Who Has Committed A Crime? PART I & II

[Soldier of Truth]

Are Traffic
Infractions Crimes?

California Constitution

“Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict.” California Constitution, Article 1, section 16.” (Emphasis added.)

What is represented as “official” government sources have this to say about the criminality of infractions:

Civil Code

“ACTION DEFINED. An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense.” See Code of Civil Procedure section 22

“Actions are of two kinds:
1. Civil; and,
2. Criminal.”
See Code of Civil Procedure section 24

“A civil action is prosecuted by one party against another for the declaration, enforcement or protection of a right, or the redress or prevention of a wrong.” See Code of Civil Procedure section 30

“THE PENAL CODE defines and provides for the prosecution of a criminal action.” See Code of Civil Procedure section 31

Penal Code

“CRIMINAL ACTION DEFINED. The proceeding by which a party charged with a public offense is accused and brought to trial and punishment, is known as a criminal action.” See Penal Code section 683.

If an infraction is a crime or public offense then how can anyone be convicted if the California Constitution does NOT authorize it without a trial by jury?

“No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty.” See Penal Code section 689

California Courts

Here is what the California courts’ web site defines civil and criminal:

“civil jurisdiction: A court’s right or power to hear noncriminal (‘civil’) cases.” California Courts: Self-Help Center: Glossary See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/glossary.htm#c (As of 18 May 2008.)

“public offense: A crime. Compare to private or civil wrongs that violate ‘private laws,’ for example, a contract between 2 parties. The difference between civil/private and criminal/public wrongs is that public offenses focus on the behavior of the offender while the law of civil wrongs focuses on making an injured person whole.” (See also crime.) See California Courts: Self-Help Center: Glossary See url]http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/glossary.htm#c[/url] (As of 18 May 2008.)

California Judicial Council

The California Judicial Council, boasting to handle the administration of the courts, in its 2001 Annual Report:

1967 Council-sponsored legislation reclassifies minor traffic violations as noncriminal infractions. California Judicial Council 2001 Annual Report. Emphasis added. (See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/referenc...s/ar2001-1.pdf (as of August 6, 2007) [pg. 6, Milestones 1967])

Court of Appeal

In a decision that has not been overturned, or formally disputed, the Court of Appeal had the following to say:

“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 (1957) 50 Cal.App.3d Supp.1 [123 Cal.Rptr. 636].)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. (See People v. Oppenheimer (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4 [116 Cal.Rptr. 795] and People v. Battle, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1.) (Emphasis mine.) See People v. Sava (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 935, at p. 939

Successive prosecutions is the “double jeopardy” rule. (See California Constitution, Article 1, section 15, clause 2.)

California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court implicates the non-criminality of infractions in the following:

“The Legislature’s first proposed bill. . .sought to decriminalize the simple possession. . .by classifying the offense as an infraction.” (Emphasis added.) See Tracy v. Municipal Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 760, at p. 764, ¶ 2

California Attorney General

When the question was posed to the Attorney General about law enforcement of traffic infractions upon Native American lands, of which law enforcement has jurisdiction for traffic related criminal matters, here is what was said:

“[i]f the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within. . .criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory.” See Ops.Atty.Gen. (2006) 04-1212

The Attorney General also stated in the same opinion report that law enforcement could not enforce traffic “infractions” upon Native American’s land.

Can an infraction be anything other than civil or criminal? The California statues have this to say:

“When the violation of a right admits of both a civil and criminal remedy, the right to prosecute the one is not merged in the other.” (Emphasis added.) See Code of Civil Procedure section 32

So why are these “court” decisions being ignored by the traffic court’s and law enforcement? Especially when one cannot be convicted of an infraction by law. Why? The Penal Code says:

No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty. (Emphasis added.) See Penal Code section 689

[Soldier of Truth]

Could It Be About
the Money and the Control?

The Money?

The California Judicial Council, also boasting to be the “policymaking body of the California courts,” and “responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice” stated in its 2004 Annual Report, that for the fiscal year 2002-2003, traffic infractions trial court filings accounted for 58.5% of the 7,994,149 total filings. Totaling 4,673,131 traffic infraction filings.

Anyone that has been to traffic court knows that added on top of every fine, a 200% penalty and assessment fee, plus $35 administrative fee, plus $1. Bringing the most modest fine of $25 to a grand total to $111.

