[Codee]

There is also this statement made which is grossly in error and would hurt you bad if you tried to use it:

Originally Posted by Gmail

5. If your Demur is not granted, enter a plea of NOT GUILTY and demand a trial by jury. In DMV cases the judge will lie to you and not allow it. You can now file a federal civil action against the judge for the violation of U. S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Which states: "The trial of all crimes... shall be by jury". PC Section 16 also lists Infractions as being crimes and thus affords a trial by jury. If you are denied a jury trial, the judge is admitting that there is no crime, so file or lodge in court a Motion to Dismiss the charges.

California Appelate Courts have already ruled PC Section 16 does not include infractions despite the legislature stating so. See if the following is clear.

"Further, infractions are not crimes and the rule forbidding successive prosecutions of a defendant is not applicable when an infraction is one of the offenses involved. (People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [123 Cal.Rptr. 636].) fn. 1 [1b] Proceedings on infractions are not attended by the same constitutional safeguards as those attending felony or misdemeanor prosecutions. The limitation on an accused's right to jury trial of infractions has withstood constitutional attack upon the rationale the Legislature did not intend to classify infractions as crimes."
People v. Sava (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 935

AND

"If the Legislature intended to treat infractions as public offenses and if the charging of a public offense invokes the right to trial by jury, sections 19c and 1042.5, which deny a jury to one who commits an infraction, conflict with section 689. However, the same (1968) Legislature enacted section 19c, the pertinent amendment of section 16 and section 1042.5. Construing these sections in accordance with the precepts laid down in In re Kay, supra, we must conclude that it was not the intent of the Legislature to enact inconsistent statutes and, further, that when it added the term "public offense" to section 16 it was not so categorizing infractions because if it did so, it would have caused inconsistency between sections 19c and 689 of the Penal Code."
People V. Battle 50 Cal App 3rd Supp.1

I am not as sure about this but I think you cannot sue a state in federal court for a voiolation of your rights unless you start the action in state court and use the feds as an appeal. I may be reading this wrong but here it is.

[fnt 1. In February Term, 1974, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and a writ of enquiry awarded. The writ, however, was not sued out and executed; so that this cause, and all the other suits against states, were swept at once from the records of the court, by the amendment to the Federal Constitution, agreeably to the unanimous determination of the judges, in Hollingsworth et al. v. Virginia, argued at February term, 1798.]
Grisholm V. Georgia 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed 440.