices, at extra cost, as for example:

Every registration card to be carried in a vehicle to be placed in a special sealed holder-a patented device-from which the registration card could not be removed without its being torn.

Every license plate to be affixed to a vehicle with a patented metal seal so that the license plate could not be removed without breaking the seal; also, that only perforated license plates, to cost $5 a pair, be used so that a light placed in back of the plate would shine through the letters on the plate.

Another measure proposed to exempt all authorized emergency vehicles from obedience to any and all rules of the road, without any proper safeguards for the safety of other users of the highway.

Another bill proposed to increase the standard $3 registration fee to $18 for each vehicle, without regard to its size.

Another bill proposed to prohibit the transportation of gasoline as a cargo in any motor truck. The author did not explain whether deliveries within cities or elsewhere must thereafter be made by horsedrawn vehicles.

It was proposed to prohibit any shortwave length radio in any motor vehicle without a permit from the California Highway Patrol which could be granted only upon a showing that the radio would be used for lawful purposes and would be essential to the conduct of the applicant's business.

It was estimated that if all of the measures introduced had been enacted, including those to require motorists to purchase a substantial number of patented devices, the cost of operating motor vehicles Would have been increased by many millions of dollars per year.

Other Proposals would have drastically interfered with highway development by diverting millions of dollars of motor vehicle and gasoline tax revenues into the State General Fund.


During the period 1925 to 1931, inclusive, the California Vehicle Act of 1923 was expanded by the addition of forty-eight sections, many interposed without proper sequence. In addition, amendments of existing sections numbered 175. Thus, during the 1931 session, members of the legislature and members of the Motor Vehicle Conference recognized that there was need for extensive revision and rearrangement of the subject matters in the California Vehicle Act. Also, it was deemed desirable to bring into a new and expanded vehicle code subject matters dealt with in the Civil Code and elsewhere.

The legislature, by Statutes 1931, Chapter 87, adopted a resolution to create a committee of five members, consisting of three members of the Senate and two members of the Assembly, to study the motor vehicle laws then in effect and to recommend such revision or consolidation as might be deemed proper. The resolution also authorized the interim motor vehicle committee to appoint an advisory committee, to include representatives of various agencies, official and unofficial, concerned with motor vehicle legislation.

Pursuant to the above-mentioned resolution, the following Interim Committee on Motor Vehicle Legislation was appointed: Senators Harper, Hayes and Snyder, Assemblymen Gilmore and Hornblower. The Honorable William B. Hornblower, of San Francisco, was elected chairman. The Interim Committee then appointed an Advisory Committee on Motor Vehicle Legislation, thus giving the latter a semi-official status, to include representatives of the following official and civic organizations:

Agricultural Legislative Committee

Allied Automotive Industries

Automobile Club of Southern California

Automotive Council of Los Angeles

California Electric Railway Association

California Farm Bureau Federation

California Municipal and County Motorcycle Officers Association

California Peace Officers Association

California Railroad Commission

California State Automobile Association

California State Chamber of Commerce

Casualty Underwriters Association of California

County Supervisors Association of California

Department of Finance

Department of Motor Vehicles

Department of Penology

Department of Public Works

League of California Municipalities

Los Angeles Traffic Association

Motor Car Dealers Association of Los Angeles

Motor Car Dealers Association of San Francisco

Motor Carriers Association of California

National Automobile Club

Northern California Motor Car Dealers Association

Southern California Motor Car Dealers Association

Early in 1932 the Advisory Committee organized by electing a chairman, vice chairman and secretary. In subsequent years the Advisory Committee has functioned as a voluntary association of representatives of substantially the same organizations as above enumerated. The Advisory Committee held numerous meetings during the year 1932. In December of that year the Advisory Committee submitted to the Legislative Interim Committee a complete proposed recodification of the vehicle laws to include changes recommended by the committee. The Legislative Counsel Bureau and a drafting subcommittee of the Advisory Committee had prepared the text of the proposed new code. It was then reviewed and in part redrafted under the direction of the California Code Commission.

