🚀 go-pugleaf

In ye olden post kleim@eudoramail.com spake...
>The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been declared
>unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on appeal last week.
>
>If you've brought a vehicle into California since 1992 that wasn't
>registered here previously, then you were ripped an extra $300 with
>your normal registration fees.
>
>crap.  The forms are official DMV PDF forms, complete with the proper
>text already inserted citing the unconstitutionality of the "Smog
>Impact Fee."

Uh huh. Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those who paid
it. Seems logical to me.

I'm still trying to recover back taxes paid to the state of CA on my
CA pension after moving to Nevada. The tax on CA pensions assessed on
non-CA residents was also ruled unconstitutional.

Also, if I violate someone's constitutional rights, I face jail time.
CA has violated the constitution time and time again. What punishment
will they face?

Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?

-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley |  +---+---+--_  | "Tea is always bitter but...
linley at megami dot org  |  |   |NV | UT  |       blood is warm and sweet."
Programmer, Fortunet Inc. |  \ CA \  |___  | 
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ----------> \*| AZ  | - Miyu

In article <7tbr2k$50b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been declared
>unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on appeal last week.

Do you have a citation for this ruling?



-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

In article <7td2cr$2dl$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>In article <7tbr2k$50b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been declared
>>unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on appeal last week.
>
>Do you have a citation for this ruling?

Here's a link to a San Jose Mercury News article on the ruling:

   <http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/smogfees02.htm>
-- 
Dave Schreiber     "Can money pay for all the days
 sonic@dks2.net         I lived awake but half asleep?"
 ^^^^^ ^^^^                -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")

Next, let's see 'em work on the "Vehicle Registration Fee".  I loved
the so-called "tax savings" in this year's registration.  Our fees are
several times most other states in the US and they call the already
too-high fees with a minor reduction a "savings".

I agree that we need to identify who initiates the Impact Fee laws
as well as those who jack-up the registrations and vote 'em out.

In article <7tbui4$7l8$1@megami.org>,
Bruce James Robert Linley <linley@megami.org> wrote:
>In ye olden post kleim@eudoramail.com spake...
>>The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been declared
>>unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on appeal last week.
>>
>>If you've brought a vehicle into California since 1992 that wasn't
>>registered here previously, then you were ripped an extra $300 with
>>your normal registration fees.
>>
>>crap.  The forms are official DMV PDF forms, complete with the proper
>>text already inserted citing the unconstitutionality of the "Smog
>>Impact Fee."
>
>Uh huh. Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't

Because the lawsuit was not filed as a class-action.

>DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
>should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those who paid
>it. Seems logical to me.

To quote from the SJ Mercury article:
   [Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Joe Gray] ordered the DMV to
   notify owners who were eligible for refunds and establish a
   fund to pay refunds.
   [...]

   [A member of the three-judge appeals court panel] said the suit was not
   a class action, so Gray had the power to order refunds only to the four
   owners who filed it. The rest have to apply on their own.

-- 
Dave Schreiber     "Can money pay for all the days
 sonic@dks2.net         I lived awake but half asleep?"
 ^^^^^ ^^^^                -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")

David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:7td2cr$2dl$1@ultra.sonic.net...
> In article <7tbr2k$50b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> >The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been declared
> >unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on appeal last week.
>
> Do you have a citation for this ruling?
>

Don't know this legal lingo.  Is this what you're asking for?

Jordan v. DMV, 3rd Appellate.

C028340
Superior Court Nos.
95AS03903
95AS05228
96AS06108

Decision online here in PDF format:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/CaliforniaStateCases/C028340.PDF
or here in MS Word format:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/CaliforniaStateCases/C028340.DOC

rasalas

Bruce James Robert Linley wrote:
> 
> In ye olden post kleim@eudoramail.com spake...
> >The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been declared
> >unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on appeal last week.
> >
> >If you've brought a vehicle into California since 1992 that wasn't
> >registered here previously, then you were ripped an extra $300 with
> >your normal registration fees.
> >
> >crap.  The forms are official DMV PDF forms, complete with the proper
> >text already inserted citing the unconstitutionality of the "Smog
> >Impact Fee."
> 
> Uh huh. Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
> DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
> should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those who paid
> it. Seems logical to me.

DMV, logical...???

> 
> I'm still trying to recover back taxes paid to the state of CA on my
> CA pension after moving to Nevada. The tax on CA pensions assessed on
> non-CA residents was also ruled unconstitutional.
> 
> Also, if I violate someone's constitutional rights, I face jail time.
> CA has violated the constitution time and time again. What punishment
> will they face?
> 

Who's "they"?

> Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?

How would "they" know it's "unconstitutional" until the court rules?

> 
> --
> Bruce James Robert Linley |  +---+---+--_  | "Tea is always bitter but...
> linley at megami dot org  |  |   |NV | UT  |       blood is warm and sweet."
> Programmer, Fortunet Inc. |  \ CA \  |___  |
> Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ----------> \*| AZ  | - Miyu

More information, and a refund claim form,  is
available at the attorney's site,
http://www.wyca.com.


David Hatunen wrote in message
<7td2cr$2dl$1@ultra.sonic.net>...
>In article <7tbr2k$50b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
<kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been
declared
>>unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on
appeal last week.
>
>Do you have a citation for this ruling?
>
>
>
>--
>    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net)
***********
>    *                Daly City California
*
>    ******* My typos are intentional copyright
traps ******

In article <7td62k$r55@bolt.sonic.net>,
Dave Schreiber  <noone@nowhere.gov> wrote:
>In article <7tbui4$7l8$1@megami.org>,
>Bruce James Robert Linley <linley@megami.org> wrote:

>>Uh huh. Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
>
>Because the lawsuit was not filed as a class-action.
>
>>DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
>>should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those who paid
>>it. Seems logical to me.
>
>To quote from the SJ Mercury article: [Sacramento County Superior
>   Court Judge Joe Gray] ordered the DMV to notify owners who were
>   eligible for refunds and establish a fund to pay refunds. [...]
>
>   [A member of the three-judge appeals court panel] said the suit
>   was not a class action, so Gray had the power to order refunds
>   only to the four owners who filed it. The rest have to apply on
>   their own.

That also means that DMV isn't bound to honor the decision for
anyone but those four. Send in all the forms you want but you won't
get your refund unless you go to court yourself. At that point the
state will probably make sure it goes to the California Supremes,
if they haven't already decided to appeal this case. Don't hold
your breath waiting for your refunds, since it's going to be
denied.

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

linley@megami.org (Bruce James Robert Linley) wrote:

> Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
> DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
> should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those
> who paid it. Seems logical to me.

'Cuz they don't want to have pay out, like, $250 million!!  Of course
it's logical, and just, to inform the people they ripped off, like me,
that we're due refunds.  But, it appears that they're going to make
this as hard as possible, with bullshit obstacles and "regulations,"
two of the latter are which, it's rumored, include only offering
refunds if you still own the vehicle, and, only within three years of
paying the extortion.