If every one of the 4.9 million filings of people charged with those traffic infractions received just the minimum fine, this would total up to $518,717,541. Quite a hefty sum, especially when one learns that California makes all moving violations a mandatory minimum $100 “before” penalties and assessments, and administrative costs. If only “half” of the total filings for the same time period were of one moving violation charge, after penalties and assessment fees, and administrative fees, and other costs were tallied up, the grand total would be a staggering $87,144,546,888. That’s $87.1 BILLION, with a “B.”

The Control?

“[T]raffic court is one of our most important venues. To a large part of our population, this will be their only contact with the justice system.” See People v. Daggett (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1

Various law enforcement agencies, [police] have been misapplying the Vehicle Code for some time to get into the cars of California motorists. They have seized and impounded cars without the “required” due process of law that is pretended to exist.

California’s peace officers’ authority comes from the California Constitution and the Penal Code. Which authorizes and limits their authority to “criminal” offenses ONLY. They ignore both.

The Penal Code says:

“The authority of these peace officers extends to any place in the state, as follows:

(1) As to any public offense committed or which there is probable cause to believe has been committed within the political subdivision that employs the peace officer or in which the peace officer serves. (Emphasis added.)” See Penal Code section 830.1(a)(1)

A “warrant” is needed for ALL seizures and searches. Except under “serious” circumstances.

California Constitution

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.” (Emphasis added.) See California Constitution, Article 1, section 13.

Here’s what the Vehicle Code has to say about when peace officers are authorized to stop motorists without a warrant:

“The provisions of this chapter shall govern all peace officers in making arrests for violations of this code without a warrant for offenses committed in their presence, but the procedure prescribed herein shall not Otherwise be exclusive of any other method prescribed by law for the arrest and prosecution of a person for an offense of like grade. (Emphasis added.) See Vehicle Code section 40300 et seq.

And the Courts:

“The insertion of the word 'otherwise' in the second clause of section 40300 can only mean that to the extent stated in the first clause the arrest procedure of the Vehicle Code is exclusive * * * the procedure on arrests without a warrant for misdemeanor Vehicle Code violations is that prescribed by the Vehicle Code and not the procedure prescribed by the Penal Code.” (Emphasis added.) See People v. Wohlleben (1968) 261 CalApp2d 461

California law makes it a “requirement" that a prosecutor be “present,” and “conduct” prosecutions for “public offenses.” (See Govt. C §26500)

The Verdict?

If traffic infractions are crimes, then where’s the prosecutor? Who is entering evidence on behalf of the prosecution (because the judge can’t)? Why is there no trial by jury as “required” by the California Constitution? Why is counsel not provided at state’s expense? How are people being “arraigned” at court’s that no longer hear “criminal matters?” (Such as Huntington Park, West Los Angeles, and Culver City courthouses.)

Have you ever noticed that law is not taught in public schools? This may be a part of the reason why.

So who is the criminal? You be the judge.

Help stop criminal racketeering, theft, extortion, false arrest, violence and violations of natural rights. This also helps protect peace officers as it allows them to focus on REAL crimes and get the assistance they need from other peace officers, instead of revenue raising via “code enforcing.”

[Soldier of Truth]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

"A criminal act" and "a crime" do not have the same meaning.

Of course an infraction is not a crime. The legislature added the phrase "Public Offense" to PC sec 16 when they added the term "infraction."

They added the term "public offense" so that they could throw "infraction" into the section where crimes are classified.

The legislature wanted "infractions" to be a "public offense", which is also not a crime, however the legislature even screwed that one up.

So no, it has never been proposed by the legislature, or the courts, that infraction is a crime.

If you have any California cases depicting an infraction as a crime I would like to read them.

Notwithstanding that what you said makes absolutely no sense,

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

"A criminal act" and "a crime" do not have the same meaning.

and notwithstanding that the California Legislature (who has been delegated the authority to "write" the laws (not the judiciary) via California PENAL CODE says OTHERWISE,

16. Crimes and public offenses include:
1. Felonies;
2. Misdemeanors; and
3. Infractions.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...1000&file=2-24

this post is not about cases "depicting" infractions as crimes, but how they are being "enforced." Ask ANY peace officer, or average John Q. Public "is a traffic infraction a crime?" And you'll be told an absolute yes.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

The real questions are:

Is an infraction a crime? [Absolutely not]

Is an infraction a public offense? [Battle says no due to construction issues. I don't think there is much keeping an infraction from being defined as a public offense, and would not be surprised to see it overturned on those grounds someday.)

If an infraction is a public offense, how is that different than it being a crime?