During January, 1933, Assembly Bill 674, to recodify the California Vehicle Act, was introduced in the State legislature. It was intended to supersede and repeal the existing California Vehicle Act. Assembly Bill 674, the codification act, was amended rather extensively during the legislative process. The Assembly approved the bill, but it was refused final passage in the Senate. This was due to the fact that the measure was not simply a recodification of existing law without substantive changes. On the contrary, it contained numerous amendments to the code.

The Senate referred Assembly Bill 674 to the California Code Commission (Senate Daily Journal for May 12, 1933, p. 111), with the request that it immediately delete all new matter so that the bill would contain only a codification of existing motor vehicle laws. The Senate resolution directed that such report be made on or before the first day of July, 1933. The legislative session of 1933 recessed during May, to reconvene early in July.

The Code Commission, under date of July 1, 1933, rendered to the Senate its report relating to the Vehicle Code, Assembly Bill 674, and other supplementary measures. This Code Commission report and its subsequent reports relating to the Vehicle Code can be located in the State Law Library in Sacramento. Unfortunately, during the July, 1933, session the legislature was fully occupied with other serious legislative problems and did not have sufficient opportunity to study the report of the Code Commission. The Vehicle Code was not adopted, but was re-referred to the Code Commission.

The California Code Commission, under date of May 10, 1934, released a document entitled "Proposed Vehicle Code." This included a prefatory statement, notes relating to the form of the code and extensive explanation as to the manner in which certain problems had been dealt with by the Commission. This Vehicle Code draft incorporated certain Political Code, Civil Code and other provisions relating to the Department of Motor Vehicles, the civil liability of governmental agencies and other owners and operators of motor vehicles for damages resulting from negligence in the operation of such vehicles.

The Assembly Interim Motor Vehicle Committee and the Advisory Committee on Motor Vehicle Legislation held a series of joint meetings during the year 1934 to review the proposed Vehicle Code and to prepare separately suggested amendments to the Code.

In 1935 the Code Commission bill was introduced as a codification of existing law by Assembly Bill 172. The legislature and the Governor approved the same, and it became Chapter 27, Statutes 1935. During the same session, upon recommendation of the Advisory Committee and others, a series of supplemental bills was introduced to amend the Vehicle Code. A substantial number received legislative approval. These supplemental bills added fifty-four sections to the Code, amended 106 sections, and repealed five sections. In the Statutes of 1935, Chapter 27, as recited in a note on page 93, includes all of the amendments made to the Code during the Fifty-first Session of the legislature. In effect, all of the chapter laws amending the Vehicle Code were incorporated in Chapter 27.

The Vehicle Code of 1935 divided the subject matter into fifteen Divisions with appropriate chapters and sections. A new Division IXa, relative to vehicular crossings, was included during the legislative session. Continuing the practice first adopted in the 1923 California Vehicle Act, and upon recommendation of the Advisory Committee, the Code was drafted to include division, chapter and section headings as an integral part of the text. Such division, chapter and section headings have been of substantial aid to traffic courts, the Highway Patrol, local traffic officers and to all others having occasion to examine the Code. The Vehicle Code, by including section headings in the text, was an exception to the majority of California codes which do not contain section headings enacted by statute.

To avoid possible difficulty, the 1935 Vehicle Code provided in Section 7 as follows:

Effect of Headings. Division, chapter, article, and section headings contained herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of any division, chapter, article or section hereof.
The Department of Motor Vehicles issued a pamphlet copy of the Vehicle Code in 1935. The Director of Motor Vehicles included a foreword, which recites, in part:
The Director of Motor Vehicles believes the Vehicle Code is an improvement over the California Vehicle Act in that it. offers a more simple and statement of which meets the changed conditions in the operation of vehicles and in the automotive industry.
The pamphlet copy included an appendix containing the text of numerous statutes relating to motor transportation not included in the Vehicle Code. In this history we make no attempt to report on these separate statutes or the changes made in them during the years. The 1959 edition of the Vehicle Code, as published by the Department of Motor Vehicles, also includes an appendix in which we find a substantial number of laws relating to motor transportation but not included in the Vehicle Code proper.

