Suspended License, Need Help.

I moved from California four years ago, but I do not think that they have changed this. Check the Vehicle code for "probable cause" for issuance of a "Notice to Appear". There used to be only three reasons. (1) involved in an accident (2) suspected of driving under the influence (3) suspect in a crime

Before you aloww arraignment. Motion for "Probable Cause Hearing"

Also, I believe it is section 803, but I know it is in the 800s. The code states that private citizen can operate private automobile without lisence. Of courst this section is not included in the book you get from the DMV. We found the code in the archives in Sacramento.

If you e-mail me, I may be able to get you a contact in your area or at least in California who already has this for California. Or find a ny of the books written by Tom Maxwell.

Windwalker Hawke
rmaness@uscrangers.org

[TheBlackTruth]

Kitchie

That would be a quick way to get yourself a 30-day psychological evaluation. That is, if the only question you asked the PD was "would you like to go to jail in my place?" Exactly what aspect of legal incompetence does one prove with the answer to that question?

These "courts" are very much judicial. Only a judicial court can asses a penalty of jailtime and enforce it. Only a judicial court can issue an arrest warrant. If you are sitting in a court and it does either of these functions, it is a judicial court. Why is this? Separation of Powers. The Executive branch cannot perform functions delegated to the Legislative.

-BT

[Akira]

tlynum,

Sorry... I somehow missed this...

This is an essential part of the briefs arguement above..


I don't see man or woman there do you?

The canon of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" or "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" holds that "to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative." Black's Law Dictionary pg. 602 (7th ed. 1999).

[KITCHIE]

The courts are administrative.

The courts are operating under Statute Law. A “Statute” is defined in black’s 4th edition revised as a kind of bond or obligation of record, being an abbreviation for “statute merchant” or “statute staple.”

Recognizance. A bond or obligation of record binding a person to some act as to appear in court and subject to forfeit money if obligation is not fulfilled.

The court is looking for an acceptance and acceptor under 3-410 of the U.C.C. as the Principle has the primary obligation to pay or discharge any instrument presented for acceptance. Since they are presenting a Bill of Exchange [indictment] for acceptance. This is called an acceptance for honor, which involves a negotiable instrument especially a bill of exchange [indictment] that has been accepted for payment. The complaint, information or indictment is a three party Draft, Commercial paper, or Bill of Exchange under Article 3 of the U.C.C. The Grand Jury Foreman is the Drawer or Maker of the Indictment by his signature, the Defendant/Debtor or Strawman is the Drawee and the State is the Payee and the live man is the Payor. What they are doing in the courtroom is all commercial; this is in conformity to 27 CFR 72.11, where it says all crimes are commercial.

And if you get the PD going by asking if he is willing to go to jail for you then you're gonna find out what kind of defense he/she has planned for you...right?

Kitchie

[TheBlackTruth]

Kitchie,

An administrative court cannot send you to jail. I would love for you to prove me wrong, though. The courts you walk into for a traffic violation are very much judicial. The problem is that they SHOULD be administrative. Read your state's Administrative Procedures Act and find out how it is supposed to work.

-BT

imagine what would happen if people started returning the true bill (indictment)back to the jury foreman instead of the court and what the cheese start binding. people need to start making these grand jury people pay up for violating their rights also. they are just as guilty as the district attorney, judge and cop for locking up folks who havent damaged anyone. and get this, they CANNOT CLAIM IMPARTIALITY because they are paid by the state!!!

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

These "courts" are very much judicial. Only a judicial court can asses a penalty of jailtime and enforce it. Only a judicial court can issue an arrest warrant. If you are sitting in a court and it does either of these functions, it is a judicial court. Why is this? Separation of Powers. The Executive branch cannot perform functions delegated to the Legislative.

-BT

BT, I am curious if you can back up this claim. Have you read the AmJur in the download section on Administrative law?

Kitchie asked a question, you made a claim. I'd like to see the proof that an administrative agent acting as a judge cannot issue an arrest warrant or issue jail time.

The fact is, in the Administrative, they can do whatever the heck they want to do. There are NO rules. Read the AmJur on Administrative, and you will see the light.


(this is a friendly challenge, not being a smart a$$)


HB


I just looked, and I don't see the do***ent that I refer to.


SuiJuris, is it on the new site?

[TheBlackTruth]

HB,

Your state's APA governs what an Administrative Agency can and cannot do. There are most definitely "rules" they have to follow.

If there were no rules, then we all may as well unplug the server to this site, go home and wait for the men with guns to come. I did skim the AmJur on the subject (i believe Jim brought it up in an earlier post?) but I must remind you that the AmJur isn't law. Nor does it controvert my thesis. The examples I posted on another thread are the results of a study of the California APA as it relates to the Vehicle Code, however, you can find similar code sections that govern virtually every government agency of the state.

It isn't substantial evidence that supports my statements about courts being judicial, it is the LACK thereof. Show me a delegation of authority where the Judiciary has delegated its power to issue warrants and assess jail sentences to Administrative Agencies and then we can talk.

The fact is, the doctrine of separation of powers specifically bars against any such cross-delegation of powers.

If you ask the judge in traffic court if these proceedings are judicial, he will say yes EVERYTIME. I've yet to hear of anyone getting a negative answer to that question. Are the Judges lying? If Judges can lie on the bench on such fundemental questions of law, then again we should just all go home.

Even IF these proceedings were administrative in nature, it would be even easier to get the matter resolved. Also if you didn't like the outcome of the Admin Hearing, you could always request a Judicial Review of the determination.

The problem is the Agency is taking you straight to a Judicial Review without first having an agency determination to view in the first place. Because of this, the Agency lacks standing to sustain its case against you.

Its all there in the APA/VC!

-BT

[Avie]

Please see link from JAIL on issue of suspension.

http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Libra...04-06-06B.html

[Akira]

Hey Avie,

exactly....

What the state typically does, is a bill of attainer and a tort.