Codee's Transcripts Of Passing On Solid Line

[David Merrill]

Do you think that will fly? It looks like your argument is that the wording on his badge had not been updated at the time of the stop?

I like the argument about using the surname on the ticket when it requires his name. However I think you are pretty much named Roberts from the moment you were identified by California driver license - as the officer testified.

Anyway, I doubt either argument will avoid conviction even in the appellate process. Public policy will override the minor technicalities you brought up - but May the Force be with you! That would be really cool if you could have such a photographic memory and pick apart minute details compared against stacks of regulatory guidelines and win in traffic court. Makes me glad I carry a good digital camera on my belt.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Codee]

Well I won. The judge himself was interested.

I do think that 40800 will work on appeal because it is in the same chapter as speed traps (illegal evidense)

The whole chapter is about dismissal due to technicalities.

I think I won so as to avoid an appeal on the motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ.

See there were a lot of motions that were on paper that did not get into the oral record.

As far as the badge argument goes the argument is that EVERY OFFICER of the DCHP has a defective badge.

[greatwolf75]

Originally Posted by Codee

Well I won. The judge himself was interested.

I do think that 40800 will work on appeal because it is in the same chapter as speed traps (illegal evidense)

The whole chapter is about dismissal due to technicalities.

I think I won so as to avoid an appeal on the motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ.

See there were a lot of motions that were on paper that did not get into the oral record.

As far as the badge argument goes the argument is that EVERY OFFICER of the DCHP has a defective badge.

I thought that any kind of a challenge to jurisdiction had to be made at the beginning of a case? Anyway congrats on yet another win.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

I thought that any kind of a challenge to jurisdiction had to be made at the beginning of a case? Anyway congrats on yet another win.

My challenges to Jurisdiction were made prior to arraignment.

Also only Personam Jurisdiction must be made before trial... Subject Matter Jurisdiction can be questioned at any time.

[Codee]

My dad was shocked that I won. I guess some local attornies were having problems with the CHP as well... My dad handed them the transcripts to my case and they are now interested very much in the arguments.

I like that the judge thought that discovery not being met was "interesting..."

Sandman got screwed on the discovery thing and I was going to hammer it home if I lost.

I hope everything turns out well for Sandman.

[David Merrill]

I read the whole thing and still do not know what you mean by "40800" -

however by "will work on appeal" I gather you were convicted in the trial court a month ago by the transcriber date. Did he give you driving class? I suppose he did and you are not going to bother appealing. So would you show us the "40800" argument too? [Or describe what the 40800 issue is and post only those page images.]

I know that feeling to hold yourself in coherent esteem with the attorneys in black robes. My experience is it is a bit empty - it is his job to hear you anyway. If he fails to hear you out, then you have an appeal issue!

Attached is an example of what I was talking about with Surname and that angle of the argument.

Get a look at how they specify Line 1 to be "Name" but the Explanatory Notes on Page 5 specify "Surname". Since my name is my given name I insisted on the truth. At least on the document I was signing. I would be saying my name is our surname if I allowed them to manipulate that with the application, like they tried to do.

However if they would have been straightforward enough to specify "Surname" then I would have put in our surname. No problem if somebody else constructs a legal name around me. It is not until I do it that it matters.

Look carefully:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Definition.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Name_legal.jpg

See that "name" is in quotation marks? That means it is something other than name - something foreign to English. They are saying name is legal name - and both definitions are when you put the given or Christian name and the family or surname together.

If I would not have been careful, people identifying me by that passport would call me by my family's name as though it was my name.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[rentiap]

CALIFORNIA CODES
VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 40800-40808




40800. Every traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main
purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 or 11 of this code
shall wear a full distinctive uniform, and if the officer while so
on duty uses a motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color
specified by the commissioner.
This section does not apply to an officer assigned exclusively to
the duty of investigating and securing evidence in reference to any
theft of a vehicle or failure of a person to stop in the event of an
accident or violation of Section 23109 or in reference to any felony
charge, or to any officer engaged in serving any warrant when the
officer is not engaged in patrolling the highways for the purpose of
enforcing the traffic laws.

[Codee]

Well I won.

And the 40800 argument was made in the transcripts... however there are so many errors in the transcript I can see why one would have a hard time understanding it.

40800 CVC states that every officer enforcing division 10 or 11 of hte vehicle code must be in full and distinct uniform at the time or else they are incompetent to give testimony on the charge.

40800. Every traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main
purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 or 11 of this code
shall wear a full distinctive uniform, and if the officer while so
on duty uses a motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color
specified by the commissioner.
This section does not apply to an officer assigned exclusively to
the duty of investigating and securing evidence in reference to any
theft of a vehicle or failure of a person to stop in the event of an
accident or violation of Section 23109 or in reference to any felony
charge, or to any officer engaged in serving any warrant when the
officer is not engaged in patrolling the highways for the purpose of
enforcing the traffic laws.

So now we look for the FULL UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS found in the code. There are not many and I have found only one. There is some statutory construction needed and reading statutes together so stay with me.

The CHP was abolished and the DCHP was created.

2100. There is in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
the Department of the California Highway Patrol.

CVC 2101. As used in this chapter, "department" means the Department of
the California Highway Patrol.

This next one is absolutely key.

2102. Wherever in any statute "California Highway Patrol" is used,
it means the Department of the California Highway Patrol.

And here is the requirement for the badge...

2257. The commissioner shall issue to each member of the California
Highway Patrol a badge of authority with the seal of the State of
California in the center thereof, the words "California Highway
Patrol" encircling the seal and below the designation of the position
held by each member to whom issued.

If you read 2257 with 2102 the members of the DCHP are required to have a badge with "Department of the California Highway Patrol" encircling the state seal. The cops only have California Highway Patrol encircling the seal.

It is pure statutory but it is sound as long as the court does not study it enough to find out which of the laws is unconstitutional... ;)

[Codee]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

If I would not have been careful, people identifying me by that passport would call me by my family's name as though it was my name.

This time however David I was arguing that the officer's name was not on the ticket.

I was not arguing that my name was not on the ticket. I was supposed to get his name and address due to the CPC requirement on discovery.

1054.1. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to the defendant or
his or her attorney all of the following materials and information,
if it is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or if the
prosecuting attorney knows it to be in the possession of the
investigating agencies:
(a) The names and addresses of persons the prosecutor intends to
call as witnesses at trial.
(b) Statements of all defendants.
(c) All relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the
investigation of the offenses charged.
(d) The existence of a felony conviction of any material witness
whose credibility is likely to be critical to the outcome of the
trial.
(e) Any exculpatory evidence.
(f) Relevant written or recorded statements of witnesses or
reports of the statements of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to
call at the trial, including any reports or statements of experts
made in conjunction with the case, including the results of physical
or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons
which the prosecutor intends to offer in evidence at the trial.

Then I will start doing motions to sanction and that should get the damn attorney in the court room. Either that or start defaulting sanctions motions.

[David Merrill]

Well I won.

And the 40800 argument was made in the transcripts...

I gather you are saying the case has been dismissed; or were you acquitted?



Regards,

David Merrill.