Traffic Ticket Question

[612Actual]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The laws don't deny him the use of an automobile, only the privilege of being in the driver's seat.

It's imperative to the discussion that we be mindful of the terms we're using.

DRIVING, MOTOR VEHICLE, TRANSPORT, TRAFFIC, PASSENGER, OPERATOR, LICENSE, TRANSPORTATION, DRIVER - ALL have to do with BUSINESS.

I am a "man" and I "use" my "personal property" to "travel" to the store to buy food. When my "companion" or "friend" or "family" member accompanies me I do not charge them a fee so they are not a "passenger".

You can just as easily substitute the words "personal property", "personal chattel", "consumer goods", "household goods", "appliance" to identify your car. They are CORRECT terms.

Instead of the term "drive" substitute the term "use". Instead of the term "driving", substitute the term "using". Instead of saying "I drove to the store", substitute "I went to the store."

Don't use the TERMS found in the VC because they refer to BUSINESS/COMMERCE. Let the ACCUSER use those terms and they are REQUIRED TO PROVE that those terms correctly apply to you, your conduct, your rights, and your property. If you're accused of DRIVING, and because DRIVING is commercial, then a RECEIPT, BILL OF LADING, MANIFEST, or some other EVIDENCE of BUSINESS/COMMERCE MUST EXISTS that could be introduced to support the unsupported claim by the accuser.

OBJECTION, hearsay. There's no evidence before the court that establishes that I was "driving".

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Citation or complaint filed in local police court means writing on a piece of paper that conforms to the legal standard presented to a judicial authority who then issues process, like a summons or warrant. Office keeps records for internal use but no public filing sytem. No stenographer, can bring one privately. Not linked with regular county level court until they send the file to the regular main courthouse. Summary process mostly, temporary and emergency decisions. 'Justice-of-the-Peace'.

Not a court of record, automatic appeals. Handles preliminaries and small cases. Can still send rear end to jail and corrupt justice right and left.

Difference with a court of record is same thing but with clerk of court office attached, public filing system, stenographer at hearings. "Court of Common Pleas"

[612Actual]

steve762 wrote - Blind siding the cop is an excellent tactic. City attorney or who ever is going to come to the aid of the cop and attempt objection, you will certainly need to know you case law.

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

I believe you're in Cal right? If so then there is no prosecutor in an infraction matter. Which is another issue.

Due to the fact it'll be you, the cop, and the commissioner, the only one who can jump in to assist the cop is the commissioner. That would be practicing law from the bench which he can't do. While on the bench his privilege to practice law is suspended. You need to be prepared for such a contingency.

Re keeping the commissioner out of the equation. The court will want FACTS. Ok, so you tailor your questions in such a way to elicit facts.

Officer Doe, is it a fact...

By tailoring your questions to the officer's credibility, PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, verifying whether he followed the rules, you'll drastically reduce the incentive for the commissioner to "jump in".

There's only 3 kinds of questions you can ask:

1. Open Ended
2. Multiple Choice
3. Commitment

The first type calls for any type of response.

The second LIMITS the response to a few choices.

The third LIMITS the responses to ONLY three responses, YES, NO, I DON'T KNOW.

You want to pummel the cop with COMMITMENT questions. If the cop attempts to offer an opinion to a COMMITMENT question you get to yank hard on the reigns. Officer, I did not ask for an opinion, please answer yes or no. IF the cop continues to blather on you can become increasingly indignant: You honor, please instruct the witness to answer the question yes or no.

You basically want to establish the cop's correct identity re the PROCEDURES ON WARRANTLESS ARRESTS. In Cal the cop has been identified by the terms "peace officer". So first things first: Officer Doe, are you a "peace officer" as provided by the Legislature in the Vehicle Code?

Then you want to begin focusing on his credibility. Officer Doe, is it a fact that you attended the police academy?
Officer Doe, is it a fact that you graduated from the police academy?
Did you receive the P.O.S.T. certificate?

These questions appear to be silly and unnecessary, HOWEVER, you're LAYING A FOUNDATION of the officer's credibility. He went to school to learn to be a cop right?! Do you think they would have taught him what is and isn't a crime and the rules he's required to follow when he becomes a cop? All these types of questions go to CREDIBILITY.

