some good questions to ask officer

[hAKEEM]

some good questions to ask officer on a traffic case.

Have the witness take the stand.

2. Ask the officer, "Is this the card I showed you when you asked me
for a driver's license." (Or what ever document it is -is this the
letter that I sent your office, etc.) [you are laying the foundation].

3. After the officer identifies the item, give it to the court clerk,
and ask her to mark it as defense exhibit A (defense is alphabetical,
prosecution is numerical), after she marks it, get it back from her and
ask the officer to read the front of the card. Then show it to the
Judge, then the prosecutor, then give it back to the clerk for
safekeeping.

4. You can enter all the letters/affidavits that you have sent to the
DMV by following the below steps.

(a) Send a letter by registered mail to the DMV requesting that they
send a copy of (whatever you want-describe it by date and
certified/registered mail number) to the Municipal Court, Case number
(ticket number)

Please send an affidavit rebutting/approving of the below listed
document, and certified copy of the Document entitled XXXXXXXXXX, dated
xxxxxx, registered mail number xxxxxxxx, to the Municipal Court, at
xxxxxx St, Jerktown, California.

This request is made under Evidence Code sections 1560-62. This document
is to be used as evidence in the above noted case. (This is a sample)

Questions:
- How long were you in the academy?
- Were you trained in the proper application of the law?
- As a officer enforcing the vehicle code, are you not required to know
and understand the meanings and proper application of such law?
- Officer do you have personal knowledge of the meaning of the term ----
as it is defined in the law you were taught to enforce?

Prosecution: OBJECTION

You: Your Honor I am attempting to lay a foundation to establish that
the officer has been improperly trained, is biased, is involved in a
civil conspiracy to deprive me of my property and lacks personal
knowledge, and therefore is an incompetent witness as it relates to the
issue before the court.

Court: Proceed

- In the academy how may hours were you trained in the proper
application of the vehicle code, and were you taught that it applied to
everyone without exception?
- Were you taught that the Vehicle Code is a special law with general
applicability and not a general law applying to everyone?
- Do you have personal knowledge of the meanings of the term DRIVE,
RESIDENT, OPERATOR, DRIVER, MOTOR VEHICLE, VEHICLE. as those terms are
defined and used in the statute that created the vehicle code? NO

NO - then you are stating that you do not know the legal meanings of the
laws that you are enforcing

- Were you taught that the vehicle code applies to all commercial
activities?
- (if no) does the vehicle code apply to commercial vehicles?
- (if yes) was I involved in any commercial activity at the time you
stopped me

Any time an objection is raised, you should take exception and explain
to the judge that the foundation that you are laying is important to
your defense.

After all the questions are asked that you feel is necessary or you have
laid the proper foundation then!!!!

Your Honor, I move the court to strike all testimony by this officer, as
he has stated on record that he does not understand the laws that he is
enforcing, and as such is biased, and is incompetent to be a witness.

You can always set the court up by asking "Does this court only address
facts in this matter??

Then you can preface all your statements with "It is a fact or fact of
law that -

"It is a fact of law that the Penal Code makes a legal distinction
between the term "person" and "citizen"

"It is a fact of law that there are two constitutions here in
California, one for the U.S. citizens, and one for state citizens"

"It is a fact that I am a citizen of California"

Learn how to cross examine anyone - this procedure can be used in most
trials just change the main procedures - In the case of a police
officer:

Prosecution: "Officer state your name"

Officer: "My name is John Smithe"

You: OBJECTION, requires a personal opinion, based upon hearsay, and
not supported by any recognizable factual evidence before the court!!

These following types of statements can be objected to:

"I observed the defendant driving"

OBJECTION: "The use of the term "driving" Requires a personal opinion
and a conclusion of law with a legal interpretation of the law by this
officer, and this witness is not an attorney or other qualified person
to interpret the law.

The following terms should be objected to as they require the above
statement:

Driving
Person
motor vehicle
vehicle
Individual

There are many terms that have special meanings in the law, and you
should object to each and every one of them

You can always question the officer if you want:

Say to the court: "I am invoking the hostile witness provisions since
the witness is an agent of the government." Once you do this you can
ask leading questions that require a yes or no answer. If the
prosecution objects, you should say "I am attempting to lay a
foundation, if the court has no objection."