Of course, they keep records when YOU owe them money, or when they want
to impose some penalty, but, when it's in the favor of the People,
oh, "we don't have any records..."

> Also, if I violate someone's constitutional rights, I face jail time.
> CA has violated the constitution time and time again. What punishment
> will they face?

None.  The People are too dumb, and lazy, to do anything about it.

> Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?

Because they can.  Simple as that.

-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
   Northern California native, present resident of Citrus Heights

--

http://www.efn.org/~mjk/



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Dave Schreiber <noone@nowhere.gov> replied to linley@megami.org...

> >Uh huh. Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't

> Because the lawsuit was not filed as a class-action.

So?  The State lost fair and square.  Perhaps the judges can't order
the DMV to pay, but they should immediately and voluntarily remedy
the "error" by offering refunds to those ripped off.  But, of course,
the State's not interested in "equality and justice for all."


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Peter L <Nospam.peterl@csus.edu> wrote:

> > Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?

> How would "they" know it's "unconstitutional" until the court rules?

Come now, are you saying the government bureaucrats are THAT dumb, that
they don't know when something is so obviously contrary to the supreme
law of the land?  If they ARE that dumb, they need to be booted out.
And, if they're not dumb, but simply corrupt, well, that's what we have
juries for.  :-)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

hatunen@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote:

> >The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been declared
> >unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on appeal last week.

> Do you have a citation for this ruling?

It's all over the papers and TV.  A Sacramento County judge ruled it
unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals sustained that decision
Friday, excepting for ordering DMV to imform those ripped off.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

In article <7te1al$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>linley@megami.org (Bruce James Robert Linley) wrote:
>
>> Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
>> DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
>> should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those
>> who paid it. Seems logical to me.
>
>'Cuz they don't want to have pay out, like, $250 million!!  Of course
>it's logical, and just, to inform the people they ripped off, like me,
>that we're due refunds.  But, it appears that they're going to make
>this as hard as possible, with bullshit obstacles and "regulations,"
>two of the latter are which, it's rumored, include only offering
>refunds if you still own the vehicle, and, only within three years of
>paying the extortion.

You know, maybe if you hold your breath until you turn blue, the DMV will
start sending out refunds...

>
>Of course, they keep records when YOU owe them money, or when they want
>to impose some penalty, but, when it's in the favor of the People,
>oh, "we don't have any records..."

Well, far be it from me to interrupt your rant with mere facts, but the
DMV never actually said "we don't have any records".  On the contrary, the
court ordered the DMV to inform everyone who is eligible for a refund that
they are eligible.  

Speaking of facts, I decided to see how the DMV itself is handling the
situation.  As part of their clever plan to ensure that no one gets a
refund, the DMV has refund instructions on the top level of their web
site, complete with refund application form in PDF format: 

   <http://www.dmv.ca.gov>

Now, there have been rumors that the DMV won't refund the fee if the
vehicle has been sold, or if its been more than three years since the fee
has been paid.  I don't think that's the case.  Their refund application
form does mention those conditions, but it's a GENERIC form, typically
used to get refunds for vehicle registration fees.  DMV policies on fee
refunds _do_not_ apply to court-ordered sanctions (and the court has
_ordered_ the DMV to refund the fee to anyone who paid it since Sept. 1992
and who asks for a refund). 

>
>> Also, if I violate someone's constitutional rights, I face jail time.
>> CA has violated the constitution time and time again. What punishment
>> will they face?
>
>None.  The People are too dumb, and lazy, to do anything about it.
>
>> Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?
>
>Because they can.  Simple as that.

Well, apparently not in the smog fee case.

One more thing:  the court fight isn't over yet.  Here's the statement
from the DMV's web site:

------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT STATUS OF THE $300 SMOG IMPACT FEE 

On October 1, 1999, a state appeals court issued a judgment ruling that
the Vehicle Smog Impact Fee (VSIF) is unconstitutional. The judgment is
not final for 30 days from October 2, 1999, and the State of California
has the right to appeal within those 30 days. Until a final ruling has
been made on this case by the courts, the $300 smog impact fee is due.

You may apply for a refund by downloading the Application for Refund ADM
399 and mailing it to the address on the form. Refund applications will be
retained until a final ruling on the appeal is made.
------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Dave Schreiber     "Can money pay for all the days
 sonic@dks2.net         I lived awake but half asleep?"
 ^^^^^ ^^^^                -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")

In article <7te1al$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>linley@megami.org (Bruce James Robert Linley) wrote:
>
>> Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
>> DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
>> should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those
>> who paid it. Seems logical to me.
>
>'Cuz they don't want to have pay out, like, $250 million!!  Of course
>it's logical, and just, to inform the people they ripped off, like me,
>that we're due refunds.  But, it appears that they're going to make
>this as hard as possible, with bullshit obstacles and "regulations,"
>two of the latter are which, it's rumored, include only offering
>refunds if you still own the vehicle, and, only within three years of
>paying the extortion.

You know, maybe if you hold your breath until you turn blue, the DMV will
start sending out refunds...

>
>Of course, they keep records when YOU owe them money, or when they want
>to impose some penalty, but, when it's in the favor of the People,
>oh, "we don't have any records..."

Well, far be it from me to interrupt your rant with mere facts, but the
DMV never actually said "we don't have any records".  On the contrary, the
court ordered the DMV to inform everyone who is eligible for a refund that
they are eligible.  

Speaking of facts, I decided to see how the DMV itself is handling the
situation.  As part of their clever plan to ensure that no one gets a
refund, the DMV has refund instructions on the top level of their web
site, complete with refund application form in PDF format: 

   <http://www.dmv.ca.gov>

Now, there have been rumors that the DMV won't refund the fee if the
vehicle has been sold, or if its been more than three years since the fee
has been paid.  I don't think that's the case.  Their refund application
form does mention those conditions, but it's a GENERIC form, typically
used to get refunds for vehicle registration fees.  DMV policies on fee
refunds _do_not_ apply to court-ordered sanctions (and the court has
_ordered_ the DMV to refund the fee to anyone who paid it since Sept. 1992
and who asks for a refund). 

>
>> Also, if I violate someone's constitutional rights, I face jail time.
>> CA has violated the constitution time and time again. What punishment
>> will they face?
>
>None.  The People are too dumb, and lazy, to do anything about it.
>
>> Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?
>
>Because they can.  Simple as that.

Well, apparently not in the smog fee case.

One more thing:  the court fight isn't over yet.  Here's the statement
from the DMV's web site:

------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT STATUS OF THE $300 SMOG IMPACT FEE 

On October 1, 1999, a state appeals court issued a judgment ruling that
the Vehicle Smog Impact Fee (VSIF) is unconstitutional. The judgment is
not final for 30 days from October 2, 1999, and the State of California
has the right to appeal within those 30 days. Until a final ruling has
been made on this case by the courts, the $300 smog impact fee is due.