Then you can focus on the "peace officer's" PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

Officer Doe, are there rules you're required to follow when enforcing the Vehicle Code?
Officer Doe, is it a fact that you followed the rules you're required to follow when you allegedly enforced the Vehicle Code resulting in our being here today?
Officer Doe, is it a fact that you have personal knowledge that you've been authorized to do what you did?

As you can see, these types of questions SHOULD limit the initiative for the commissioner to want to play.

If you ask the cop the last question and he doesn't know the rule that authorized him to do what he did then he committed perjury right?

Looking good for the defense wouldn't you say?

[612Actual]

steve762 wrote - Go for the Quash, if that is ignored, you would proceed with the the arrest issue and everything else you had laid foundation for at trial or in motions.

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

IF the MTQ gets denied then presumably the prosecution denied it right? IF there's NO PROSECUTOR then who denied the MTQ? And IF the MTQ gets denied, was any OPPOSITION filed?

What's the deal on the denial of unopposed motions?

Seems to me we'd have a substantial due process issue.

[612Actual]

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Yarris, 465 F.3d at 140 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
JILL BURELLA, individually and as parent and guardian of BETH ANN BURELLA, DANIELLE BURELLA, and NICHOLAS BURELLA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; ROBERT REAMER, individually and as a police officer of the City of Philadelphia; WARREN ZALUT; CHARLES BLOOM, individually and as a police officer of the City of Philadelphia; FRANCIS GRAMLICH, individually and as a police officer of the City of Philadelphia; JOHN DOE I, individually and as a police officer of the City of Philadelphia; JOHN DOE II, individually and as a police officer of the City of Philadelphia; JOHN DOE III, individually and as a police officer of the City of Philadelphia; JOHN DOE IV, individually and as a police officer of the City of Philadelphia, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, Nos. 04-1157/2495, September 13, 2007

Does a “peace officer”, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the people’s rights secured by that document, who is authorized to apply the state’s police power to criminal conduct, have a duty to know what a “clearly established” substantive right is so they don't inadvertently apply the State' police power to NONcriminal conduct and disparage or deny what they swore not to disparage or deny?

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1849

Article I: Declaration of Rights

Sec. 1.

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

In other words, does a cop have a responsibility to KNOW that you have the forgoing specified and “clearly established” inalienable rights?

A cop went to the police academy.
They graduated from the police academy.
They were taught about crime and other issues related to the lawful use of the State’s police power.
They received the Police Officer Standard and Training Certificate.
They probably went to college.
They swear an oath to uphold the constitution.

How can they possibly uphold what the constitution secures unless they know what the constitution “clearly establishes”?

The Vehicle Code even “establishes” something:

§4. No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect, and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code, but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the provisions of this code so far as possible.

Does it seem reasonable that the officer would be hired without knowing this stuff?

[Shuftin]

http://www.policecrimes.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=582

A Mentally Sick Joke Of "We Are The People, By The People, And For The People".

[PAID BY INJURED PARTY] Judge “Guilty!!!”.

[PAID BY INJURED PARTY] Judge turns to Prosecuting Attorney and asks “Guilty?”

[PAID BY INJURED PARTY] Prosecuting Attorney “Guilty!!!”.

[PAID BY INJURED PARTY] Judge turns to Police Officer (Witness) and asks “Guilty?”

[PAID BY INJURED PARTY] Police Officer (Witness) “Guilty!!!”.

[INJURED PARTY] State rules that “The Defendant is Guilty!!!”.

A "FAIR TRIAL" in America is a fiction/fantasy. Is there a Court Trial? YES. Is this a Fair Trial? HELL NO. Every one in the Court Room from the top down is on the "INJURED PARTIES" pay roll except the Defendant who stands alone cowering in the corner with a noose already tied around his neck.

For there to be a CRIME there must first be an INJURED PARTY with allegations of personal Injury/Loss. The writ (Command) of Habeas Corpus or "the right to face your accuser” was established so that Defendants could face and rebut the INJURED PARTY'S allegations of personal Injury/Loss.

Is anything lost? “No”.
Is anything stolen? "No".
Is anything damaged? “No”.
Is anything missing? “No”.
Is anything altered? “No”.
Is anything dead? “No”.
Have you suffered an Injury/Loss at all? “No”.