1937-1959, INCLUSIVE

Digests of Vehicle Code amendments for each of the legislative years have been examined in preparing this history. We note that during the period 1937 to 1959 approximately 588 sections were added to the Code, and amendments to existing sections total 1129. In fact, Many sections have been amended with monotonous regularity at each succeeding session of the legislature. Neither the legislature, nor the Advisory Committee, which has continued to function during the Years, has found a satisfactory solution to a substantial number of Problems. It is true that most of the amendments have been strictly technical and without material effect upon the basic provisions of the Code. Thus, in reviewing the expansion of the Code during the years 1937 to 1959, we shall point out only the major changes. Section number references during this period of years are to the 1935 Code, except under the heading, "1959 Legislation".


In 1937 the Advisory Committee opposed, and the legislature rejected, a number of bills introduced by the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles to require fingerprinting of all motorists, to restore the use of speed traps, to require periodic inspection of motor vehicles, and to impose fees for operators' licenses. The Assembly Interim Committee on Motor Vehicles likewise disapproved of the above-mentioned measures and expressed itself in a report addressed to the Assembly under date of March, 1937, signed by Assemblyman William B. Hornblower, Chairman, Arthur H. Breed, Jr., and Frank D. Laughlin.


In 1939 amendments to the Code made the 25-mile-per-hour prima facie speed limit applicable, both in business and in residence districts. A series of new sections declared the traffic signal legend, required obedience thereto, and prohibited illegal operation of signals. Previously, all of these subjects were governed by local ordinances.

Provisions from the Uniform Vehicle Code in reference to headlamps were included as necessary to legalize the use of the newly developed sealed beam headlamps which appeared as standard equipment on practically all new 1940 motor vehicles.


During a special session in 1940, Vehicle Code Sections 211-214 were amended to relieve nonresidents from the burden of applying within five days for a nonresident permit.


In 1941 authority to establish special speed zones was granted to the State Department of Public Works and to local authorities by a series of new Sections 511.1-511.5.

In the same year, the section relating to weight of vehicles was completely revised, deleting the specific weight limits for four- and six-wheel vehicles and substituting several different formulas to govern the gross weight of a vehicle or combination of vehicles based on the distance between the first and last axles of the vehicle or combination of vehicles. The several formulas were expressed in engineering terms, which rendered it difficult for enforcement officers to apply the same. Such formulas were repealed in 1945 in favor of the present table of gross weights.

Also, in 1941, the prima facie speed on rural highways was raised from 45 to 55 miles per hour.


In 1943 Vehicle Code Section 500, defining negligent homicide, was repealed by Chapter 421, which further amended Penal Code Section 193 to set forth the penalty for manslaughter resulting from the operation of a vehicle by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or in the State prison for not more than five years.

Chapter 229 established uniform blackout and dimout regulations, although not a part of the Vehicle Code. Another supplemental Chapter 895 directed that a person should not be prosecuted for violating a State law if such violation was required in order to comply with an order or proclamation of the commanding general of the Western Defense Command.

An amendment to Vehicle Code Section 645 required test and approval by the Department before sale of any special lamp or lighting device for use in dimout areas or during air raid alarms.


In 1945 the legislature further revised Penal Code Sections 192 and 193, defining and providing penalty for manslaughter, said amendments remaining in effect at the date of this history. Chapter 1030 enacted new Civil Code sections defining and regulating conditional sale contracts for the sale of motor vehicles.

Among other amendments to the Vehicle Code, Chapter 866 completely rewrote Section 705, substituting the present schedule of weight limitations in place of the prior engineering formulas governing weight of vehicles and combinations of vehicles.


In 1947 Division 2a was added to the Vehicle Code to establish the Department of the California Highway Patrol separate and apart from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

A new law to require a showing of security or exemption following an accident was enacted, Sections 419-420.9, added by Chapter 1235 and Operative July 1, 1948.