Some Good Questions (and make up your own to fit the circumstances):

- Where did you stop me, in the State of California, or in California
state.?
- Officer when you stopped me were you operating under the presumption
that I had committed some violation?
- Officer did I identify myself upon your request?
- Officer did I give you an identification card that stated who I was?
- Officer is this the identification card that I gave you.? Say "I want
this marked as exhibit one as evidence."
- Officer during our conversation at the side of the road, I gave you
several documents that I had sent to the DMV and other agencies, are
these the documents that I showed you? Say, "I want these marked as
exhibits two, three and four" (if you had all three documents, or as
many as you showed him)
- Officer when you stopped me did you think I was the person identified
in the vehicle code?
- Officer were you ever informed that a "citizen" is not the same as a
"person" identified in the vehicle code? (Have the officer read Section
228 and 232 of the Penal Code)
- Officer, was I involved in any type of commercial activity when you
stopped, like hauling freight, operating a taxicab or any other type of
commercial activity on the highways?
- Officer is this the citation that you issued to me? (show officer the
ticket)
- Officer did you check the box marked traffic?
- Officer, do you understand the legal meaning of the word traffic?
Have the officer read the definition out of Black's Law Dictionary
- Officer, so you make a mistake in marking the traffic box, after
stating previously that I was not involved in any type of commercial
activity.(yes)
- Officer, then this traffic citation is in error, is this not correct?
- Officer, then you have committed perjury from the witness stand by
stating that I was not involved in any commercial activity, or you made
a false arrest by issuing this ticket in error, which one is correct?

OBJECT TO THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ANY WITNESS OR THE PROSECUTION,
ESPECIALLY WHERE THE LAW MAKES A SPECIFIC MEANING TO THE TERMS OR
APPLICATION. IN OTHER WORDS - ALL THE TIME

In addition this is an argument that almost everyone can use if you have
the proper paperwork prepared in advance.

If the judge denies any demurrer or motion without opposition, he is
acting as an officer of executive branch, and this is a violation of the
separation of powers doctrine.

You state: "Your honor, since the court has denied my --- I want the
record to reflect that I am objecting to the judge representing the
executive branch. I also am objecting to the violation of the
separation doctrine by this court. For the record would the court like
to state the authority for the violation of the separation of powers
doctrine."

You must have on the record that you have objected to the violation,
failure to do this precludes you from bringing this matter up on appeal.

After the police officer has testified, and leaves the witness stand,
ask the court if the prosecution has rested?, If so, then you must state
"Your Honor, I move the court for a judgment of acquittal, based upon
insufficiency of the evidence, and failure of the prosecution to
establish the proper jurisdictional facts.

If found guilty, ask for the five days between conviction and
sentencing, this is the only time you can file an arrest of judgment.

If arrest of judgment is denied, the judge will ask you if there is
anything else prior to sentencing (or words to that effect) this is the
time for allocution.

this seems pretty solid
what do you all think

[weishaupt1776]

Good Stuff, I almost missed this thread. I need to read through it again. I am curious as to what documents were sent to the DMV & what you showed the officer at the stop

[weishaupt1776]

he presumption exists at law that you are the "person" named in the complaint. That person is defined within the statutes, the violation of which you are charged. However, when you read that definition, you do not find human beings listed as persons. You do not find Citizens listed as persons.


*


It is a maxim of law, and incorporated into the Code Construction Acts, that where an Act defines a term, the definition by a dictionary or common usage is NOT a substitute for the definition contained in the Act. One such case where this fact is put into play is in National Homeopathic Hospital Assn v. Britton.


*


Now, if you are being presumed to be that person, the idea is to defeat the presumption. Since the presumption is NOT based on evidence, how do you rebut it?


*


First, a presumption is an assumption which, if unrebutted, will stand as fact. To rebut a presumption you need evidence, right? Well, sort of.


*


What you actually need is a denial. By that I mean that when you answer the complaint, after exhausting your jurisdictional challenges of course, your answer states "Righteous Q. Citizen denies that he is the person defined in the statutes and demands strict*proof of*this element of the state's complaint." The same goes for your automobile.


*


In effect, you deny the presumption. You can even put it into your affidavit of facts if you like. But, the point is that once you bring that element into play and demand strict proof then the state has to prove it up. It is kinda like Chas shouting, "Where's the contract???" Chas was challenging any nexus between himself and the state which gave them authority over his use of his automobile.


*


You see? It isn't that hard, is it? To rebut a presumption you deny the element of the charge which contains it while demanding strict proof.


*

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by hAKEEM

some good questions to ask officer on a traffic case.

- Officer were you ever informed that a "citizen" is not the same as a
"person" identified in the vehicle code? (Have the officer read Section
228 and 232 of the Penal Code)
- Officer, was I involved in any type of commercial activity when you
stopped, like hauling freight, operating a taxicab or any other type of
commercial activity on the highways?

I am unable to locat Sections 228 and 232 of the Penal Code on the official website:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

I did find "PERSON" in the vehicle code:

"Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.