Traffic Ticket Question

[612Actual]

Yo Steve, I just clicked on the link to it in the quote and was taken to the page.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by steve762

Yes, the Shogun has state plates on his car.

Now it's clear why you have been to administrative hearings 16 time.... and won 15.

Originally Posted by steve762

State plated vehicle was not a factor in getting traffic charges...

Sure it was.

Shogun \Sho"gun\ (sh[=o]"g[=oo]n), n. [Jap. military general]

A title originally conferred by the Emperor Mikado on the military governor of the eastern provinces of Japan. By gradual usurpation of power the Shoguns (known to foreigners as {Tycoons}) became finally the virtual rulers of Japan. The title was abolished in 1867.[1913 Webster]

愚かな人

http://babelfish.altavista.com



Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

OK, be that all as it may, and I am without any personal knowledge or education about CA, but most states are substantially similar-

in PA for example the VC has it that upon "reasonable belief", or "systematic checking program", the coppers can make a stop. The procedures for an actual arrest follow in the code. (more 'reasonable beliefs'). The (formally) 'warrantless arrest' is in place of a citation on the spot.

And the code says this applies to 'reasonable belief' of "any violation of this code in ocifers (sic) presence", although this would have to apply to citeable offenses. The code contains violations even for pedestrians, with fines as low as 5 bux.

And yes, the code also specifies that all (what are called in PA) "summary offenses" (ie- infractions and low class misdemeanors) are excluded from the definition of a "crime". But so what? There is still arrest/detention procedure apparently available for even jaywalking. (although parking tickets are excluded, by law).

This seems to be distinct from the purely civil offenses that have no legal arrest procedure- although warrants may issue for payment of fines, like contempt charges or municipal violations.

So where does this all leave us?

BTW- even if it's all bluff or buffaloe, and it gets the job done, great! A real bushido warrior intimidates his opponents into submission. without actual joinder.

[612Actual]

farmer_giles_of_ham wrote - And yes, the code also specifies that all (what are called in PA) "summary offenses" (ie- infractions and low class misdemeanors) are excluded from the definition of a "crime". But so what? There is still arrest/detention procedure apparently available for even jaywalking. (although parking tickets are excluded, by law).

This seems to be distinct from the purely civil offenses that have no legal arrest procedure- although warrants may issue for payment of fines, like contempt charges or municipal violations.

So where does this all leave us?

-----------------------------

Maybe it would be a good idea to find out the precise limits of your servant's power so you have greater control over them. At the very least you'll be able to ask the cop some cogent questions when he/she's on the stand re the rules they agreed to follow.

Apparently the holding in Hamilton v. Gourley hasn't sunk in. Apparently the fact that cops are applying the State's police power to NONcriminal conduct hasn't sunk in. That would be a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine to say the least.

Your question was "But so what? So where does this all leave us?" I dunno where it leaves you. What you choose to do when your servants make an error, or worse, is up to you.

When you're caused to halt by a cop and in your mind you aren't free to break off contact without fear of retaliation then the 4th Amendment reasonableness standard kicks in because the cop has made SEIZURE/ARREST. An arrest without a warrant is prima facie illegal.

Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification.
People v. Holguin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d. 520 [302 P.2d. 635].

Let's review a few of the things a cop does when they act without authorization:

The cop engages in unauthorized conduct.
The cop violates his/her oath.
The cop violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
The cop acted under color of authority.
The cop makes a false arrest.
The cop subjects the party to false imprisonment.
The cop violated the Constitution.
The cop disparaged and denied YOUR secured rights.
The cop broke the very rules he/she swore the mandated oath of office not to break.

If it's ok with people for cops to make unauthorized warrantless arrests for NONcriminal conduct and all that other stuff then they appear to be somewhere other than where I want to be.

You have secured rights and the cops are your servants who agreed to follow rules, one of which is not to disparage or deny your secured rights. Proceed accordingly.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

"precise limits to police power"- all I know is what is in the vehicle code. If there is more law than that, great, help me to understand how it overcomes the mandates in the VC so I can use it, too. But this is what I have found out so far.

The VC makes certain conduct "quasi-criminal", excluded from regular criminal doctrine/laws but with some police/criminal-like implications. By my read of this, it's not exactly noncriminal, in that there is legalized arrest power. maybe some states are different. How and to whom that applies is still an open question, and I would like to know more.

in this 'quasicriminal' law there is procedure for a formally warantless arrest. Both to 'detain', upon 'reasonable belief', as well as 'systematic checking program',

and to fully 'arrest', upon 'probable cause'.

Any arrest or detention without the prerequisite 'beliefs', 'systematic check', or 'probable cause' is of course unlawful, and illegal.

Are you saying that the VC is itself unconstitutional, or in conflict with some other law or court case?

It's just that it seems that the rules the cops are supposed to follow apparently give them power to arrest and detain people over alleged violations of the VC, including infractions like jaywalking.

But if that's wrong show otherwise and I will be glad to hear it. Right now I dont get it and so it has not sunk in, because I need more info.

[612Actual]

farmer_giles_of_ham wrote - all I know is what is in the vehicle code. If there is more law than that, great, help me to understand how it overcomes the mandates in the VC so I can use it, too. But this is what I have found out so far.

----------------------

Maybe you need to look somewhere other than the VC for the limits of power of cops. You'll find lots of information in your state's appellate level and supreme court decisions. You might want to hook-up a free account with FindLaw and begin reviewing court cases for your state.