The Collier-Burns highway bill of 1947, enacted after much controversy, imposed the first operator's license fee ($2.00), increased the basic registration fee and the weight fees for commercial vehicles, and at the same time increased the State gasoline tax to the rate of four and one-half cents per gallon, thereby increasing the highway user revenues available for State highways, county roads and city streets.

Statutes 1947, by Chapter 1573, made an appropriation for the establishment of the Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering in the Department of Engineering of the University of California at Berkeley.


In 1949 Division 9b was added to the Vehicle Code, relating to privately owned toll bridges and the approaches thereto. This division, comprising Sections 610-613.2, declares that the rules of the road in the Vehicle Code are in effect on such privately owned toll bridges, and that the Department of Public Works may adopt supplemental regulations. The California Highway Patrol was authorized to enforce all such regulations.

New sections made it clear that the term "department" as used in Division 9, Traffic Laws, and in Division 10, relating to equipment, means the Department of the California Highway Patrol (see Sections 449 and 617). The legislature made extensive revision of those sections (314-319.1) relating to the authority of the Division of Drivers Licenses to conduct investigations and prescribing the procedure to be followed in respect to suspension or revocation of operators' and chauffeurs' licenses. Also, the legislature extensively revised Division 7, Chapter 3, relating to security following accident (Sections 419-423.1).


During the 1951 session a new Section 151.1 authorized the Department to issue a certificate of ownership without registration. Another amendment authorized the Department to issue special license plates to motor vehicles thirty-five or more years old (horseless carriages) used primarily for historical exhibition purposes. A new Section 210.1 granted nonresident privileges to members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty in California.

Vehicle Code Section 403.5 was amended by adding a paragraph (b) to the effect that a violation of any provision of the Code should not be deemed to constitute negligence as a matter of law in the event such violation was required in order to comply with any regulation, directive or order of the Governor promulgated under the Civil Defense Act of 1950 or the California Disaster Act.

New Section 604.13 declared:

No person shall drive a motor vehicle which is equipped with a television receiver, screen, or other means of visually receiving a television broadcast which is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or which is visible to the driver while operating the motor vehicle.
Chapter 1185 added a series of new sections, 679.1, et seq., establishing rules for the loading and securement of logs, poles, lumber, lumber products and hay in bales. These provisions appear suitable as administrative regulations, but not as penal regulations in the Vehicle Code.
New Section 737.1 and others were enacted, authorizing clerks of magistrates to accept bail and requiring magistrates to adopt bail schedules. New Section 737.5 declared new procedures in respect to arrest of nonresidents for traffic offenses when driving foreign motor vehicles.

The Fish and Game Code was amended to declare it unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments while standing or being driven on or along any highway (Section 1162). The same Code declared it unlawful to hunt with firearms or with bow and arrow when intoxicated (Section 1161).

Motorists were also affected by amendments to the Streets and Highways Code Sections 125 and 126, requiring obedience to authorized flagmen and detour signs. Bridge and highway districts were authorized to adopt -rules and regulations pertaining to parking areas constructed or maintained by such districts. The same Chapter 464 made it the duty of the California Highway Patrol to enforce such Parking regulations.


The legislature, in 1953, again devoted an appreciable amount of attention to the Vehicle Code, adding fifty-six sections and amending eighty-five, ranging from definitions to disposition of fines and forfeitures.

The caravan tax law was codified and included in Vehicle Code Sections 249.01-249.14, inclusive. The Department of Motor Vehicles was divided into four divisions, to be known as the Division of Registration, the Division of Drivers Licenses, Division of Field Office Operation, and the Division of Administration (Section 108). The Department was authorized to issue special plates to amateur radio station licensees, "ham radio operators," by Section 170.

A new Division 8a set forth regulations applicable to automobile driving schools and driving instructors (Sections 445-445.5). Section 739, When Person Arrested to be Given Notice to Appear, was made applicable to persons charged with violation of local traffic ordinances punishable as a misdemeanor.

Traffic courts were charged with a special tax collecting function by new Section 773, requiring the imposition of a penalty assessment in respect to certain convictions under the Vehicle Code, the proceeds to be transferred to the State General Fund to reimburse said fund for amounts appropriated for driver training in the public schools as provided in the Education Code.