You may apply for a refund by downloading the Application for Refund ADM
399 and mailing it to the address on the form. Refund applications will be
retained until a final ruling on the appeal is made.
------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Dave Schreiber     "Can money pay for all the days
 sonic@dks2.net         I lived awake but half asleep?"
 ^^^^^ ^^^^                -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")

In article <7te1al$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>linley@megami.org (Bruce James Robert Linley) wrote:
>
>> Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
>> DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
>> should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those
>> who paid it. Seems logical to me.
>
>'Cuz they don't want to have pay out, like, $250 million!!  Of course
>it's logical, and just, to inform the people they ripped off, like me,
>that we're due refunds.  But, it appears that they're going to make
>this as hard as possible, with bullshit obstacles and "regulations,"
>two of the latter are which, it's rumored, include only offering
>refunds if you still own the vehicle, and, only within three years of
>paying the extortion.

You know, maybe if you hold your breath until you turn blue, the DMV will
start sending out refunds...

>
>Of course, they keep records when YOU owe them money, or when they want
>to impose some penalty, but, when it's in the favor of the People,
>oh, "we don't have any records..."

Well, far be it from me to interrupt your rant with mere facts, but the
DMV never actually said "we don't have any records".  On the contrary, the
court ordered the DMV to inform everyone who is eligible for a refund that
they are eligible.  

Speaking of facts, I decided to see how the DMV itself is handling the
situation.  As part of their clever plan to ensure that no one gets a
refund, the DMV has refund instructions on the top level of their web
site, complete with refund application form in PDF format: 

   <http://www.dmv.ca.gov>

Now, there have been rumors that the DMV won't refund the fee if the
vehicle has been sold, or if its been more than three years since the fee
has been paid.  I don't think that's the case.  Their refund application
form does mention those conditions, but it's a GENERIC form, typically
used to get refunds for vehicle registration fees.  DMV policies on fee
refunds _do_not_ apply to court-ordered sanctions (and the court has
_ordered_ the DMV to refund the fee to anyone who paid it since Sept. 1992
and who asks for a refund). 

>
>> Also, if I violate someone's constitutional rights, I face jail time.
>> CA has violated the constitution time and time again. What punishment
>> will they face?
>
>None.  The People are too dumb, and lazy, to do anything about it.
>
>> Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?
>
>Because they can.  Simple as that.

Well, apparently not in the smog fee case.

One more thing:  the court fight isn't over yet.  Here's the statement
from the DMV's web site:

------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT STATUS OF THE $300 SMOG IMPACT FEE 

On October 1, 1999, a state appeals court issued a judgment ruling that
the Vehicle Smog Impact Fee (VSIF) is unconstitutional. The judgment is
not final for 30 days from October 2, 1999, and the State of California
has the right to appeal within those 30 days. Until a final ruling has
been made on this case by the courts, the $300 smog impact fee is due.

You may apply for a refund by downloading the Application for Refund ADM
399 and mailing it to the address on the form. Refund applications will be
retained until a final ruling on the appeal is made.
------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Dave Schreiber     "Can money pay for all the days
 sonic@dks2.net         I lived awake but half asleep?"
 ^^^^^ ^^^^                -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")

In article <7te1al$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>linley@megami.org (Bruce James Robert Linley) wrote:
>
>> Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
>> DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
>> should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those
>> who paid it. Seems logical to me.
>
>'Cuz they don't want to have pay out, like, $250 million!!  Of course
>it's logical, and just, to inform the people they ripped off, like me,
>that we're due refunds.  But, it appears that they're going to make
>this as hard as possible, with bullshit obstacles and "regulations,"
>two of the latter are which, it's rumored, include only offering
>refunds if you still own the vehicle, and, only within three years of
>paying the extortion.

You know, maybe if you hold your breath until you turn blue, the DMV will
start sending out refunds...

>
>Of course, they keep records when YOU owe them money, or when they want
>to impose some penalty, but, when it's in the favor of the People,
>oh, "we don't have any records..."

Well, far be it from me to interrupt your rant with mere facts, but the
DMV never actually said "we don't have any records".  On the contrary, the
court ordered the DMV to inform everyone who is eligible for a refund that
they are eligible.  

Speaking of facts, I decided to see how the DMV itself is handling the
situation.  As part of their clever plan to ensure that no one gets a
refund, the DMV has refund instructions on the top level of their web
site, complete with refund application form in PDF format: 

   <http://www.dmv.ca.gov>

Now, there have been rumors that the DMV won't refund the fee if the
vehicle has been sold, or if its been more than three years since the fee
has been paid.  I don't think that's the case.  Their refund application
form does mention those conditions, but it's a GENERIC form, typically
used to get refunds for vehicle registration fees.  DMV policies on fee
refunds _do_not_ apply to court-ordered sanctions (and the court has
_ordered_ the DMV to refund the fee to anyone who paid it since Sept. 1992
and who asks for a refund). 

>
>> Also, if I violate someone's constitutional rights, I face jail time.
>> CA has violated the constitution time and time again. What punishment
>> will they face?
>
>None.  The People are too dumb, and lazy, to do anything about it.
>
>> Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?
>
>Because they can.  Simple as that.

Well, apparently not in the smog fee case.

One more thing:  the court fight isn't over yet.  Here's the statement
from the DMV's web site:

------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT STATUS OF THE $300 SMOG IMPACT FEE 

On October 1, 1999, a state appeals court issued a judgment ruling that
the Vehicle Smog Impact Fee (VSIF) is unconstitutional. The judgment is
not final for 30 days from October 2, 1999, and the State of California
has the right to appeal within those 30 days. Until a final ruling has
been made on this case by the courts, the $300 smog impact fee is due.

You may apply for a refund by downloading the Application for Refund ADM
399 and mailing it to the address on the form. Refund applications will be
retained until a final ruling on the appeal is made.
------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Dave Schreiber     "Can money pay for all the days
 sonic@dks2.net         I lived awake but half asleep?"
 ^^^^^ ^^^^                -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")

On 5 Oct 1999 17:52:52 GMT, hatunen@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen)
wrote:

>
>That also means that DMV isn't bound to honor the decision for
>anyone but those four. Send in all the forms you want but you won't
>get your refund unless you go to court yourself. At that point the
>state will probably make sure it goes to the California Supremes,
>if they haven't already decided to appeal this case. Don't hold
>your breath waiting for your refunds, since it's going to be
>denied.

