Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Right to the Castle
It still all comes down to a few facts.
1) Sava referenced Battle and only specifically mentioned "crimes" and not "public offenses".
2) The battle case found the law not allowing jury trials fo rinfractions to be in conflict with the STATUTE that required that "convictions" be by jury.
3) The Sava court and the Battle court both evade the discussion that the law preventing jury trials is in conflict with the Constitution of California.
4) In the cases that Battle references, if one reads all of them like have many many many times each, one will see that the constitutional arguments have been made and supported by the justices already. All that is left for Califonria infractions is to realize that (I will put this concept in its own thread):
1) Courts of limited jurisdiction operate on the rule of statute alone. They are empowered only to conduct business as statute says so and to breach the allowance of power/jurisdiction as set out in statute is an exercise in excess of jurisdiction, if not an exercise without jurisdiction.
2) The California statutes prevent a defendant from having a right to a jury trial from an infraction.
3) The California Constitution declares that the right to a jury trial is the right of the defendant.
This means that if an infraction is at all criminal than the statute declaring the the absent of right is either unlawful or only meant to apply to those who had no such right, IE a non-natural person.
The statutes are meticulously crafted around the separation of common law regulated activities and revenue generating regulated activities.
It is only due to the laziness of the patriot that this subject, the only subject, is always ignored.
|
Blah, blah, blah, blanketing the term "lazy" is presumptuous.
I've read every California federal and state case dealing with traffic infractions while I had a Westlaw online subscription for five + years.
And what you either are unaware of or ignore (notwithstanding that BOTH Battle AND Sava discusses this) is that just because the court's in Sava and Battle say "crimes" and not "public offenses" is of no moment because Penal Code section 689 puts an end to that position.
And to quell the Oppenheimer position, (i) the court's position was comparing infractions to "petty offenses" which infractions are not, but even if they were the Supreme Court of California has this to say regarding "petty offenses" and trial by jury:
[quote]In contrast to the federal jury trial guaranty, which draws a distinction between "serious" and "petty" criminal offenses and requires a jury trial only for those offenses which fall into the "serious" category, the right to trial by jury embodied in the California Constitution extends to so-called "petty" as well as to "serious" criminal offenses, i.e., to all misdemeanors as well as to all felonies. Under the California Constitution, only infractions not punishable by imprisonment (§ 19c) are not within the jury trial guaranty. ( Mills v. Municipal Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 298, & fn. 8.)
Mitchell v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1230
(ii) even if infractions were petty offenses, the court said that it deals with infractions in the same manner as it was dealt with in English Common Law in 1850. If this were the case no one STILL would be in court over a traffic infraction because at that time the only arrest without warrant allowed were those in apprehension of committed felonies and even then there had to be existential circumstances. So much so that any attempt at arrest under less than felonious conditions could be met with lethal force.
(iii) NO statute can be in conflict with the Constitution, where it derives its authority.
I was done posting, but I couldn't let this nonsensical post stand.
![How to tell when a attorney is Lying [Part I - Can they speak truth?]](http://www.suijuris.net/forum/iconimages/court/how-tell-when-attorney-lying-part-i-can-they-speak-truth.gif)
