Challenging a law I was not charged with

[joephys73]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GA

(This post is intentionally not in the Traffic section, as it regards court procedure and not the direct 'crime' I was charged with.)

I was charged with driving with an expired registration. Here in GA, you cannot register your car without paying Ad Valorem tax. I want to challenge the law regarding this requirement as part of my case. I believe I should be able to bring this up since the two are linked, even though I was not charged with violating the code I want to challenge.

Is there a legal term for such a link between two (or more) laws that would be recognized by the court as giving me the ability to challenge the (linked) law I was not directly charged with? I ask so my court fillings can be as concise as possible, I am capible of drawing the link in regular english, I am just wondering if there is a legal construct for doing so.

(I know it sounds stupid to turn a traffic case into a tax case, but I have my reasons and will explain upon request once I get some helpful responses to my question above. Also, I am quite aware that traffic court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear issues relating to tax law, but we can discuss that later as well)

 

[Zigner]

It won't matter if you bring it up or not. If you were driving with expired registration, then you're guilty

 

[joephys73]

It won't matter if you bring it up or not. If you were driving with expired registration, then you're guilty

It certainly does matter if the law violates the state constitution.

Notwithstanding that, to be guilty of a crime a person has to be guilty of all elements of that crime. Since you obviously cannot know the circumstances, and probably don't know what those elements are, you cannot deem me guilty. 'Any constructive thoughts out there?

 

[justalayman]

do us a favor and show us where/how this tax is unconstitutional?

 

[outonbail]

If you plan on turning this simple registration violation into a major ordeal by claiming that the applicable tax law is unconstitutional, you're wasting your time.

Even if you were somehow able to prove some tax law was unconstitutional at some time in the future, which resulted in the law being repealed, it will not do anything for the registration situation you're currently facing.

The judge in traffic court will not even listen to such nonsense, regardless of who is presenting it, or in what format it is presented to him.

His only concern will be whether you violated a current law, which was in effect and governing the registration requirements for your vehicle, when you are alleged to have committed the offense. He/she will not be making any rulings as to the validity or constitutional conformance of any specific law. He will only be deciding if the law applies to your case and if you were in violation of it.

Don't waste a bunch of time and energy trying to turn a simple registration citation into a precedence mission you think you can slip in the back door with, it isn't going to happen.

 

[quincy]

I agree with the others - a traffic court would not be the place to challenge the Ad Valorem tax . . . . .

. . . . however. . . . . would the term be "in pari materia" - meaning on the same subject, relating to the same matter, in conjunction with? Statutes that are in pari materia may be construed together, so that inconsistencies in one statute may be resolved by looking at another statute on the same subject. Would this term apply here? Just curious.

 

[joephys73]

do us a favor and show us where/how this tax is unconstitutional?

The tax itself isn't unconstitutional, the way it was enacted was. If you're so inclined check out article III § 5 Paragraph III of the GA constitution and HB 1317 of 1986.

 

[FlyingRon]

The validity of the tax is not material. Even if the tax law was unconsitutional or somehow he didn't in fact owe it, the fact was that he drove while suspended. Even the unjustly suspended are expected not to drive until the suspension issues are resolved.

Nothing here will ameliorate the outright flagrant and intentional disregard for the driving laws.

 

[joephys73]

If you plan on turning this simple registration violation into a major ordeal by claiming that the applicable tax law is unconstitutional, you're wasting your time.

This would be your opinion. If my goal was to get out of paying the $100 fine, I would have plead guilty and displayed my current registration at the pre-trial hearing and walked out of the courtroom free and clear like others there for the same reason.

Unlike most people visiting these forums, I'm not looking to get out of a ticket. As a matter of fact, I didn't renew my registration so I would get the ticket (in fact, I was anticipating that the cop would steal my car too as the law states that he "shall" do so).

As Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right". There are many things wrong with the current law and I am not going to comply with it simply because the majority of people think it's right.

And, no, I'm not anticipating that I'll "win" this battle, but I'm going to try and if it prompts others to look closer at how things work in the legislature and in the court room then I'll be satisfied.

 

[joephys73]

I agree with the others - a traffic court would not be the place to challenge the Ad Valorem tax . . . . .

. . . . however. . . . . would the term be "in pari materia" - meaning on the same subject, relating to the same matter, in conjunction with? Statutes that are in pari materia may be construed together, so that inconsistencies in one statute may be resolved by looking at another statute on the same subject. Would this term apply here? Just curious.

THANK YOU, this is all I was asking for!

The fact that traffic court is not the place to challenge this is part of my point. It proves that laws regarding the registration of cars and the taxing of personal property are two distinct subjects.

The section of the GA constitution I noted above states that the legislature shall not introduce bills containing more than one subject. The bill I mentioned does just that, and not in a casual way.

That being said, this is not the crux of my defense.

 

[joephys73]

Nothing here will ameliorate the outright flagrant and intentional disregard for the driving laws.