I don't know why the lawsuit filed wasn't  made into a class action
suit. I'm am willing to go to court over this. I paid the damn fee
myself.


regards,
The Devil's Advocate

"Your Warrant Is In Question"

Dave Schreiber <noone@nowhere.gov> whines at me:

> >Of course, they keep records when YOU owe them money, or when they
> >want to impose some penalty, but, when it's in the favor of the
> >People, oh, "we don't have any records..."

> Well, far be it from me to interrupt your rant with mere facts, but
> the DMV never actually said "we don't have any records".

DMV Form ADM 399 states "DMV will not honor refund requests that
are...received more than three years after payment due to the Statute
of Limitations and because department records are no longer available
for verification."

Mere facts, asshole.

> On the contrary, the court ordered the DMV to inform everyone who is
> eligible for a refund that they are eligible.

Indeed it did, back to 1992.  But I have ZERO confidence that DMV will
voluntarily comply with this.  I may be wrong, and I'll make a public
apology if I am.

> Speaking of facts, I decided to see how the DMV itself is handling the
> situation.  As part of their clever plan to ensure that no one gets a
> refund, the DMV has refund instructions on the top level of their web
> site, complete with refund application form in PDF format:

>    <http://www.dmv.ca.gov>

> Now, there have been rumors that the DMV won't refund the fee if the
> vehicle has been sold, or if its been more than three years since the
> fee has been paid.  I don't think that's the case.

A Bee article from Tuesday quoted Deputy Attorney General Michael
Cornez as indicating it was the State's intention not to make refunds
to those ripped off over three years ago, despite the court's clear
command.

> Their refund application form does mention those conditions, but
> it's a GENERIC form, typically used to get refunds for vehicle
> registration fees.  DMV policies on fee refunds _do_not_ apply to
> court-ordered sanctions (and the court has _ordered_ the DMV to
> refund the fee to anyone who paid it since Sept. 1992 and who asks
> for a refund).

And you're trying to say that DMV, and Lockyer's
office/representatives, don't know this?  Yet, it's clearly the
position of the State that they're going to try crap to impede justice
here.  Of course, it's right, and lawful, for DMV to immediately make
payment to those ripped off, but, as I said in another post, do we
really believe that State bureaucrats who imposed this regulation on us
didn't know it was unconstitutional and unlawful already?

> >> Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?

> >Because they can.  Simple as that.

> Well, apparently not in the smog fee case.

When I get my refund, I'll believe this.

-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
   Citrus Heights

--

http://www.efn.org/~mjk/


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

In article <7td6c3$8j3$1@news.psyber.com>,
Barry <barry@jasmine.psyber.com> wrote:
>Next, let's see 'em work on the "Vehicle Registration Fee".  I
>loved the so-called "tax savings" in this year's registration. 
>Our fees are several times most other states in the US and they
>call the already too-high fees with a minor reduction a "savings".

It can depend, though, on what other state you're talking about.
When I lived in Kentucky many years ago the registration fee was
only about $10. But later I would get a personal property tax bill
that was pretty high.



-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

because its residents are more worried about who the 49ers play this weekend
and making sure they stock up on beer to watch it .. look how the residents
have let gray davis stip their gun rights away ..
drink up and watch that football bubba


Bruce James Robert Linley <linley@megami.org> wrote in message
news:7tbui4$7l8$1@megami.org...
> In ye olden post kleim@eudoramail.com spake...
> >The California "Smog Impact Fee" ripoff has been declared
> >unconstitutional, and this ruling was upheld on appeal last week.
> >
> >If you've brought a vehicle into California since 1992 that wasn't
> >registered here previously, then you were ripped an extra $300 with
> >your normal registration fees.
> >
> >crap.  The forms are official DMV PDF forms, complete with the proper
> >text already inserted citing the unconstitutionality of the "Smog
> >Impact Fee."
>
> Uh huh. Um, why should people have to "ask" for their refund? Doesn't
> DMV keep records on whom they charged the smog impact fee to? They
> should be able to use these records to refund the fee to those who paid
> it. Seems logical to me.
>
> I'm still trying to recover back taxes paid to the state of CA on my
> CA pension after moving to Nevada. The tax on CA pensions assessed on
> non-CA residents was also ruled unconstitutional.
>
> Also, if I violate someone's constitutional rights, I face jail time.
> CA has violated the constitution time and time again. What punishment
> will they face?
>
> Why does CA keep doing unconstitutional things?
>
> --
> Bruce James Robert Linley |  +---+---+--_  | "Tea is always bitter but...
> linley at megami dot org  |  |   |NV | UT  |       blood is warm and
sweet."
> Programmer, Fortunet Inc. |  \ CA \  |___  |
> Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ----------> \*| AZ  | - Miyu

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
> 
> In article <37fc97eb.1705117@news.concentric.net>,
>  <feliciahREMOVE@concentric.REMOVE.net> wrote:
> >Around 4-5 years ago, Florida used to penalize motorists as well. They
> >called it an impact fee and it also cost $300. It was repealed while I
> >was there. It seems that states have a nasty habit of passing
> >unconstitutional fees...It was overturned after a regular citizen
> >filed a lawsuit as well.
> 
> I certainly don't like paying fees. However, what was deemed
> unconstitutional about the fee? It seems to me that the idea behind the
> fee is to discourage Californians from buying cars in states with
> less stringent pollution requirements and transporting them to California.
> Of course, one might say that as long as the car can pass a California
> smog check then who cares, right? Is this the gist of the argument?
> 
> Dimitri


Read all about it here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C028340.PDF

In article <7tirlh$d0k$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
D. Gerasimatos <dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:

>I certainly don't like paying fees. However, what was deemed
>unconstitutional about the fee?

The Commerce Clause.  Any law that discriminates against out of state goods
involves regulating interstate commerce, meaning that Congress could do it, or
it could explicitly allow the states to do it if it wanted to, but the states
cannot do it on their own.  There are some exceptions where the states have a 
very good reason, including environmental concerns, but here the
"environmental" argument was purely pretextual.

>It seems to me that the idea behind the
>fee is to discourage Californians from buying cars in states with
>less stringent pollution requirements and transporting them to California.

That was the official excuse; however, the fine applied to all out of state
cars, not just those from states with less stringent pollution requirements.
And most of its victims were people moving to California, not Californians
trying to circumvent California laws by buying their cars out of state.

>Of course, one might say that as long as the car can pass a California
>smog check then who cares, right? Is this the gist of the argument?

Sort of.  Actually, non-California cars are *not* held to the same standard.
But even if an out of state car happened to meet the more rigorous California
standard, the owner still got dinged.

In ba.general Jeff Bishop <jwbishop@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
: In article <7tirlh$d0k$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
: D. Gerasimatos <dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:

:>I certainly don't like paying fees. However, what was deemed
:>unconstitutional about the fee?

