Traffic Court Defeat

TheBlackTruth · #1 07-28-2004, 11:30 PM

I would like to relay to you all an experience with Traffic court (Superior Court of California) that my friend had. Although this case was unsuccessful, I think perhaps its still worth sharing so all of us may be able to learn something from it.



The charge was for running a red light. An automated photographic device was used and the ticket was mailed along with a photograph of the "defendant"



I must start by saying I started off by filing the documents included in the LRG Traffic Package. These documents include:



<quote align=left>
[*]Letter of Undertaking (Bond)
[*]Affidavit in Support of Letter of Undertaking (bond)
[*]Memorandum of Law in Support of Special Appearance to Challenge Jurisdiction with Declaration
[*]Notice and Demand for Court Reporter
[*]Motion for Pre-Trial Discovery and Inspection
[*] Notice of Lodgment of UCC Financing Statement and Security Agreement.
[*]Declaration of Service (proof of mailing)

</quote>



The above documents were filed about one week before the scheduled court appearance after MUCH resistance. The clerk actually took the papers to the judge who held a small hearing and denied the bond on the spot and even returned minutes into the case file - all while she waited at the clerk's desk.



Her request to be heard by a Judge and not a commissioner was also denied. She never stipulated to be heard by a commissioner.



At the arraignment, the dialogue went as follows:

“Your Honor, I did not come here today to enter a plea of any kind, however, I am here by Special Appearance to challenge the court’s jurisdiction over me as noted in my Memorandum, which was filed with this court, and served upon the prosecution. Furthermore your Honor, I am here to request that the prosecution file a Verified Complaint, pursuant to Penal Code Sections: 740, 853.9, as well as Penal Code Section 949.”



The judge replied as if nothing had just been said and proceeded to ask her if she plead guilty or not guilty. The judge then entered a plea of not guilty FOR her and set a court date.



At the appointed court date, she appeared before another commissioner, who granted the request for a court reporter. The dialogue proceeded as follows:

<quote>

Defendant: Sir, before we begin, I have a few questions.

Judge:Go ahead.

Defendant: For the record, Have you taken an oath of office?

Judge:Yes.

Defendant: For the record, Is it on file with the Clerk of the Court?

Judge:Yes.

Defendant: For the record, is it onfile with this court?

Judge:Yes.

Defendant: Will you take Judicial Notice of your Oath of Office?

Judge:I don't see why that would be necessary.

Defendant: Will you take judicial notice of the United States Constitution and California Constitution?

Judge:I don't see why that would be necessary.

Defendant: Ok, well, I'm appearing here Sui Juris as a third party intervenor who is being injured by these proceedings and malicious prosecution who has failed to present a verified complaint and has not produced an injured party after such was requested at the arraignment.

Based on this, i request this case be dismissed.

Judge:Denied. Let's begin the trial.

[The officer begins relaying the "facts" and showing photographs as well as a video]

Defendant: Objection. . . . Assumes facts not yet entered into evidence.

Judge:Over ruled

[Officer finishes]

Judge: Do you have any witnesses?

Defendant: I'd like to examine the officer. [ he takes the stand] Sir, how did you come to the conclusion it was my vehicle depicted in the video and I was behind the wheel? And how did you know where to send you citation?

Officer: We took close-ups of the photos and cross-referrenced the Lic. Plate with the DMV computers.

Defendant:Are you saying you don't have any direct, personal knowledge of the relationship between myself, the vehicle and the License Plate?

[judge had to explain the question to the officer]

Officer: No. I do not have personal knowledge of that.

Defendant: No Further Questions. Your Honor, i request you dismiss the case on the grounds of the inadmissability of hearsay evidence.

Judge: Denied. If there is nothing further I would like to rule on this case. [pause]. I rule in favor of the plantiff. Its clearly you in the video and on the photos and you are clearly running the light. Please see the clerk on how to pay.

Defendant:Sir, what forms of payment do you accept?

Judge: Credit Cards, Checks, Money Orders. . .

Defendant:Are you requesting payment in other than gold or silver?

Judge:what?

Defendant:The constitution states that no state shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, so if this is true then you must not be the State, so who are you?

[laughter heard by other lawyers in the court room]

Judge:I suppose you can pay in gold or silver if you like, and I am the judge who just found you guilty.

</quote>



So that was it. I welcome your input! I am wondering where we made mistakes and which mistakes were ours and which were the court's and what to do next!

In continuous search of the truth. . . .

#2 07-28-2004, 11:52 PM

Your mistake was entering their tribunal in the first place! Just by entering beyond the bar verifies jurisdiction over one and a "railroad cross dresser" (of which it appears you had) has now met with other cross dressers and they have worked out their schemes to circumvent any advance, solution, argument that you may present.

We keep saying, STAY OUT OF THEIR SANDBOX! It belongs to the members of the "Just Us Club" and we have no right to be there in their eyes and minds.

File an Appearance Brief and attach to it an Affidavit of Negative Averment, show up and say nothing. If you DO speak, say such as...Sir, I do not understand. I am only here to have my documents read. Then SHUT UP FOR GOOD! You will then walk out with a dismissal/win!

rodman652 · #3 07-29-2004, 12:05 AM

When the judge responded with "I don't see why that would be necessary." is his way of sayong no.