The Lincoln highway law of 1953, which increased the State gasoline tax to six cents per gallon, also amended the Vehicle Code to include the new basic registration fee of $8 and a new schedule of weight fees.


The year 1955 witnessed a surprising and accelerating increase in motor vehicle traffic. In California at the end of 1954 registrations for the year totaled 6,194,642.

Recent years have witnessed an increase in the maximum speed of motor vehicles. Numerous sport car models, such as the Thunderbird, Corvette and the Jaguar, to name a few, also, standard stock cars, including Lincoln, Packard, Chrysler, the Buick Century, Cadillac and others, are capable of speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour.

The California Highway Department has constructed many miles of freeways designed for a maximum speed of 70 miles per hour. Other highways were designed for lower speeds. No one has reconciled the discrepancy between the capable speeds of motor vehicles, the design speed of highways and the legal speed limits in this and other States.

The California legislature, in 1955, retained the rural prima facie limit of 55 miles per hour; it rejected a proposed maximum of 65 miles per hour, based on the view expressed by some members that such a limit would be too low. The legislature increased, from 40 to 45 miles per hour, the maximum speed limit for heavy trucks. Amendments now Permit speed zoning in 5-mile-per-hour differentials, ranging from 25 to 55 miles per hour. (Chapter 822)

During the California legislative session of 1955 a total of 354 bills were introduced to amend 240 sections of the Vehicle Code, to add 173 sections and to repeal 33 sections. In this overwhelming volume of proposed motor vehicle measures a substantial number were trivial, objectionable or extremely detrimental. A minority of the measures introduced were of value and merited enactment as new laws. It is unfortunate that practically any proposal for legislation, no matter how absurd, can be introduced, thereby requiring consideration by at least one legislative committee. On the other hand, it is most fortunate that the legislature approves only a limited number of all pending measures in respect to motor vehicles and other subjects.

We find that the legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, measures to amend 120 sections of the Vehicle Code, to add 70 sections and to repeal 10 sections, some of the latter being reenacted in revised form. Among the more important changes we note the following:

Authorization was given for a new regulatory sign entitled, '"Yield Right of Way". (Sections 471.1, 550.1)

Amendments extended the minimum period from five to ten days in which appearance is required in answer to a traffic citation. (Sections 737, 739 and 743.6)

New Division 2b created a Reciprocity Commission with authority to enter into formal agreements with other States, granting exemption from license, registration or weight fees for owners of commercial vehicles.

New sections provided that a resident. in accepting a certificate-of ownership of -a motor vehicle or an operator's or chauffeur's license, gives his consent to personal service of summons upon him wherever he may be found, in any action brought in this State based on negligent driving on a California public highway.

Revised regulations from the Uniform Vehicle Code were adopted to Permit the use of new and improved sealed beam headlamps. (Sections 647 and 648)

Also, Uniform Vehicle Code brake performance requirements were included in the California Vehicle Code. (Section 670.05)

A new section prohibited the sale of safety belts for use in motor vehicles unless of a type approved by the California Highway Patrol. (Section 677.5)

Another new section prohibited the use of parking lights on moving vehicles except when used as signal lamps or used in connection with lighted headlamps. (Section 618.5)

The legislature, recognizing the increase in motor traffic on all highways, including freeways, considered and revised various rules of the road governing the movement of vehicles. These related particularly to driving on the right side of highways or close to the right-hand edge of any highway, which term includes freeway. (Sections 525, 525.1, 525.2 and 525.3)

Lastly, at the close of the 1955 legislative session, the Assembly Interim Committee on Transportation and Commerce undertook as one of its projects between the 1955 and 1957 sessions the Vehicle Code recodification. A special subcommittee was appointed to give attention to this particular subject.


The tremendous growth in motor vehicle legislation continued in the 1957 legislative session. Approximately 386 bills were introduced affecting the Vehicle Code. Following adjournment of the legislature, 119 of these became law, affecting 236 sections of the Vehicle Code.