: The Commerce Clause.  Any law that discriminates against out of state goods
: involves regulating interstate commerce, meaning that Congress could do it, or
: it could explicitly allow the states to do it if it wanted to, but the states
: cannot do it on their own.  There are some exceptions where the states have a 
: very good reason, including environmental concerns, but here the
: "environmental" argument was purely pretextual.

     ("Interstate" Commerce Clause.)  So it violates the _federal_
constitution, not the state constitution.  That wasn't clear from
the earlier posts.  In any event the three-year limit for refunds
seems completely unsupportable.  If the DMV no longer has records,
then any individual who could provide proof of the payment 
(receipt, cancelled check, etc.) should be entitled.
     Many years ago I brought a car from out-of-state into California
and it was charged a "use tax" in lieu of sales tax.  Is that now
also likely to be found unconstitutional?

:>It seems to me that the idea behind the
:>fee is to discourage Californians from buying cars in states with
:>less stringent pollution requirements and transporting them to California.

In article <7tfm8l$r2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>Dave Schreiber <noone@nowhere.gov> whines at me:
>
>> >Of course, they keep records when YOU owe them money, or when they
>> >want to impose some penalty, but, when it's in the favor of the
>> >People, oh, "we don't have any records..."
>
>> Well, far be it from me to interrupt your rant with mere facts, but
>> the DMV never actually said "we don't have any records".
>
>DMV Form ADM 399 states "DMV will not honor refund requests that
>are...received more than three years after payment due to the Statute
>of Limitations and because department records are no longer available
>for verification."

Ahh, so that's why everyone's been talking about refunds for fees paid
before 09/12/1992.  It would seem that the crime of collecting fees
improperly has a three year statute of limitations.  So, does this mean
that refunds are due to people who paid them up to three years before the
lawsuit was filed (the lawyers' position), or to people who paid them up
to three years from the present (the state's position)?  That issue is
apparently yet to be resolved.

>Mere facts, asshole.

Another tantrum?  Perhaps if you screamed at the top of your lungs, that
would have some effect...

>
>> On the contrary, the court ordered the DMV to inform everyone who is
>> eligible for a refund that they are eligible.
>
>Indeed it did, back to 1992.  But I have ZERO confidence that DMV will
>voluntarily comply with this.  I may be wrong, and I'll make a public
>apology if I am.
>
>> Speaking of facts, I decided to see how the DMV itself is handling the
>> situation.  As part of their clever plan to ensure that no one gets a
>> refund, the DMV has refund instructions on the top level of their web
>> site, complete with refund application form in PDF format:
>
>>    <http://www.dmv.ca.gov>
>
>> Now, there have been rumors that the DMV won't refund the fee if the
>> vehicle has been sold, or if its been more than three years since the
>> fee has been paid.  I don't think that's the case.
>
>A Bee article from Tuesday quoted Deputy Attorney General Michael
>Cornez as indicating it was the State's intention not to make refunds
>to those ripped off over three years ago, despite the court's clear
>command.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place, rather than getting all
hysterical about the Big Bad Evil DMV?

Anyway, I found that article.  It does sound like they're going to fight
it tooth and nail (I wouldn't be surprised if they appealed to the CA
Supreme Court).  I will admit that that article makes it appear much less
clear-cut that the SJ Mercury News article, the lawyers' website, or the
DMV's website imply.

Of course, there's still the option of doing what the original lawyers
should have done:  file a class-action lawsuit against the state.

-- 
Dave Schreiber     "Can money pay for all the days
 sonic@dks2.net         I lived awake but half asleep?"
 ^^^^^ ^^^^                -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")

Around 4-5 years ago, Florida used to penalize motorists as well. They
called it an impact fee and it also cost $300. It was repealed while I
was there. It seems that states have a nasty habit of passing
unconstitutional fees...It was overturned after a regular citizen
filed a lawsuit as well.

In article <37fc97eb.1705117@news.concentric.net>,
 <feliciahREMOVE@concentric.REMOVE.net> wrote:
>Around 4-5 years ago, Florida used to penalize motorists as well. They
>called it an impact fee and it also cost $300. It was repealed while I
>was there. It seems that states have a nasty habit of passing
>unconstitutional fees...It was overturned after a regular citizen
>filed a lawsuit as well.


I certainly don't like paying fees. However, what was deemed
unconstitutional about the fee? It seems to me that the idea behind the
fee is to discourage Californians from buying cars in states with
less stringent pollution requirements and transporting them to California.
Of course, one might say that as long as the car can pass a California
smog check then who cares, right? Is this the gist of the argument?


Dimitri

In article <7tj57n$1fh@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>,
Merlin Dorfman  <dorfman@netcom8.netcom.com> wrote:

>     ("Interstate" Commerce Clause.)  So it violates the _federal_
>constitution, not the state constitution.  

Actually, the court held that it violated both.  The California constitutional
challenge is more technical, as Article XIX would only have required that the
funds be used for certain enumerated transportation purposes, not prohibited it
outright.

>the earlier posts.  In any event the three-year limit for refunds
>seems completely unsupportable.

It probably has to do with who the plaintiffs are and aren't.  Then again, I
haven't read the opinion very carefully yet.

>If the DMV no longer has records,
>then any individual who could provide proof of the payment 
>(receipt, cancelled check, etc.) should be entitled.

I agree.  The DMV should have known all along that their tax was 
unconstitutional, so I don't buy the hardship argument.  Besides, even if they
had to refund everybody's $300, they'd still have all the interest, putting
them in a better position than they would have been in had they obeyed the law.

>     Many years ago I brought a car from out-of-state into California
>and it was charged a "use tax" in lieu of sales tax.  Is that now
>also likely to be found unconstitutional?

Probably not. Use taxes are generally limited to compensating for differences
between sales tax rates of various states, which has the effect of evening the
plaiying field rather than making in-state products more attractive to
consumers than out of state products would be.  But I don't know; maybe they
just haven't been challenged.

On 7 Oct 1999 feliciahREMOVE@concentric.REMOVE.net wrote:

>Around 4-5 years ago, Florida used to penalize motorists as well. They
>called it an impact fee and it also cost $300. It was repealed while I
>was there. It seems that states have a nasty habit of passing
>unconstitutional fees...It was overturned after a regular citizen
>filed a lawsuit as well.

I remember this.  Something about a violation of interstate commerce
law...

RM

: unconstitutional about the fee? It seems to me that the idea behind the
: fee is to discourage Californians from buying cars in states with
: less stringent pollution requirements and transporting them to California.

If one brought in a car from out of state that produced the same emissions
as a "California car", they would also be penalized.  I saw 
something wrong with this issue.  Additionally, simply "taxing" a person
for a noncompliant car had zero effect on the emissions.  It was
just a method to extort money from people IMHO.