If it is not a public offense, then it is nothing because obviously the legislature intended it to be a public offense and the court in Battle obviously said it could not be one. So there obviously is no civil structure in place to handle the infractions.

Duh! That's the point of this post, so that others, can see how the courts are lying, and "law enforcement" are unknowingly or knowingly, misapplying their powers and duties, and not posted just for the great, almighty and all knowing codee the big ****. Not to mention that it is THOROUGHLY laid out on my previous post "Battle & Sava Traffic Infractions NOT Civil - PART I, II & III [COURT LIES]". This you know as you left comments on it.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

"A criminal offense" and "a crime" are not the same thing in court recognized American law.
United States and California law.

Do you agree with the above or not?

Oh My Goodness. Here you are trying to execute another one of those 'unconscionable contracts'. This time by attempting to force a 'yes' or 'no' answer in regard to terminology that has not been clearly defined. When will you ever learn?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Soldier of Truth]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Oh My Goodness. Here you are trying to execute another one of those 'unconscionable contracts'. This time by attempting to force a 'yes' or 'no' answer in regard to terminology that has not been clearly defined. When will you ever learn?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

To say nothing of irrelevant in context with the post. Codee is quick to bash on those not in keeping with the spirit of his posts, but seeks to obfuscate the issues raised and demands answers to make an irrelevant point.

Either way you slice it, the point is: a traffic infraction is not a crime, which by derivation makes the alleged commission of one NOT a criminal act. So again, in light and CONTEXT of this post (i.e. the abusive, unlawful, misapplication of the Vehicle Code, and the unlawful, inapplicable "criminal enforcement" of civil conduct), He makes absolutely NO SENSE.

[Soldier of Truth]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

This is absolutely wrong.

Well maybe some people do misunderstand it. Everything you are saying Soldier of Truth is the exact same argument that the dissenting judge writes about, AKA the losing side.

Maybe you should read that essay I wrote a little more closely. This proof of your error was found in Part 2. You can go there by clicking on "PART 2" in my signature block.

Either way you slice it, you are wrong and your assumptions that difference between a criminal public offense and a crime are meaningless will always be your downfall, for understanding that difference is the key to understanding administrative law in California.

First of all, what you rely on as support for you contention (a) makes NO mention of infractions, (b) infractions aren't crimes OR misdemeanors, so your authorities you rely upon. . . . let me put this in the language you should have known before pounding on your chest:

"It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.' [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Cornejo (1996) 13 Cal.4th 381, 388.)

I.e. Your citation doesn't mention "infractions" it's not even a part of Blackstone's dissertation, this isn't England (what you forgot about the Declaration of "Independence?") AND as you proffer it, irrelevant to THIS post.

(c) My loss I posted was with me as "Plaintiff," and the SAME position that succeeded as "Defendant" and even still it is not a lost because the court CHANGED my argument, and ruled accordingly then ordered the case NONPUBLISHED, all the while ignoring decisions within their OWN appellate district. FYI since they ordered my case NON PUBLISHED, this means that Battle, and Sava are STILL good case law, as this deception was ordered NON PUBLISHED>

(d) On defense I am FLAWLESS since 2001 when I began. Not to brag, but because I'm tired of hearing your ranting, my record is 14-0. Haven't "had" to see the court room in 3yrs. I am BEYOND "arguments." I was researching and litigating when you were about 19.

And as far as administrative law goes chew on this, which shoots ALL of your NONSENSE at point blank range.

“[i]f the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within. . .criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory.” See Ops.Atty.Gen. (2006) 04-1212

Meaning, ALL the MOTOR VEHICLE "REGULATIONS" are "civil" NO MATTER THE LABEL. Yes there's case law to support that, but I REFUSE to educate you any more.

And from your other NONSENSE you haven't even comprehended the concept of WHY the Admin agencies are even set up.

Your rendition regarding crimes, criminal acts, felonies or misdemeanors has NOTHING TO DO WITH NOTHING AS IT RELATES TO T-H-I-S POST, as it pertains to the "enforcement" of traffic "infractions." Especially, since "TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS," WHICH YOU HAVE A-L-R-E-A-D-Y CONCEDED ARE N-O-T CRIMES OR ANY OF THE ABOVE.

You're like a gnat. Go try to impress someone else with your chest beating. Petulant runt.

Why am I even responding to you? Oh that's right, I don't want you contaminating anyone with your inaneness.

I wash my hands of you.

[Soldier of Truth]

double post