Nineteen Fifty-seven was a year for numerous changes in laws relating to drivers' licenses. One of the most important of these called for issuance of a driver's license valid for either two years, three years, or five years, depending upon the licensee's record of traffic law violations. (Section 276)

At the same time, it was provided that every driver's license issued thereafter would expire upon the licensee's birthday anniversary, as an aid in remembering when a license is due for renewal. (Section 276)

Another new provision required that a person obtain either a chauffeur's license or a special endorsement upon an operator's license to drive a vehicle having an unladen weight in excess of 12,000 pounds, or to drive any vehicle towing another vehicle having a gross weight in excess of 6,000 pounds. (Section 250) Every person subject to this special licensing provision was required to take an examination appropriate to the particular vehicle or combination of vehicles which he intended to drive. (Sections 250, 268)

The 1957 legislature also required that each driver's license contain a photograph of the licensee. Although an extremely simple provision, this requirement has been a costly one. (Section 272)

California adopted a "point system" in 1957, although a law having the same effect, and referred to as the "negligent operator law," had been a part of the Vehicle Code for a number of years. Under the point system, convictions of traffic offenses are given a value of one or two points. Accumulation of a certain number of points within a prescribed period of time raises the presumption that the driver is a negligent operator of a motor vehicle. His record is then subject to review and his license subject to possible suspension by the Department of Motor Vehicles. (Section 271.2)

The financial responsibility and security-following-accident laws were amended. The minimum amounts of insurance coverage or bond required by these laws were increased. (Section 413, et seq.)

Speed regulations were slightly revised. The prima facie speed limit passing school grounds was increased from 15 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour (Section 511), and the description of certain trucks subject to a 45 mile per hour speed limit was modified to simplify enforcement.

Mandatory jail sentences for drunk driving received considerable attention by the 1657 legislature and ultimately a law was enacted to provide that a first offense of felony drunk driving and a second offense of misdemeanor drunk driving would be punishable by both fine and imprisonment. (Sections 501, 502)

Miscellaneous amendments included the following: The right of way of a vehicle making a left turn was modified. (Section 551) A definition of the term "freeway" was added to the Vehicle Code, together with provisions relating to removal of unattended vehicles on freeways. (Sections 81.5, 585) Turn signals were required on vehicles first registered after January 1, 1958. (Section 637.3) Comprehensive automobile dealer and salesmen licensing laws were enacted. An entirely new Division 11d was added governing !he transportation of explosives.

A proposal for a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour was again rejected, as it had been in 1955, but a legislative interim committee was established to study the matter of speed limits and speed zoning.


Very few changes were made in the California Vehicle Code during the extraordinary session of the California legislature held concurrently with the 1958 budget session. To resolve a problem regarding the proper licensing of station wagons, the legislature exempted them from commercial vehicle weight fees, even though some were being used to carry property commercially, and imposed a one dollar additional registration fee upon all station wagons, allowing the owner to use the vehicle as a family automobile or to transport property commercially, as he might choose.

Since that time, the registration fee for station wagons has been $9.00 and for all other passenger cars $8.00.

The program of inspecting public school buses, carried on by the California Highway Patrol, was extended to private school buses in 1958.

A resolution was adopted by the State Assembly authorizing the printing and distribution of a draft of a proposed new Vehicle Code to be considered for adoption in 1959.


In addition to the complete revision effected by recodification of the Vehicle Code in 1959, there were a number of substantive changes separately enacted-86 new Code sections were added, 175 sections amended, 12 sections repealed and one section repealed and added. All of these substantive changes have been embodied in the 1959 Code.

Foremost among measures adopted in 1959 were those relating to speed regulations. The provision for a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour was finally enacted and signed into law by the Governor, to be effective January 1, 1960.

The same bill contained provisions relating to speed zoning carried on by traffic engineers, and, for the first time, a definition of '"an engineering and traffic survey". (Sections 22349, 627) This term is important, for such a survey is a prerequisite to any change in speed limits or establishment of speed zones by public authorities.