In article <7tl2jt$q95$1@news.psyber.com>,
Barry <barry@jasmine.psyber.com> wrote:
>: unconstitutional about the fee? It seems to me that the idea
>: behind the fee is to discourage Californians from buying cars in
>: states with less stringent pollution requirements and
>: transporting them to California.
>
>If one brought in a car from out of state that produced the same
>emissions as a "California car", they would also be penalized.  I
>saw something wrong with this issue.  Additionally, simply
>"taxing" a person for a noncompliant car had zero effect on the
>emissions.  It was just a method to extort money from people IMHO.

If the car is made such as to meet California emission
requiremments it should have a decal saying so under the hood. Then
there's no charge.

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

In article <7tl8us$r49$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:

>If the car is made such as to meet California emission
>requiremments it should have a decal saying so under the hood. Then
>there's no charge.

How f'ing generous.  Nevermind that if it doesn't say that under the hood, the
charge will apply whether or not the car *happens* to meet the California
requirements.

David Hatunen (hatunen@bolt.sonic.net) wrote:

: If the car is made such as to meet California emission
: requiremments it should have a decal saying so under the hood. Then
: there's no charge.

I understand that.

My comment was directed toward tail pipe emissions.  If they're the same
or if the "out of state car" is better, than there should have been
no fine.  The sticker doesn't implicitly mean that the car produces
lower emissions.  It means that it has different emissions equipment
that may or may not, depending on the characteristics of the car, 
"lower emissions."

There could be cases where the car w/o the Calif. sticker might 
emit lower emissions, due to the condition of the car.  

'Clear?

thanks.

In article <7tl9dr$od6$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
Jeff Bishop <jwbishop@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <7tl8us$r49$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
>David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>If the car is made such as to meet California emission
>>requiremments it should have a decal saying so under the hood. Then
>>there's no charge.
>
>How f'ing generous.  Nevermind that if it doesn't say that under
>the hood, the charge will apply whether or not the car *happens*
>to meet the California requirements.

The requirement is that certain equipment be present. If it is
present the car will undoubtedly have the sticker. The requirement
is not that certain emissions be met.

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

In ye olden post hatunen@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) spake...
>In article <7tl9dr$od6$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
>Jeff Bishop <jwbishop@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <7tl8us$r49$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
>>David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If the car is made such as to meet California emission
>>>requiremments it should have a decal saying so under the hood. Then
>>>there's no charge.
>>
>>How f'ing generous.  Nevermind that if it doesn't say that under
>>the hood, the charge will apply whether or not the car *happens*
>>to meet the California requirements.
>
>The requirement is that certain equipment be present. If it is
>present the car will undoubtedly have the sticker. The requirement
>is not that certain emissions be met.

Makes one wonder what the real purpose of the requirement is? Hmmm?
"We don't care if you're car is the cleanest burning car in the
state. No sticker. $300 FEE. So if I discover that yanking out all
the smog equipment and pumping the exhaust through a loaf of bread
results in 0.001% of max CA allowed emmissions, my car flunks. Great
law.

-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley |  +---+---+--_  | "Tea is always bitter but...
linley at megami dot org  |  |   |NV | UT  |       blood is warm and sweet."
Programmer, Fortunet Inc. |  \ CA \  |___  | 
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ----------> \*| AZ  | - Miyu

David Hatunen (hatunen@bolt.sonic.net) wrote:
: >
: >How f'ing generous.  Nevermind that if it doesn't say that under
: >the hood, the charge will apply whether or not the car *happens*
: >to meet the California requirements.

: The requirement is that certain equipment be present. If it is
: present the car will undoubtedly have the sticker. The requirement
: is not that certain emissions be met.

Geez.  I guess we need to spell it out.

What's the difference if the car does/does not have a sticker with
respect to the amount of pollutants that are present at the tail pipe?

The issue (yes, I realize it's not the law) is:

What pollutants and how much of the pollutants come from the vehicle?

Understand?

(if not, I give up.)

sheesh.

David Hatunen (hatunen@bolt.sonic.net) wrote (re out-of-state vehicles
being registered in California):

: If the car is made such as to meet California emission
: requiremments it should have a decal saying so under the hood. Then
: there's no charge.

I registered my recently-inherited 1995 Volvo last week, and was tickled
pink to find that I didn't have to pay the extortion fee.  So happy, in
fact, that my wife and I celebrated with a nice dinner and a new
dishwasher -- totalling, of course, significantly more than 300 bucks.
:-}
-- 
Sherwood Harrington                               Voice: (408) 864-8725
Astronomy Department    http://planetarium.fhda.edu/astrwww/shhome.html
DeAnza College                             Cupertino, California, 95014

In article <7tle5i$cbp$1@megami.org>,
Bruce James Robert Linley <linley@megami.org> wrote:
>In ye olden post hatunen@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) spake...

>>The requirement is that certain equipment be present. If it is
>>present the car will undoubtedly have the sticker. The
>>requirement is not that certain emissions be met.
>
>Makes one wonder what the real purpose of the requirement is?
>Hmmm? "We don't care if you're car is the cleanest burning car in
>the state. No sticker. $300 FEE. So if I discover that yanking out
>all the smog equipment and pumping the exhaust through a loaf of
>bread results in 0.001% of max CA allowed emmissions, my car
>flunks. Great law.

Ever heard the expression, "pissing upwind"?

It's kind of like how you can't buy a Ferrari overseas and bring it
back into the US because it doesn't have certain equipment.

And look at us poor Californains: we have to pay for the extra
equipment when we buy a new car whether the car needs it or not.

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

In article <7tlafg$rbs$1@news.psyber.com>,
Barry <barry@jasmine.psyber.com> wrote:
>David Hatunen (hatunen@bolt.sonic.net) wrote:
>
>: If the car is made such as to meet California emission
>: requiremments it should have a decal saying so under the hood. Then
>: there's no charge.
>
>I understand that.
>
>My comment was directed toward tail pipe emissions.  If they're
>the same or if the "out of state car" is better, than there should
>have been no fine.

It's not a fine.

>The sticker doesn't implicitly mean that the car produces lower
>emissions.  It means that it has different emissions equipment
>that may or may not, depending on the characteristics of the car,
>"lower emissions."
>
>There could be cases where the car w/o the Calif. sticker might 
>emit lower emissions, due to the condition of the car.  
>
>'Clear?

You're missing the point. The law is that if the car doesn't ahe
the California emissions sticker you have to pay extra to bring the
car in. And it doesn't allow exemptions for specific cars. It's
general thing, and assumes, I would suppose, that in general cars
will have lower emissions as a group if the equipment were present.
I'm not defending the fee. I had to pay it myself when I moved
here. 

But if you don't like it you have to take it up with either the
state legislature or wait for the current litigation to run its
entire course. My own guess is that the state supremes will uphold
the law requiring opponents to take it into the federal judicial
system. My other guess is that the US Supremes will decide it's the
sort of thing that's best left for the states.