No Injury/Loss established then no CRIME committed. Pure “Mater of fact”

The State (through fiction) claims to be an "INJURED PARTY". The STATE claims to be the "INJURED PARTY" because of what/why? "WELL BECAUSE WE SAY SO".

Here is the kicker.

Who pays the Judges Wages? “STATE" [Injured Party].
Who pays the Prosecuting Attorneys Wages? “STATE" [Injured Party]”.
Who pays the Witnesses Wages (Police Officers)? “STATE" [Injured Party]”.

[Injured Party] "STATE" has all the cards and the deck is stacked against you.
[Injured Party] "STATE" holds you to be guilty until you prove yourself, by yourself. to be innocent.

This conviction has been pre-purchased years in advance by the [Injured Party] "STATE". The Court Trial is a one-way-street that is railroaded and steamrolled against the Defendant with an all out lynch mob mentality. Is this a “Conflict Of Interest”? Think about it for a minute.

The STATE claim of being the "INJURED PARTY" is simply this:

"Whine Whine Whine. SOMETHING WAS INDEED BROKEN. Sob Sob, STATE LAW WAS BROKEN. Sniffle, Sniffle. WE ARE AN "INJURED PARTY" Sob Sob.

Give----me----ah----break. So what!!! (red headed step child) Take your ball and go home!!! Did the STATE with the "Burden of Proof" provide evidance that they suffered an Injury/Loss and are thus an "INJURED PARTY"?

History repeats itself. William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania (Penn’s Woods), was arrested numerous times for breaking "STATE LAW". One CRIME that William Penn committed was preaching Quakerism. Another CRIME that William Penn committed was speaking his mind on a public street corner. The STATE had a "STATE LAW" against this. Breaking "STATE LAW" was committing a "CRIME". William Penn was Criminal according to the STATE. William Penn had broken "STATE LAW".

William Penn’s Defense was “Who was Harmed (Injured)?” “How can there be a CRIME if no one suffered an Injury/Loss?” “The LAW is wrong if by LAW a CRIME took place and there is no "INJURED PARTY" claiming Injury/Loss”.

Many of our freedoms today are the direct result of William Penn's Defense.

Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom to assemble
Freedom of the press
Trial by jury of of our peers
Etc., etc., etc.

Breaking "STATE LAW" was considered a CRIME. William Penn was a Criminal. A person could be arrested and thrown into jail for the Criminal act of breaking "STATE LAW".

It was Criminal to break "STATE LAW" for no reason other than simply the STATE itself proclaimed that breaking "STATE LAW" was a CRIME.

Jump into today’s world of 2007. The STATE has "STATE LAW". Breaking "STATE LAW" is both Criminal and a CRIME. If William Penn were alive today he would argue the same arguements that he argued in his era. "If here is a CRIME then show me the INJURED PARTY whom was harmed.

“We the people” are allowing America to regress back into the Totarian Dictatorship of William Penn's era.

NOTE: This is not cut-n-paste. This is pure Shuftin - ism. Don't even go down that road. Bitch to me and try to cut me off at the knees.

http://www.policecrimes.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=582

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The thing is we are products of our time. Time was ripe for a William Penn, under those circumstances. And he was willing, and able. The progress of history called-forth a William Penn; if we read and consider the Bible (as he did) we know what is coming now. NWO triumphant, period- for a time. Resistance is useless, just as the carpenter from Nazereth said- "resist not evil". It calls for the patience of saints, someone who I am not in the least.

It is an attribute of sovereignty to establish and regulate laws; and there is a whole background of William Penn and countless others that informs and shapes what is law, and how things get done. Most of what goes on is another version of ancient ways. "There is nothing new under the sun".

It behooves us to learn what these ways and means are; like Dorothy in OZ we are "already home", if only we can see clear.

[David Merrill]

Let's have a link please, Steve.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[aksis]

steve762,

Your posts are full of subtle misleading crap... what a sh|t sandwich...

In the Central Distrist MetropolitanCourthouse
In and For Los Angeles County


City of LosAngeles
Answer and
Plaintiff Special Appearance and
Demand to Quash

...
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Under the U.S. Constitution I have the privliges and immunities of the Citizens of the several ...

This guy is running a psych job on this community.

If you are new to this forum, look really close at the verbage in Steve762's docs and posts. There are some good points, but there are many fatal statements that will cut off your balls.


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[mrg]

Montana/North Dakota?