An amendment repealed the 55 mile per hour prima facie limit on rural highways which had been in effect in California since 1941. Also eliminated was the 25 mile per hour speed limit applicable or State highways in business and residence districts. This change in the law, however, did not change the actual speed limits in effect, be-, cause all such business and residence districts were already posted with speed limit signs which were specifically validated by act of the legislature.

The Code provision setting forth the 25 mile per hour prima facie speed limit in a business or residence district on local streets (not State highways) was continued in effect, however, because many such districts were not already posted with speed limit signs.

The speed limit for large trucks and truck-trailer combinations was also increased in 1959 from 45 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour. (Section 22406) This new limit, however, applies only on highways of four or more lanes. The 45 mile per hour limit remains applicable on all other streets.

The use of yellow lines (pavement markings) was authorized as an alternative to the familiar double white lines used in California. (Section 21460) It is doubtful whether the yellow lines will be used very extensively, their principal use being upon those portions of the Federal Interstate Highway System which are in California. This is because Federal administrative regulations so require.

Another result of Federal regulations was the change enacted in connection with yield right-of-way signs. Formerly, California law had required that anyone approaching a yield right-of-way sign at an intersection must slow to 15 miles per hour in crossing the intersection. Federal regulations, however, call for the erection of yield right-of-way signs on ramps entering the Interstate Highway System, which is being built to freeway standards. As it would be highly undesirable to slow to 15 miles per hour in entering a freeway from a ramp or acceleration lane, it was deemed advisable to eliminate this particular requirement in California law. (Section 21803)

A section was added to the Vehicle Code authorizing the removal of a vehicle from private property under specified limited circumstances. (Section 22658)

Numerous sections were added and amended relating to airbrakes of explosives and radioactive materials.


Brief references have been made to the initial steps toward recodiflcation, beginning in the 1955 legislative session. At that time many persons, legislators and others interested in motor vehicle laws, were commenting upon the growth, and, to some extent, patchwork development of the California Vehicle Code.

As previously mentioned, the Code had been enacted in 1935 and numerous changes were made in the ensuing twenty years. Sections inserted out of proper sequence and unnecessary duplications indicated the need for a complete recodification. of the entire Code.

At the request of the 1955-57 Assembly Interim Committee on Transportation and Commerce, the Legislative Counsel's Office, legal advisor to the legislature, began the colossal task of rewriting the Code. The purpose was to achieve better organization, better and more concise wording, and elimination of duplication. There was no intent to make any change in substantive provisions of the law, but merely to rearrange and rewrite.

One of the factors considered quite carefully by the Legislative Counsel's Office in preparing the draft of a new Vehicle Code was the desire for uniformity among States as to motor vehicle regulations. Therefore, the Legislative Counsel's Office gave attention to the Uniform Vehicle Code adopted by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. The 1935 California Code was similar to the Uniform Vehicle Code of that date. The 1959 California Code conforms substantially with the latest draft of the Uniform Vehicle Code.

An advisory committee was appointed to work with the legislative interim committee. The membership of this advisory committee consisted of representatives of State and local governmental agencies, motor clubs, and business or trade associations interested in motor vehicle legislation.

The actual rewriting of sections was a time-consuming project and the Legislative Counsel's draft became available in early December, 1956. With recognition of the widespread interest in motor vehicle laws, it became apparent there was insufficient time to review the voluminous draft prior to the 1957 legislative session which convened in January. Therefore, no attempt was made to have the new Code adopted in 1957.

The draft, as corrected to incorporate 1957 amendments, was reviewed by the advisory committee during 1957 and 1958. Suggested modifications were accepted and the Legislative Counsel's final draft was introduced in the 1959 legislature as Assembly Bill No. 5. As enacted, it became Chapter 3, Statutes of 1959.

Comparison of the table of contents of the new and old Codes would show much of the rearrangement. Particularly, the following differences may be noted.

Definitions have been arranged in alphabetical order in Division 1. This arrangement is used in the Uniform Vehicle Code and should make it easier to locate any term which has a special or precise meaning.

