Traffic Ticket Question

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

as mentioned in a related thread today,

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

the question is-

"what is valid"? Yeah ok , required a valid ID , valid DL, valid whatever, but who can make that determination? If the presentment conforms to the legal and cutomary standard of validity- where's the case?

Attorners will say, "valid= legal issue from home state". OK- what is my home state and what are the rules there?

The challenge seems to be overcoming assumptions, and presumptions. But mostly assumptions, as-seen-on-TV, etc

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I hear you- but legally the cop can't make any determinations. That would be offering his own private opinion or conclusions, the judges job. He (in theory) needs to have 1st hand knowledge to offer as proof for whatever may be considered to manifest the elements of the offense charged.

For example- "Do I hold a valid permit from my home state?" He cant answer that, especially if he has no access to your home state.

the mere allegation, "driving w/o license" ( not the charge, but the allegation) is inadmissible because it is hearsay and a conclusion. So where is the claim made to support a charge of "driving w/o", or whatever.

it's just that in my experience so many charges are issued without stating all the elements of the offense claimed or, more frequently, with the elements merely insinuated, or "suggested"

I got charged with 'disorderly conduct' once, the allegation in it's entirety was-

"urinating in public on corner of x&y street"

Of course I didn't understand this at the time, but that was a conclusion. The law is about offending in public view, or on public property. Cop never actually said he witnessed me urinate; he just claimed a 'circumstance'. I ought to have objected that he needed to claim a happenstance- "I saw this happen" or something like that.

He failed to say whether "the corner" was in public view at all, but they are a bit clever and insinuate, by saying "on the corner" that this was in public view. And he never said he actually witnessed me urinate, and that I did so openly.

But he never claimed this, so there was no stated cause of action. I had nothing to defend against for lack of an attack!

(he knew well what he was doing because that particular corner of the world happened to be the bushes at night in the darkness on my own property. But for all we know from his statement he meant that he peeped in my bathroom window, which is also on the corner, along with the entire house and yard!)

public education and TV I have noticed teaches us to confuse and conflate, to mis-join, circumstance, and happenstance.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by steve762

Aksis is currently barred from having Title 42 section 1983 complaints for federal court written up for him until he shows me any abatement he has done inside or outside the continental U.S.

Or:

Reopens the Master Race poll

Comon Aksis, finish what you started.

Your offer is refused for cause.


And it's TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Not TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1983.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

You press gang style of hyperbolo is un-impressive... what you lack in Diplomacy, you have to make up for in Court... get a clue.


Sincerley,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

A) I didn't close that thread,

B) All you do in the Racism: the real enemy thread is talk about your lack of computer skills and how cool you are being in this one:

"I can not start my own thread"

and
"I am Shogun of the Traffic thread"

... Oh, and get schooled on your racist propaganda.

So what do you need it reopened for anyways?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by steve762

The statute that will be used to prosecute you for remaining silent. The statute has to describe the behavior that is "harrassing" or "interfering" the cop.

They would have to pretty much say in the statute that remaining silent is the harrassment or interference being used against the cop.

That's exactly what they did in State v. Hamilton (Utah Supreme, 1985) 710 P2d 174.

[Bailey]

Steve,

I haven't read that case but I would have to agree with what you have said if that is the case. Unconstitutional on a number of grounds. Hell, you can probably go find case law that says black people have to ride in the back of the bus. Does that make it so?

Shoonra thinks the government can tell people what to do and the people just have to do it. According to Shoonra, if the government required it.. a person why have to pay to walk down the sidewalk. You are never going to convince a person like that of anything. Hilter had every legal right to do what what he was doing, so does that make it right? shoonra would probably say it was perfectly legal for him to do so.

Steve, you are not going to convince that type of person anything.

What people like that don't like to hear is that what is happening is very wrong legally and morally. They will defend it to the end, usually they receive benefits from the government itself... and make excuses for it.

They tell you how wrong you are and than when your cases get dismissed they come up with some excuse as to why it did... instead of point to the facts.

Keep up the good work steve, I can't say I agree with you on everything you do... but if you believe in it, I have no problem with that.

Originally Posted by steve762

Then the statute is unconstitutional. Particularly in the case of Free Exercise of Religious beliefs.

[aksis]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I don't recognize Baily as your "peer"... yet.

I don't recognize Baily as the "Marshall of this thread", or a Marshall.

Baily do you have an Oath of Office on file with this thread? [Baily, this question is rhetorical. ;-) ]

___________________

I have dismissed 15 of the past 16 traffic citations written against me.

Steve762,

Do you have State plates on your car? Remaining silent would not matter on this point, it would be an obvious fact that dosn't require you to say anything. Yes or No? Do you have State plates on your car?

In the 16 cases you refered to, how did you identify your self when asked for identification?



Regardes,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes



P.S.

Steve762,

I am wondering how you became subject to the jurisdiction of an Administrative Hearing.

