Codee Wins In Traffic Court!

[Codee]

I passed a public bus and a cop on the side of the road on a solid line after the dashed line was running out on the pavement.

A couple a "motions" were denied including one that I never made.

However in the end I was found not guilty "in the interest of justice."

Just wanted to share... I think they were coming at me hard and decided to take it all to trial because they wanted to get me. The trial judge was not down however and he ultimately ruled in my favor. Exactly why he ruled such is not evident from his ruling. The only real conclusive thing was that I was found not guilty in the interest of justice.

All thanks to my proceeeeeeeedure. hahaha.

The charge was a violation of California Vehicle Code section 21460(b)

The Court was Nevada County Superior Court "OR" Superior court in and for said County of Nevada

The case number was 166747

The Judge was Judge Thomas Anderson

The arresting officer was Department of California Highway Patrol Officer "Rocha"

Adios...

PS just goes to show what I have believed for a while... If you want to get some real learning from a case it is better to lose. Next time I think I may take a dive. ;)

I leave this question however... Could it be that all the motions get denied to give the illusion that the motions are bogus and then the cop does a "no show" or the judge rules not guilty in order to avoid taking the issue to appeal? Only time will tell. It is an amazing number of wins in a corrupt system so far,,, for those who file the motion...

[Livefire]

I think that obfuscation is the name of the game when it
comes to dealing with pro per litigants. The court system has no desire to reveal the mechanics of their dog and pony show. I had this happen when using Ticketslayer......copper was a "no show" but I seen the dude in the courthouse on my way out. Go figure!

[David Merrill]

So far the site does not recognize that case number exists.

Please help us out here Codee.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

So far the site does not recognize that case number exists.

Please help us out here Codee.

The case calendar as far as I know does not list infraction cases.

You can call the court house at (530) 265-1311 and request a copy of anything.

The lady who signed the service is a clerk of court named Gigi. She knows who I am and mention of the case number and my name will get you the results.

I will scan the judgement tommorow at work and post then.

Until then I can easily transcribe the entire ruling...

Trial on violation Vehicle Code section 21460(b):

Based on the totality of the evidense presented, a finding of not guilty is entered in the interest of justice.

DATED: February 19, 2007

THOMAS M. ANDERSON

Judge of the Superior Court

What is funny is I am now noticing that the judgement was entered on the second page of a denial of a motion to dismiss.

The paper is not even entitled "Judgment"

Not the haha funny.

[David Merrill]

Great! Thanks for clearing that up.

[Codee]

Even funnier...


They mailed me back the stamped and wet ink copy of my motion to dismiss.

I also let the judge have my private notes so he could use them under submission. Those were mailed to me as well.

I now have proof I believe that I filed a motion, the court recieved such motion and that the court has disposed of such motion (Literally disposed of the paper and everything...)

Has anyone ever got the ACTUAL motion mailed back to them along with a ruling deying it? Also the ruling denying the motion does not touch on the motion they sent back but rather denies some motions that I made orally.

Hmmm.

[Codee]

Still amusing is that the address for the CHP officer on the service is listed as "Inter office Mail."

Now the CHP is an executive office. The court is purporting to be Judicial. I wonder if they they meant "inter" as in two seperate executive offices... or if they actually meant from the officce of the judge to the office of the governor.

THe CHP officer was served as an interested party HOWEVER the DA's office was not.

[Livefire]

Sounds like the court doesnt want any record to exist as to the nature of your "unorthodox" briefs. As it stands, all anyone can see is that the judge decided to dismiss.

[David Merrill]

Is the motion they returned mail marked by the court?

Either way, can you sanitize a scan and attach enough for us to get why they are expunging the record?

[Codee]

Here is the Judgment

THe one on the bottom is the first page. Sorry about that.