Dan Borrego said:
> You aren't doing anybody a favor by not notifying the DMV. So what if she
> loses her license for a year. That isn't the point. This lady sounds like
> the type of person that couldn't care less about "Goldie" or anybody
> else's property. Do you really care if she loses her license for a year? Or
> would you care even more if she countinued to be a nuisance and possibly
> hit a pedestrian. Without insurance, putting a cast on a broken leg would
> cost way more than five hundred bucks!
>
> I'm not some "Goodie Two Shoes " with nothing else to whine about, nor am I
> an insurance agent, but I don't want this uninsured person hitting one of
> my kids as thay walk across an intersection.
Not having insurance doesn't necessarily make her more likely to be in
accidents and hopefully your kids are covered by health insurance anyway.
Don't assume she's evil. It's possible to be "financially responsible"
without having insurance. The woman has agreed to pay. If she doesn't,
then maybe it's time to think about using the CA DMV for revenge, if that's
your thing, but the DMV won't make her pay. They won't even try. They'll
just put a black mark in Felix's record for having been _in_ an accident.
The reason for the $500 limit is that's the DMV's limit. If an accident
causes less than $500 dollars in damage, it doesn't matter if she had
insurance or not.
Let's talk about the California DMV. The CA DMV is using a trick that is
becoming common among gov't institutions. They claim that an infraction
is a "civil" offense (e.g., driving without insurance) and therefore you
don't have the same rights you do in a criminal case. This includes the
right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. "Financial responsibility"
trials are conducted over the telephone by a DMV employee. According to
the DMV, it doesn't matter _why_ you didn't have insurance or if you paid
for the damage or not (so much for "financial responsibility"). They have
a $250 incentive to take people's licenses away because that's how much it
costs to get a restricted license so you can drive to work and back (so
much for protecting your kids from that evil woman). There's no reason for
the DMV _not_ to take people's licenses away whether they're guilty or not
because it can't cost them anything. The only recourse to a "conviction"
is to sue the DMV for the right to drive (you can't sue for money), but even
if you win, the DMV is exempt from paying the court costs. Most people in
California can't afford justice at the hands of the DMV.
But, if the DMV takes your license away for commiting a "civil" offense and
then you're caught driving without a license, it's a criminal offense.
Thus, you can spend time in jail without ever having gotten a trial for the
original offense. The truth is that Americans _do_ have the same rights in
a civil case as in a criminal case, but the DMV is not answerable to any
other government institution so they get away with it.
The question is, do you want to aid the CA DMV in their treatment of the
rights of American citizens? Even the police in California don't report
accidents to the DMV. As long as no one involved in the accident reports it,
there's nothing the DMV can do.
Here are some more fun facts to know and share:
Years ago, when car registration was first suggested, the opponents said,
"Registration today, confiscation tomorrow." This has now come to pass in
California. If someone is driving without a license, the car they're
driving can be confiscated even if it's not theirs. This means your car
can be confiscated (without recourse) if you let someone drive your car
without knowing that they don't have a license. Between this and the
right of the DEA to confiscate property WITHOUT A CONVICTION, the United
States is turning into a feudal society. Any day now, I'll be falsely
accused of poaching and whether I confess under torture or not, my property
will be confiscated and my doggies disinherited.
Thanks for listening.
Denise Thorpe
thorpe@kegs.saic.com
|