Sometime back a friend here in California get her car tow for having the tags out of date more the 6 months. After a number of court battles I can assure that CVC 22651 (o)(1)(a) which allegedly gives the police the power to tow a “motor vehicle” “When a registration expiration date in excess of six months before the date it is found or operated on the highway, public lands, or the offstreet parking facility” is a Bill of Attainder. Why?

1. Is a warrant less seizure.

2. Allows police to in affect write there own warrants

3. Property sized is not taken as evidence, but rather as punishment adjudged by the legislature.

4. Assumes guilt and infects punishment.

5. Does not allow for judicial oversight at any time before or after seizure.

6. You literally tried and punished by the legislature.

7. Does not provide for just compensation.

By the way here in California vehicle registration is a “protection service”, that is the money collected primarily pays for enforcement, and not the highways. The DMV removed the chart I was using (always should save info). But if I remember correctly something like 85% the fees collected on registration goes to the Highway Patrol, 10% to the DMV for administration Fees, the cities and counties get a cut of the pie and something like 2% is left over for the highways. Cute a?

As I already explained “This requirement of registration of vehicles is designed for the protection of owners...” See; (Stoddart v. Peirce, 53 Cal.2d 105, 119 [346 P.2d 774People v. Galceran (1960), 178 Cal.App.2d 312, 316 (emphasis added)

There is no need to dispute whether or not the courts were correct because the DMV is more than willing to brag about registration being a “protection service” Just search for “protects ownership interests through registration” on the California DMV website and see for your self.

Bearing in mind the old maxim of law “One should never pay for a service one does not want” lets consider the following implications:

Either I pay for their “protection service” or I get their persecution? Is that right?

Now lets take this one step further and see what happens if you the owner (like my friend) fails to pay for their “protection service” for 6 or more months? What would they do? That’s right! Under CVC Sec 22651(o) they would have had your car towed off at your expense until you could pay for their “protection” in full!

Now who or what do that sound like? “Hey Tony! You ether pay for our protection or we’re going to shut you down and take your stuff!”

Of course I’m implying that they are acting just like a mobster! As they drive around and enforce a “protection racket”. Al Capone would be proud of this scam.

But let’s get back to why this section is a Bill of Attainder. The best way to find out what I’m talking about is to go to the Law library and read the following case law:

And I found this article online sometime back on Bills of Attainder at: http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/bill_attainder.htm -very well written:

Good Luck,

Nick- http://liberty4free.com/