West’s California Digest
Vol. 14B
CRIMINAL LAW §§1 - 303
p. 77

I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME AND DEFENSES IN GENERAL.
1. Nature of crime in general.

Cal.App. 1914. In View of Code Civ. Proc. § 24, declaring actions to be two kinds, civil and criminal, and § 22, defining actions, there is no such thing as a “quasi-criminal act.”
Ex Parte Clark, 141 P. 831, 24 C.A. 389.

Remember, the VC isn't the Penal Code. Remember, the VC isn't the Constitution. The State Constitution trumps the VC. A CODE isn't a STATUTE.

In order to "overcome" the "mandate" you MUST understand what's happening. What does the VC regulate? What are the proper limits of a cop's power? What are the proper limits of the State Legislature? What's the difference between a government created, regulated, and taxed privilege and your UNALIENABLE rights?

You MUST KNOW who you are in the eyes of the law. Did you APPLY for privileges at the DMV? IF so and they GRANTED you the privilege you asked for then you have a contract with the DMV. You might want to invest some time in the understanding what constitutes a valid agreement/contract. You might check your Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedures re contracts.

[612Actual]

Due to the fact that the State Legislature provides the rules for everything in the State Codes, and IF there's such a jurisdiction identified by the term QUASI-CRIMINAL, then it's self-evident that the Legislature would have provided the Rules of Quasi-Criminal Procedure. Likewise, they would have provided the Rules for Quasi-Civil Procedures.

Something tells me that the Legislature provided NO SUCH RULES.

The traffic courts are creating a jurisdiction out of whole cloth that the Legislature NEVER created. This means that the traffic court commissioners (employees of the JUDICIAL branch), are LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. Sir, that is a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. It is a violation of their oaths.

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF CALIFORNIA
§§ 2 - 33

§24. Actions are of two kinds:

1. Civil; and,
2. Criminal.

Uh, I don't see the terms "Quasi-Criminal", do you? The Legislature hasn't provided for a third category of "Actions", just TWO. And they haven't provided any RULES for that which doesn't exist either. So someone is misinformed.

[612Actual]

farmer_giles_of_ham wrote - Are you saying that the VC is itself unconstitutional, or in conflict with some other law or court case?

-----------------

NO SIR I AM NOT! IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL! IT REGULATES COMMERCE AND THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE. THE CREATION OF THE DMV IS WITHIN THE LEGITIMATE POWERS OF THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO WITH COMMERCE. IF YOU "DRIVE" A "MOTOR VEHICLE" THEN YOU BEST COMPLY WITH THE LAW OR ELSE.

However, when the VC is APPLIED to someone who does NOT come within it's provisions, the APPLICATION of the VC or whatever section is called into question IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The VC and the APPLICATION of the VC are what are to be considered when discussing CONSTITUTIONALITY.

[612Actual]

farmer_giles_of_ham wrote: It's just that it seems that the rules the cops are supposed to follow apparently give them power to arrest and detain people over alleged violations of the VC, including infractions like jaywalking.

But if that's wrong show otherwise and I will be glad to hear it. Right now I dont get it and so it has not sunk in, because I need more info.

----------------------

Sir, the Legislature has provided RULES for cops when they make contact in relation to an alleged violation of the VC.

Take a look at Cal VC section 40300 et seq. Look specifically at section 40300.5 That section uses "ENABLING LANGUAGE" that AUTHORIZES the "peace officer" to make a WARRANTLESS ARREST. Then look at the circumstances under which the WARRANTLESS ARREST "MAY" be made. I don't see ANY "ENABLING LANGUAGE" whereby the "peace officer" has been AUTHORIZED to make a "WARRANTLESS ARREST" for jaywalking, or any other garden variety infraction for that matter UNLESS the officer has reason to believe you were DRUNK, DRUGGED or a COMBINATION of the two and were blocking a driveway or in an accident or one of the other SPECIFIED circumstances.

Remember, this is what the Legislature has provided for California, maybe the Legislature in your state provided something different.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Whatever works...more power to you.

Maybe it is different from state to state- my experience is mostly with PA. And a pedestrian may be stopped under the VC, and even arrested, subject to procedure, for a $5 jaywalking ticket, as well as required to write his name in the presence of the 'officer', for identity. So sayeth the code, anyway.

And a pedestrian has no nexus with the DMV. But he does have a nexus with the interactive property of 'traffic', which by the very sound of it is commercial, and over which the state claims police powers.

And evidently, the State HAS provied the rules of quasi-criminal procedure- they are the VC rules of process for detentions and arrests. Quasi-criminal is a civil type action, with criminal implications.

No, I have no contract with any DMV (neither do pedestrians) but the states do retain jurisdiction of the active use of the public roads. My theory is that motoring about in traffic is what we do whether we are paid to or not, that the whole thing is analagous to boats, and that one is either sailing under the local domestic flag or under a foreign one. And everything else proceeds from there.

Scroll through my posts on this thread for more on that.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/genera...rted-chip.html


As far as WHO the VC applies to what I get from it is that the person who is in physical control of a device used to transport or draw persons or property is a driver subject to the licenseing requirements, or exempt therefrom.

Which leaves some unanswered questions- a person is definitely a legal character so how do we aquire that status? And, what does transport mean, especially since the Dept of Transportation is all about business activity.