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

In article <7tlugm$1ih$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:

>It's not a fine.

That's a matter of semantics.  "Import duty" is the most accurate term, but
of course they won't use it since they would have to admit they were violating
the constitution.

>And it doesn't allow exemptions for specific cars. It's
>general thing, and assumes, I would suppose, that in general cars
>will have lower emissions as a group if the equipment were present.

It has nothing to do with reducing emissions.  It's a tax on foreign cars,
nothing more and nothing less.  If they were really concerned about emissions
from foreign cars, they'd either prohibit the cars outright or impose a
prohibitively high tax on their import.  Charging $300 deters no one; it merely
taxes out of state goods unfairly.

>I'm not defending the fee. 

It sure sounds like it.

>I had to pay it myself when I moved here. 

So?

>But if you don't like it you have to take it up with either the
>state legislature or wait for the current litigation to run its
>entire course. My own guess is that the state supremes will uphold
>the law requiring opponents to take it into the federal judicial
>system. My other guess is that the US Supremes will decide it's the
>sort of thing that's best left for the states.

Anyone can guess anything they want, but the whole idea behind the commerce
clause is that ensuring the free flow of goods across state lines is one of
the few things that cannot be entrusted to the states.  If slapping a phony
environmental label on every protectionist policy was all it took to get around
the commerce clause, the clause would have no force at all.

As an aside, your second guess presupposes that your first is right.  If the 
state supremes uphold the ruling in its present form, it will not be appealable
to the U.S. Supremes as it will rest on an independent state ground.

In article <7tlgrb$ogv$1@samba.rahul.net>,
Sherwood Harrington <sherwood@rahul.net> says:

>I registered my recently-inherited 1995 Volvo last week, and was tickled
>pink to find that I didn't have to pay the extortion fee.  So happy, in
>fact, that my wife and I celebrated with a nice dinner and a new
>dishwasher -- totalling, of course, significantly more than 300 bucks.
>:-}

Yeah, but if you're spending the money on something you *want* to, then it
all makes perfect sense, don't it?

	-Kenny

-- 
Kenneth R. Crudup, Unix Software Consultant, Scott County Consulting
Home1: 8051 Newell St. #914	Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914	(301) 562-1922
Home2: 5355 Farwell Pl. #242	Fremont, CA 94536-7222		(510) 794-8040
Work:  19420 Homestead Road	Cupertino, CA 95014-0606	(408) 447-6654

In article <7tlvds$t97$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
Jeff Bishop <jwbishop@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <7tlugm$1ih$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
>David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>It's not a fine.
>
>That's a matter of semantics.  "Import duty" is the most accurate
>term, but of course they won't use it since they would have to
>admit they were violating the constitution.

We don't really know that yet; there's a whole fedearl judicairy to
go through here. Many such cases that have gone one way at a state
appeals level have been reversed as the case moved higher..
Personally, I don't think they are violating the constitution..
States have always been allowed a certain latitude in imposing
restrictions on interstate commerce to implement certain police
powers. The history of constitutional law has a long list of such
cases over the centuries deciding whether this or that restriction
is proper, and many have been. You are, of course, free to
disagree; that's why they ahve court cases.

>>And it doesn't allow exemptions for specific cars. It's
>>general thing, and assumes, I would suppose, that in general cars
>>will have lower emissions as a group if the equipment were present.
>
>It has nothing to do with reducing emissions.  It's a tax on
>foreign cars, nothing more and nothing less.  If they were really
>concerned about emissions from foreign cars, they'd either
>prohibit the cars outright or impose a prohibitively high tax on
>their import.  Charging $300 deters no one; it merely taxes out of
>state goods unfairly.

Perhaps. I do knwo people who have sold their out-of-state cars
before moving to California. I dumped my 1971 VW van before I moved
here in 1985.

>>I'm not defending the fee. 
>
>It sure sounds like it.

Then you don't understand what I'm trying to say here.

>>I had to pay it myself when I moved here. 
>
>So?

I didn't like it.

>>But if you don't like it you have to take it up with either the
>>state legislature or wait for the current litigation to run its
>>entire course. My own guess is that the state supremes will
>>uphold the law requiring opponents to take it into the federal
>>judicial system. My other guess is that the US Supremes will
>>decide it's the sort of thing that's best left for the states.
>
>Anyone can guess anything they want, but the whole idea behind the
>commerce clause is that ensuring the free flow of goods across
>state lines is one of the few things that cannot be entrusted to
>the states.  If slapping a phony environmental label on every
>protectionist policy was all it took to get around the commerce
>clause, the clause would have no force at all.

As I said, there have been a number of such restrictions on
interstate commerce that have been upheld. California's border
inspections being an example.

>As an aside, your second guess presupposes that your first is
>right.  If the state supremes uphold the ruling in its present
>form, it will not be appealable to the U.S. Supremes as it will
>rest on an independent state ground.

Only if the grounds was the state constitution. Was it?

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

In article <7tl2jt$q95$1@news.psyber.com>,
Barry <barry@jasmine.psyber.com> wrote:
>: unconstitutional about the fee? It seems to me that the idea behind the
>: fee is to discourage Californians from buying cars in states with
>: less stringent pollution requirements and transporting them to California.
>
>If one brought in a car from out of state that produced the same emissions
>as a "California car", they would also be penalized.  I saw 
>something wrong with this issue.  Additionally, simply "taxing" a person
>for a noncompliant car had zero effect on the emissions.  It was

It does have an effect on emissions -- if someone knows about the fee, 
they will take that fee into consideration when buying a car, and may instead
buy a car that already has the CA smog equipment.


>just a method to extort money from people IMHO.


-- 
mattack@area.com

In article <7tober$ju9$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:

>We don't really know that yet; there's a whole fedearl judicairy to
>go through here.

Huh?  The only part of the federal judiciary which could conceivably rule on
it is  the U.S. Supreme Court, and the only way they would consider it would
be if (1) the DMV appeals the case at all, which they may or may not do, and
(2) the California Supreme Court reverses as to the state constitutional
challenge.  Even then, the smart money says they'll deny certiorari.


 Many such cases that have gone one way at a state
>appeals level have been reversed as the case moved higher..


It could happen, but those cases usually have some dissenting voices at the
lower level.  So far, you and the DMV are 0 for 4, as both the trial judge
and all three appellate judges agreed that this was a clear violation of the
commerce clause.

>>their import.  Charging $300 deters no one; it merely taxes out of
>>state goods unfairly.
>
>Perhaps. I do knwo people who have sold their out-of-state cars
>before moving to California. I dumped my 1971 VW van before I moved

I know people who have sold their California cars before moving to other states
as well.  But whether or not this "smog impact" duty is effective has little to
do with its constitutionality.  California's ostensibly higher emission
standards for *new* cars would be unconstitutional also, if Congress did not
explicitly authorize the state to do it.