Why are you recognizing a non-Constitutinaly ordained and established Administrative Hearing as a Court?

From my point of view, it's not un-constitutinal, it is non-constitutinal.

While this non-constitutinality grants no immunity from prosecution [USC 18 Sec. 242], there is the obligation of contracts to consider.

I must presume there was no meeting of the minds regarding a waiver of any unalienable rights secured by the Constitution[s] with out express written waiver of said rights. So, as far as I am concerned, such implied, or even vaugly written terms of any accord intended to cause any party to waive a right are void, and further, unalienable rights are unwaiveable.

But you are not appearing before my Court, now are you?

Care to contribute to the thread, Aksis, please explain again how to do an abatement? Can you do an abatement on a traffic citation?

Can you avoid causing traffic citations to be issued?

Can you avoid accepting traffic citations?

Can you timely refuse to contract with the agent[s] of the municipal corporation?

Can you explain why you keep appearing at non-Constitutinal Administrative hearing? And then explain how you think this impresses many People at this forum?

Kudos on the the 'wins'.

Oh and it's pleading in abatement... I don't plead to Administrative Hearings.. but I could... I could also have my balls removed as well, but I don't do that either.



P.P.S.

There is no right to infring upon the unalienable rights of others, regardless of what may be written in books or on paper, or even etched in stone, etc..

Hilter had every legal right to do what what he was doing, so does that make it right?

Baily,

While your implication makes a good point, I don't think shoonra would go that far (Or better said, I hope she wouldn't). She does appear to ignore the fact that statutes are void if they alienate rights.

Be mindful that it must be lawful for it to be legal (substance over form), so in light of this logical principle, I don't recognize that Hitler had any legal right to do what he did. Do you?

[612Actual]

The court held in Bailey:

The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a "consensual encounter" in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter. The second type, called "detention," involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur "if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime." The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491; Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d 777.)
PEOPLE v. BAILEY , 176 Cal.App.3d 402
[No. H000583. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District. December 17,1985.]

We can use the Vehicle Code against the cop. See VC section 40500. This is where the Legislature has identified the "contact", the identity of the cop and the identity of the "contactee". Then see VC 40504. This is where the Legislature has informed us that the "officer shall forthwith release the person arrested from custody."

Let the cop call it what he wants, "stop", "traffic stop", "detention" which can be used against him. The Legislature DID NOT provide those terms in reference to the "contact" so it's "hearsay".

Peace officers took an oath to follow rules. The question arises: "What rules are cops required to follow when allegedly enforcing the Vehicle Code"? Where would we find the rules? Howzabout in the Vehicle Code itself! The Legislature was kind enough to specify the procedures a PEACE OFFICER is required to follow when making a "warrantless arrest" right in the Vehicle Code itself.

The argument turns on the correct identity of the "contact" and we've been informed by the Legislature that the contact is an "arrest" and they've specified the procedures the PEACE OFFICER is mandated to comply with: 40300. The provisions of this chapter shall govern all peace officers in making arrests for violations of this code without a warrant...

What we're dealing with is a "warrantless arrest". The enabling language is located at 40300.5. Those are the ONLY conditions to which the PEACE OFFICER MAY make a warrantless arrest for alleged infractions of the Vehicle Code. In absence of authorization I dare say the dear PEACE OFFICER has a much bigger problem than the accused. And this cite could prove very useful re "authorization" or the lack thereof:

"'To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .' . . . 'If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'" (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)
Hamilton v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

[612Actual]

California Evidence Code

701. (a) A person is disqualified to be a witness if he or she is:

(1) Incapable of expressing himself or herself concerning the matter so as to be understood, either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him; or
(2) Incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.
(b) In any proceeding held outside the presence of a jury, the court may reserve challenges to the competency of a witness until the conclusion of the direct examination of that witness.

702. (a) Subject to Section 801, the testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter. Against the objection of a party, such personal knowledge must be shown before the witness may testify concerning the matter.
(b) A witness' personal knowledge of a matter may be shown by any otherwise admissible evidence, including his own testimony.

By constructing YES or NO questions to pose to the officer it should be a rather simple task to verify if he/she has "personal knowledge" of the rules they're required to follow when making a "warrantless arrest" for an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code.

[612Actual]

The "seizure" is a 2 part deal. The FIRST part is the SHOW OF AUTHORITY (red light), the SECOND part is the subject COMPLIANCE with the SHOW OF AUTHORITY. At the time the subject halts the "seizure" is complete.

Then the Legislature at Cal VC 40500 informs us of EXACTLY what it is the cop did, he/she made an ARREST. and the arrest was made without a warrant. The question is, Did the cop follow the rules re warrantless arrests? If he didn't then who's got the bigger problem?

The primary reason I elected to post stuff here is because someone is hep to Battle and Sava and the opinions are reasonable with an eye toward accuracy. The cat's out of the bag and someone has some explaining to do.