Perhaps a good follow up would've been "For the record judge, Does that mean Yes?".

After all of that I would just appeal.

TheBlackTruth · #4 07-29-2004, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enslegis

File an Appearance Brief and attach to it an Affidavit of Negative Averment, show up and say nothing. If you DO speak, say such as...Sir, I do not understand. I am only here to have my documents read. Then SHUT UP FOR GOOD! You will then walk out with a dismissal/win!

Thanks for your input, enslegis.

A Memorandum of Law in Support of Special Appearance to Challenge Jurisdiction with Declaration was filed but the Judge simply entered a plea on her behalf. How does one combat THAT?

TheBlackTruth · #5 07-29-2004, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodman652

When the judge responded with "I don't see why that would be necessary." is his way of sayong no.

Perhaps a good follow up would've been "For the record judge, Does that mean Yes?".

After all of that I would just appeal.

Yes. I thought the same thing. The judge cleverly evaded answering that question and that may have been the weakest link of the proceedings.

Does anyone know if failure to take judicial notice of the oath and/or constitution constitutes a reversible error? Furthermore, does failure to take such notice mean that the judge isn't required to then be bound by the constitution? (i.e. this may be why he was able to sidestep requiring the prosecution to provide a verified claim and injured party?)

TheBlackTruth · #6 07-29-2004, 12:22 AM

enslegis,

I too, would like to find a way to avoid entering the tribunal, but i've yet to find an effective method for staying out and not getting a Capias issued against me. If you know of a way that WORKS, then I'm all ears!

Jerseee · #7 07-29-2004, 12:38 AM

Blacktruth,

That was a good show. Things seem to have went well except the part about the UCC stuff.

I really wish you would have entered case law supporting your position on the record. There is a wealth of case law in the TRAVEL forum. It is the very first posts. I asked SJ to put all the case law cites that pertain to each forum at the top so they wouldn't be buried.

What SJ has done--is empower you to take the courts back through this method. Ice, squirrels, kgod and a host of others highly recommend you put things on the record. That is why I say, enter case law in the record and not UCC forms. Why should the judge take judicial notice of the UCC? That is not law. That is why the judge may have responded that way.

Nonetheless, a great effort. THis is far from over. Go to the CITIZENSHIP & JURISDICTION forum and read on void judgements.

Ice · #8 07-29-2004, 12:42 AM

Go to the download section and get "OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY".

If you do not object -- then you have no objection.

I didn't see one objection from her. There are 5 steps... which can take you all the way to an interlocutory appeal... and that makes it a whole new ball game.

Never let them run over you... KNOW what you are doing when you go to court.

I do not adhere to the "don't enter the court room" logic. That is part of the reason we're in this fix in the first place. Learn the rules and go in there and kick butt!

THE COURTS BELONG TO US.

I also noted that she did not take oath herself... and that is a must. First we take oath... then we ask the judge about his.

TheBlackTruth · #9 07-29-2004, 12:57 AM

Jersee,

Thanks a bunch for your feedback.

To tell you the truth I am being torn between two schools of thought. On one hand, I feel I am of sufficient intelligence to understand concepts of law and employ such, and yes, i do realize through my reading that the UCC is not law. However, I am also struggling with a more simplistic approach: Do what works.

I, like many others, was misled by Jason W. at LRG that the Traffic Package that they market WORKS. I'm not going to state that trying only once confirms that the package is defective, but we weren't even CLOSE to wining so i surely won't be using it again.

<quote>on a sidenote: the Package says to call if there are any problems in the process and my NUMEROUS calls went unanswered and emails unreturned</quote>

I think there is a place for the UCC, especially when you're dealing with the contract issues of law in commerce (e.g. the initial Citation).

Are you saying that the case law already cited in my documents (click here to see them) is insufficient or incorrect? Here are some of the cites:

<quote>
[*]Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (court to look at substance of pleadings rather than form)
[*]Titus v. Superior Court, 100 Cal.Rptr. 477, 23 C.A.3d 792. (Special Appearance and Jurisdictional Challenge)
[*]In Re Courtney H. (App. 1 Dist. 1995) 45 Cal.Rptr. 2d 560, 38 Cal.App.4th 1221 (If commissioner is given authority to act as temporary judge, commissioner must also obtain proper stipulation of parties litigant in order to preside over specific proceeding)

</quote>

I'm determined to make this defeat a learning experience for myself and those who read this thread so feel free to point out any other mistakes i may have made!

-Truth

TheBlackTruth · #10 07-29-2004, 01:15 AM

Quote:

[The officer begins relaying the "facts" and showing photographs as well as a video]

Defendant: Objection. . . . Assumes facts not yet entered into evidence.

Judge:Over ruled

[Officer finishes]

Ice,

Above is the one and only objection that was made. The judge was pretty abrasive with his responses so she may have been intimidated into not objecting more.

Jersee,

Do you suggest going the Void Judgment route vs. the Appeal route that Ice is suggesting? I tend to agree with the Void Judgement route in that the facts of the case are unchanged and I don't see any particular fact that could be brought forth apon review, however, if i understand correctly a Void Judgment is void on its face from the beginning for reasons such as lack of jurisdiction or ultra vires rulings - am i right? Any more thoughts?