>>It sure sounds like it.
>
>Then you don't understand what I'm trying to say here.

Perhaps not, but it sure *sounds* like you are bending over backwards to find
a constitutional excuse for a blatantly unconstitutional practice.

>>So?
>
>I didn't like it.

Neither did anyone else.  But that is not really germane to the discussion, is
it?  Whether you like paying a tax or not has nothing to do with its 
constitutionality, one way or the other.

>As I said, there have been a number of such restrictions on
>interstate commerce that have been upheld. California's border
>inspections being an example.

I don't think you can compare the two.  Better to compare California's car
import duty to Florida's, which was also struck down.

If California had fought the medfly by simply taxing all non-Californian 
produce, you can bet your last dollar that the law would have been struck 
down.

>>As an aside, your second guess presupposes that your first is
>>right.  If the state supremes uphold the ruling in its present
>>form, it will not be appealable to the U.S. Supremes as it will
>>rest on an independent state ground.
>
>Only if the grounds was the state constitution. Was it?


Yes, it was.  But where did you get the idea that the grounds had to be part
of the state constitution?  That is totally irrelevant.  What is relevant is
whether or not the California Supreme Court's holding depends entirely on its 
interpretation of federal law OR the federal constitution. No one seriously
argues that California is *required* to impose its "smog impact fee."  The
only question is whether or not it can do so without violating California or
federal law - constitutional or otherwise.  If California law prohibits it 
from collecting the tax, its constitutionality under the commerce clause is
moot.

In article <7trjli$ih3$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
Jeff Bishop <jwbishop@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <7tober$ju9$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
>David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>We don't really know that yet; there's a whole fedearl judicairy to
>>go through here.
>
>Huh?  The only part of the federal judiciary which could
>conceivably rule on it is the U.S. Supreme Court, and the only way
>they would consider it would be if (1) the DMV appeals the case at
>all, which they may or may not do, and (2) the California Supreme
>Court reverses as to the state constitutional challenge.  Even
>then, the smart money says they'll deny certiorari.

I'e already mentioned that none of the accounts I read were clear
on whether it was a state or federal question. I had assumed it was
an interstate commerce thing. If the case is based on purely state
grounds then, no, it will not go to the federal courts. But I
already implied that.

As to what the Supremes will or won't grant certiorari, the smart
money doesn't bet at all.

[...]

>Perhaps not, but it sure *sounds* like you are bending over
>backwards to find a constitutional excuse for a blatantly
>unconstitutional practice.

OK. is it or is it not the federal constitution that's involved
here? You mention above about the 'state constitutional challenge".

History is filled with supposedly "blatant" cases that didn't work
out that way. I don't think it's blatant at all. My privilege.

>>As I said, there have been a number of such restrictions on
>>interstate commerce that have been upheld. California's border
>>inspections being an example.
>
>I don't think you can compare the two.  Better to compare
>California's car import duty to Florida's, which was also struck
>down.
>
>If California had fought the medfly by simply taxing all
>non-Californian produce, you can bet your last dollar that the law
>would have been struck down.

And they didn't. Whether a "fee" is an import duty or a legitimate
exercise of the police powers isn't as simple as you make it.
Calling it an "import duty" is pretty sure to make your law look
bad, though.


>>Only if the grounds was the state constitution. Was it?
>>
>Yes, it was.

I didn't say it had to be. Where did you get the idea I did say so?
But appeal to a federal court would require a federal issue. If the
CalSupremes say yea or nay to a state issue, it stays a state
issue.

>But where did you get the idea that the grounds had to be part of
>the state constitution?  That is totally irrelevant.  What is
>relevant is whether or not the California Supreme Court's holding
>depends entirely on its interpretation of federal law OR the
>federal constitution. No one seriously argues that California is
>*required* to impose its "smog impact fee." The only question is
>whether or not it can do so without violating California or
>federal law - constitutional or otherwise.  If California law
>prohibits it from collecting the tax, its constitutionality under
>the commerce clause is moot.

That's what I said.



-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@sonic.net) ***********
    *                Daly City California                 *
    ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******

In article <7tthif$q03$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:

>I'e already mentioned that none of the accounts I read were clear
>on whether it was a state or federal question. I had assumed it was
>an interstate commerce thing. If the case is based on purely state
>grounds then, no, it will not go to the federal courts. But I
>already implied that.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how courts work.  Whether
the lower federal courts (district and circuit courts) hear a case depends on
where it was first brought, not whether the case arises under federal or state
law.  This case involves both a federal and a state issue.  As such, it could
have been brought in federal court if the polaintiffs had wanted to.  They
chose a state court instead.  Therefore, it can't be appealed to any federal
court other than the U.S. Supreme Court - and of course that review would be
limited to the federal question.

>As to what the Supremes will or won't grant certiorari, the smart
>money doesn't bet at all.

Why not?  The odds are much better there than anywhere else.  The SC only hears
a tiny fraction of the cases brought to its attention.

>OK. is it or is it not the federal constitution that's involved
>here? You mention above about the 'state constitutional challenge".

That is because the court ruled that the tax violated BOTH constitutions. The
California SC can uphold this ruling as to both, reverse it as to both, or
reverse as to one while upholding as to the other.  After that, the U.S. 
Supreme Court may review the decision as to the federal constitution only.  If
the CA Supreme Court holds that the tax violates the CA constitution (as the
Court of Appeal did), the tax is unconstitutional, period, and the U.S.
Supreme Court won't even look into the federal question since it would be moot.

[This is assuming, of course, that the court doesn't find a way to reform the
tax to make it comply with the California constitution.  If it does, the tax's
viability under the federal constitution will not be moot, and the U.S. Supreme
Court may review it after all."]

>And they didn't. Whether a "fee" is an import duty or a legitimate
>exercise of the police powers isn't as simple as you make it.
>Calling it an "import duty" is pretty sure to make your law look
>bad, though.

I wouldn't call it an import duty if its application weren't so state-
specific.  I agree that there aare cases where it's hard to tell which is
which; I just don't happen to think this is one of those cases.


>>>Only if the grounds was the state constitution. Was it?
>>Yes, it was.
>
>I didn't say it had to be. Where did you get the idea I did say so?

That word "only" has a rather exclusive connotation.

>But appeal to a federal court would require a federal issue. If the
>CalSupremes say yea or nay to a state issue, it stays a state
>issue.

That is true of the U.S. Supreme Court, but not of the other federal courts,
which rule on matters of state law all the time (but which cannot hear any
appeals from a state court ruling).  My only point here is that if
the tax violates the California constitution, it is immaterial whether or not
it violates the Commerce Clause, and will therefore not be reviewed.

It also strikes me as a bit counterintuitive that you expect a federal court
to hold more broadly for "states' rights" than the state courts have.  Not that
that makes it impossible, of course.