[612Actual]

I have the Staph case and that's real good, as is the Bishop case. BTW, it's 27 Cal.App.3d 197

Re discovery, due to the cheaters playing the QUASI-CRIMINAL hand you need to focus on inducing the commish to make reversible errors. You can qualify them by asking questions that will lead to them making legally untenable statements which you can then use against them.

Commissioners CAN NOT make "legal determinations". If they do they make a reversible error.

Your honor, are you making a legal determination that the NOTICE TO APPEAR is a verified complaint?

It took me three times once but he finally said yes. Thank you your honor for your mistake.

We need to focus on the commissioner because they're the joker in the deck. The cop will cut his own throat by his testimony depending on the YES or NO questions you ask. The commissioner on the other had needs to be kept out of the mix because they tend to jump in and save the cop.

If you know what "stare decisis" is then in your effort to hamstring the commish you'll want to file a Judicial Notice re Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450. That locks the commish. If they refuse to take JUDICIAL NOTICE of that case then you want to immediately disqualify them for bias. When you read the case you'll understand why.

Additionally, the cop is MANDATED to provide exculpatory evidence to you whether you ask for it or not. They MUST produce discovery. Wait till you see what's in these cases:

People v. Robinson (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 494 , 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 183
In re Pratt (1999) , 69 Cal.App.4th 1294
People v. Superior Court (Barrett) (2000) , 80 Cal.App.4th 1305

[1] The prosecutor has a constitutional (Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. 83, 87 [10 L.Ed.2d 215, 218]) and statutory (§ 1054.1, subd. (e)) fn. 4 duty to disclose to the defense any exculpatory evidence. "The prosecution's duty to disclose 'extends to all evidence that reasonably appears favorable to the [31 Cal.App.4th 499] accused, not merely to that evidence which appears likely to affect the verdict.' (People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1 , 30, fn. 14 [249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843].) When the prosecution suppresses evidence which is material to guilt or punishment, regardless of whether that suppression is intentional or inadvertent, the defendant's due process rights are abridged. (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87 [10 L.Ed.2d 215, 218, 83 S.Ct. 1194]; People v. Ruthford (1975) 14 Cal.3d 399, 406 [121 Cal.Rptr. 261, 534 P.2d 1341])." (People v. Jackson (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1670, 1676 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 778].)
People v. Robinson (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 494