Since I got my answer let's take this thread in a slightly different direction. At what point was an obligation created between the state and myself subjecting me to it's driving laws?

Spare me the "when you got a driver's license" since I will reply with the GA code that states a drivers license is not a contract. And that such an obligation arose when I voluntarily moved to the state; what about the natives who were involuntarily born here?

I'm not planning on presenting an argument based on this in court, I simply ask the question for conversational reasons.

 

[outonbail]

Since I got my answer let's take this thread in a slightly different direction. At what point was an obligation created between the state and myself subjecting me to it's driving laws?

The moment you choose to drive in that state.
If you don't wish to abide by the motor vehicle laws, or any other laws which are in place in any particular state, you are free to leave. No state I know of prevents you from leaving so you can live elsewhere.

Your choices are to either
1. obey all laws of the state you are living/working/driving in
2. Suffer the consequences of not obeying the law.
3. Move to a different state where the laws are to your liking. (as if)

You're not obligated to make any single choice, you're free to choose how you wish to proceed. If you choose to drive in the state, then you are obligated to follow the laws of their vehicle code.

BTW, this statement:

As a matter of fact, I didn't renew my registration so I would get the ticket

is not something you want to mention to the judge. Unless you want to get slapped with the maximum penalty allowed,,,,

 

[CavemanLawyer]

I do not follow your argument at all. If you read that section of the Georgia Constitution it clearly refers to the language of a bill, not the language of any resulting law. The point is to prevent sneak legislation, something that is rampant at the national level. For instance, you take a very popular bill that has overwhelming support and tack on a bunch of more controversial changes that are unrelated and wouldn't pass on their own. Now politicians are basically forced to vote for these random minor changes too, otherwise risk voting against a popular bill. The idea is to prevent the use of political favor for one subject matter to force the passing of an unrelated subject matter.

What you saying is that the grounds for the violation you are being charged under stems from a different statute. Hell, I think you'd have a hard time finding any penal statute that doesn't rely or reference some other statute in some way. That is not what your Constitution is trying to prevent.

Licensing is an administrative function. Yes there are many laws that regulate how the State administers the privilege granted by the license, but the point is that you are governed by their rules when you use the license. Its not a matter of a contract. You don't "agree" to follow the law. You are governed by the laws of that State for everything that you do in that State, regardless of whether you were born there or not. The laws and the administrative rules govern driving within the state. If you drive in the State of Georgia you must register your vehicle.

I agree that the traffic court is not the place to challenge this tax/administrative law. You aren't being charged because you failed to register your vehicle, you are being charged because you drove a vehicle knowing that it wasn't registered. If you want to challenge this tax payment requirement to obtain a vehicle registration than you need to sue the State or do some sort of administrative appeal of your registration denial. It really seems like you are the one "combining" different subject matters by raising this issue in traffic court when they have nothing to do, and certainly no interest, with why your registration wasn't valid only that it was invalid at the time you were pulled over. Your beef is with the Georgia Motor Vehicle Division, not with the State for enforcing their requirements.

 

[joephys73]

The moment you choose to drive in that state.
If you don't wish to abide by the motor vehicle laws, or any other laws which are in place in any particular state, you are free to leave. No state I know of prevents you from leaving so you can live elsewhere.

This is a legal forum and we are talking about the LAW. My question is at what point was a LEGAL obligation created? If I cut my neighbors lawn without his permission, there is no legal obligation for him to pay me for my services, there was no meeting of the minds... no agreement.

If Walmart puts a sign up saying anyone stepping in their store while wearing sunglasses is subject to a $20 fine, and I do just that how much legal recourse does Walmat have to collect that money? None. Again, there was no enforceable agreement.

I'm not asking how the system works, I know quite well that going 115 mph down the highway will probably result in a ticket. What I'm asking is how, and at what point did the legal obligation arise and why.

Your choices are to either
1. obey all laws of the state you are living/working/driving in
2. Suffer the consequences of not obeying the law.
3. Move to a different state where the laws are to your liking. (as if)

1. How many laws are there in your state? A lawyer or judge would not even be able to answer that question. How am I, or anyone, able to follow ALL the laws. What about laws that we don't agree with? For example, here in Georgia it is Illegal for me to have intercourse with anyone other than a spouse. Is this a law you are wiling to obey simply because it's the law?

2. It wouldn't be suffering if it was done on principle. I don't think M.L.K. would say he was suffering while incarcerated.

3. Do you think the founding fathers should have moved to another land mass because they disagreed with British law?

 

[joephys73]

I do not follow your argument at all.

I am not saying that the law to register my vehicle is invalid. Nor am I saying the law that requires paying the state a percentage of my vehicle's value each year is invalid. I'm saying that the bill which linked the two is invalid because it introduced new legislation regarding vehicle registrations in one section, and introduced legislation regarding revenue in another. Registration and Revenue are two subjects.

But that said, after some thought I agree that in order to challenge this I would have to bring suit in a separate case against the state.