The new numbering system is quite different from that employed in the former Vehicle Code. In the initial stages, there was considerable discussion of various numbering systems and selection of the best alternative was not an easy matter. It was obvious that any general rearrangement of Code sections would make it impossible to preserve the section numbers of the former Vehicle Code which many police officers, judges, lawyers and others working with the Code had come to know.

An argument was advanced for use of the numbering system used in the Uniform Vehicle Code, which employs a hyphenated number, .such as 11-105, meaning Chapter 11, Section 105.

An objection raised to this system was that in common usage many persons are inclined to omit the chapter reference and refer only to the section number. Thus, a reference to Section 105 would not be clear as to whether it pertained to 11-105, 13-105, 14-105, et cetera. In addition, this system has not been used generally in other California codes.

Sufficient space has been left between major segments of the Code to allow for future expansion. Thus, it may be noted that between Division 2 and Division 3, for example, there is space for almost 1,200 sections.

The new Code also differs from the former Vehicle Code in that section headings are no longer a part of the statutory law. This, too, is in conformity with the practice followed in regard to other California codes. However, as noted previously in this article, there are advantages to section headings and through the cooperation of law book publishers and State agencies, a uniform set of section headings will appear in practically all printed editions of the Code.


We have mentioned the tremendous increase in volume of traffic. Thus, there is increasing difficulty in applying many of the rules of the road. Traffic enforcement officers, traffic engineers and others recognize that when traffic reaches a certain volume it is impossible to apply the usual right-of-way rules as set forth in the Vehicle Code. In fact, it is generally recognized that it is impossible to write appropriate rules governing left turns and the right of way between a motorist entering a through highway and other motorists on said through highway under conditions of very large traffic movement. Such situations must be dealt with by traffic engineering, installation of traffic signals, special intervals for left turns and other remedial measures separate and apart from the usual rules of the road.

Fortunately, also, there is increasing recognition that there are three separate, though interrelated, basic purposes to be served by the rules of the road:

1. The major purpose of the traffic laws is to set forth certain specific rules of the road, based in part on custom and designed to render use of the highway safe, to avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and to facilitate traffic movements.
2. The rules of the road are enacted in the form of penal statutes and penalty by fine or imprisonment or both is imposed for any violation.

3. Traffic rules of the road also govern the civil rights of one party to collect damages from another in the event of a collision resulting in property damage or bodily injury, fatal or nonfatal.

Thus, the rules of the road must define legal rights between individuals, and at the same time they must comply with the requirements of penal statutes, violations of which are offenses against the people of the State.
Although penal statutes should be definite, it is impossible to so draft many of the rules of the road as to permit rigid or mathematical application. We recite only three of the more common rules. The first two are excellent as penal statutes, while the third presents difficulties.

The driver of a vehicle shall stop at a Stop sign.


No vehicle shall at any time be driven through or within a safety zone.
There is no ambiguity and no flexibility in these rules and they are typical of the usual appropriate form of penal statutes.
Another traffic rule reads:

The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the roadway.

It is obvious that this rule appeals to and relies upon the judgment of the individual driver. It is difficult to apply and enforce this rule as a penal statute. However, having regard to variable speeds of motor vehicles and required safe space between vehicles proceeding in the same direction, it would appear impossible to express the intent of the law more definitely.

A large number of traffic regulations require the exercise of sound judgment and reasonable care on the part of each individual driver. Traffic movement with safety will always depend upon the exercise of judgment by each individual. It is impossible, in respect to many traffic movements and situations, to place the driver in a legalistic strait jacket.

It is also apparent that traffic enforcement officers are called upon to exercise judgment in applying and enforcing the traffic rules. The authority vested in such officers imposes upon them a heavy responsibility. It is of the utmost importance that motorists, pedestrians, enforcement officers and the courts thoroughly understand and uniformly interpret and apply the rules of the road under like conditions.

Looking to the future, we must recognize that later changes in vehicles, highways and volume of traffic may necessitate some revision in our traffic laws. However, this history of motor vehicle legislation should demonstrate that the essential basic regulations have been included in the California Vehicle Code.

Real criminal invesitgation and professionalism regarding the Medpharmfraud of 2019