Cops are applying the State's police power to NONcriminal conduct. Cops are making WARRANTLESS ARRESTS for NONcriminal conduct.

Nevertheless the violator is, during the period immediately preceding his execution of the promise to appear, under arrest. (People v. Weitzer (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 274, 294 [75 Cal.Rptr. 318]; People v. Valdez (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 459, 462 [48 Cal.Rptr. 840].) fn. 2 Some courts have been reluctant to use the term "arrest" to describe the status of the traffic violator on the public street waiting for the officer to write out the citation (see People v. Nunn (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 919, 923, fn. 4 [70 Cal.Rptr. 869]; People v. Wohlleben (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 461, 463 [67 Cal.Rptr. 826]; People v. Nieto (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 364, 369 [55 Cal.Rptr. 546]. The Vehicle Code however, refers to the person awaiting citation as "the arrested person." fn. 3 Viewing the situation functionally, the violator is being detained against his will by a police officer, for the purpose of obtaining his appearance in connection with a forthcoming prosecution. The violator is not free to depart until he has satisfactorily identified himself and has signed the written promise to appear.
People v. Hubbard , 9 Cal.App.3d 827
[Crim. No. 17355. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four. July 22, 1970.]

An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution.
UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)

Now IF an infraction ISN'T criminal in NATURE then what the hell are the cop's doing applying the State's police power to NONcriminal conduct? How do you get a CRIMINAL action from NONcriminal conduct? Yeah I know about what the Legislature wrote in the PC about infractions, but are we confusing PROCESS (verb) with the NATURE of infraction (noun)? Does the PROCESS make conduct that is NONcriminal criminal?

Is there any evidence besides the most explicit statement on the subject of what an infraction is and isn't as held by the Court of Appeals in Sava? Hell yes!

When was the infraction introduced into California law? 1969. Who sponsored and endorsed the legislation that eventually became the LAW in 1969 creating the class of wrong doing INFRACTION? The Judicial Council of California. Well guess what?! The Judicial Council sponsored and endorsed the legislation creating the NONcriminal traffic infraction.

Evidence is a good thing right? Well what if we had a piece of evidence from the horse's mouth that informs us just exactly what the nature of an infraction of the Vehicle Code is? Ya think that might alter the argument a little?

Go here and take a look at what's on p. 6 under MILESTONES for the year 1967. Keep in mind that there's only ONE entry. Apparently it was pretty important and everything else that the Judicial Council did that year paled in comparison because it wasn't note worthy in their Annual Report: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/referenc...s/ar2001-1.pdf

Then take a look at:

COURT NEWS
NOVEMBER―DECEMBER 1999
Historical highlights from the last hundred years of the California judiciary
1965
“Judicial Council endorses legislation that classifies minor traffic violations as noncriminal infractions subject to trial without jury”
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtnews/novdec99-3.pdf

The only people to whom this stuff is a secret are the people themselves because the employees in government who drafted and enacted it sure as hell knew.

Then check out a couple of US Supreme Court decisions where they use the terms NONcriminal and civil. Welsh v. Wisconsin 466 U.S. 740 (1984), and WHREN et al. v. UNITED STATES, No. 95-5841.(1996) on cert. You probably won't like what the court had to say in Whren but they still identified the infraction as "civil".

Then you might want to take a look at a Cal AG opinion No. 04-1202 from Feb 8, 2006, re VC sections 4000 and 12500, which can be found here at the bottom of the page: http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/yearly_index.php?year=2006

The collective work of a whole lot of dedicated people is coming together and the members of the Black Robe Society, at least the ones at the appellate level, know full well that we know. They can not stop what's happening legally so they cheat, plain and simple. The twits at the lower level simply bastardize the case and leave it up to you to appeal. If you don't they win by default. They're playin a numbers game. They KNOW that only a very few will ride out the appeals process and run the case up to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. However, with enough people signing the same song they won't be able to continue to get away with the fraud.

Please, someone tell me that the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court doesn't know about all this. It's their DUTY to know about all this. The Sava court knew and ruled accordingly and Sava hasn't been overturned.

The cops who subject someone to a warrantless arrest for NONcriminal conduct are acting "beyond the scope" of their job description so their conduct is UNREASONABLE because it's ILLEGAL. They are liable in damages for false imprisonment in their PERSONAL CAPACITY.

Here's killer law review article out of Mass entitled "Driving Miss Hazy, Civil Motor Vehicle Infractions", by Stephen Kruger. Laugh at the title if you will but we'll see if yer still laughing when you get to the remedy.
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Evenue53...gmisshazy.html

Here's a Stanford Law Review article entitled "NONARREST AUTOMOBILE STOPS" re your right of AUTONOMOUS OTHER POSITIONING and AUTONOMOUS OTHER ENCOUNTERING.
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Evenue53/stan.html

I hope this stuff contributes a little something to the debate.

[612Actual]

See if it works this way

http://home.earthlink.net/venue53/drivingmisshazy.html