Highway stop

[mikah2k]

....................

[Codee]

In california a cop may pull you over for any public offense committed in his pressence. Even I could pull you over with what ever force was "nessecary"
"P.C. section 837. Private persons; authority to arrest
ARRESTS BY PRIVATE PERSONS. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code (2004)"

If a cop leaves his "corporate-physical-jurisdiction" he is then no less than a private person

What you want to do is argue that the cop had no jurisdiction to arrest you on a civil cause, if you want to argue - some dont recomend it for good reason.

If you do want to argue the jurisdiction of a cop try the following. It has a built in argument supposing that the court already told you that you have to pay for a court reporter or you don't get one (which is false and I will include everything on getting a court reporter upon request at Codee@mail.com)

SUPERIOR COURT
IN NEVADA COUNTY
AT NEVADA CITY CALIFORNIA
95959

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

V

CASE DOCKET# 159148

Cody James Roberts

Appearing specially
Motion to Dismiss due to lack of Jurisdiction


NOTICE
The court upon receipt of this document, will be deemed noticed of Cody James Roberts’s motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction.

ARGUMENT
It is hereby argued by the accused that the immediate court and the prosecuting party lack both subject matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction.
The immediate court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The code of civil procedure explicitly states that there are but two types of remedies, special proceedings and actions [Fn-1.] These two types of actions are civil and criminal [Fn-3.] This ought to mean that if an action is “non-criminal” then it is civil. The right to prosecute one type of action is not merged with the other a when person’s conduct violates both civil and criminal elements of the law [Fn-6.] The code of civil procedure states that the penal code proscribes the procedure for prosecuting criminal actions [Fn-5.] [Fn-2] [Fn-4]
The accused has been subject to criminal procedure for a civil action [Fn-7.] Accused has been kept in court-to-court arrest and enjoys liberty only upon signing a bail or recognizance. This is a display of criminal jurisdiction in a civil matter.
The accused had a plea entered by the court of not guilty. The court then held accused on a recognizance. The accused was never shown a formal complaint, which is required to be filed, so as to retaining jurisdiction. Holding of the accused by way of recognizance is within jurisdictional limitations for crimes with a formal complaint on record. Without such a complaint jurisdiction does not exist to hold. A court without jurisdiction has no power to hold, continue or otherwise proceed [Fn-13] [Fn-14] [Fn-15.]
Further, this court exceeded and continues to exceed its proscribed statutory jurisdiction by conducting affairs outside of the limitations allowed by statute by refusing to supply a court reporter upon demand by the accused [Fn-9] [Fn-10.]
Accused also contends that in personam jurisdiction was lost when the accused was placed under civil arrest by officer Xxxxx Xxxxx. Civil arrest, which is highly criticized and historically used only in post judgement, to secure the payment of such judgment, was improperly used. As a result accused was pulled into this court action involuntarily. By exceeding his jurisdiction in arresting the accused, Officer Wagner forfeited in personam jurisdiction in this case. It is further alleged by the accused that Officer Wagner did not have probable cause to make an arrest for a public offense [Fn-8.]

Footnotes
*Fn-1
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 21. “These remedies are divided into two classes:
1. Actions; and,
2. Special proceedings.”

*Fn-2
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 22. “An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense.”

*Fn-3
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 24. “Actions are of two kinds:
1. Civil; and,
2. Criminal.”

*Fn-4
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 25. “A civil action arises out of:
1. An obligation;
2. An injury.”

*Fn-5
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 31. THE PENAL CODE defines and provides for the prosecution of a criminal action.

*Fn-6
Code of Civil Procedure sec. 32. When the violation of a right admits of both a civil and criminal remedy, the right to prosecute the one is not merged in the
other.

*Fn-7
People vs. Battle 50 Cal app. 3rd supp.1 AND People v. Sava 190 Ca 3rd 935 state that infractions are non-criminal

*Fn-8
Freedom Riders (F.I.G.H.T.) v. Hannigan (commissioner of CHP) (exact cite unknown at this time) This 9th circuit federal appellate court ruling states that in California traffic stops are arrests for which probable cause is needed.


*Fn-9
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court , 57 Cal.2d 450 [S. F. No. 20843. In Bank. Mar. 22, 1962.] Reads in part (Emphasis added in bold):
“[1] Under these facts, whether or not the Kroiss case was decided correctly, the appellate department of the superior court exceeded its "jurisdiction," as that term is used in connection with the writ of certiorari, in refusing to follow a rule established by a court of superior jurisdiction.
[2] Certiorari, like prohibition, is, of course, a "juristdictional" writ. While it cannot be used to attack an error of a lower tribunal committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it is available when that tribunal has acted in excess of its "jurisdiction." (Simmons v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 373 [341 P.2d 13]; Portnoy v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 375 [125 P.2d 487].) [3] The meaning of "jurisdiction" for [57 Cal.2d 455] the purposes of certiorari and prohibition is different and broader than the meaning of the same term when used in connection with "jurisdiction" over the person and subject matter. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 , 288 [109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715]; Goldberg, The Extraordinary Writs and The Review of Inferior Court Judgments (1948) 36 Cal.L.Rev. 558, 576.) [4] In commenting on the meaning of "jurisdiction" in a prohibition case, it was said in Abelleira that, "Speaking generally, any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, are in excess of jurisdiction, in so far as that term is used to indicate that those acts may be restrained by prohibition or annulled on certiorari." (17 Cal.2d at p. 291.)”

*Fn-10
Mitchell v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.App.3d 759, 104 Cal Rptr 921.
"”... it seems well settled (and there appears to be no case holding to the contrary) that when a statute authorizes prescribed procedure, and the court acts contrary to the authority thus conferred, it has exceeded its jurisdiction, and certiorari will lie to correct such excess.'" (Also see: Rodman v. Superior Court (1939) 13 Cal.2d 262 , 269-271 [89 P.2d 109]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1068, 1222.)”“

*Fn-12
Ralph v Police Court of El Cerrito (1948) 84 Cal App.2d 257, 190 P2d 632.
“Where defendant charged in a police court with violation of § 505(b) pleaded not guilty and did not waive the filing of a complaint, such filing was mandatory.”

*Fn-13
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 4 10.

“Jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Los Angeles to try a defendant for a traffic:violation and enter judgment depends upon the existence of a formal complaint.”

*Fn-14
Rupley v Johnson (1953) 120 Cal App 2d 548, 261 P2d 318.

“On a plea other than guilty to traffic violations and in the absence of a waiver, a complaint must be filed before the court has jurisdiction.”

*Fn-15
Gavin v Municipal Court of San Diego Judicial Dist. (1960, 4th Dist) 184 Cal App 2d 712, 7 Cal Rptr 732.

“Defendant cited for and charged with violating secstion of Vehicle Code who pleads not guilty and does not waive filing of misdemeanor complaint, is not brought within jurisdiction of municipal, or other inferior, court, until verified complaint charging him with offense in question has been filed.”

I SWEAR THAT THE FORGOING INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOLEDGE.

[Codee]

I have had an uncanny amount of success in traffic court. I believe I owe a lot of it to the bitter pill strategy which a lot of "deny every-thingers" will not appreciate. I will share as much as I can here because if you really want to stop getting traffic tickets this is a good way which often works. I have defeated the DCHP in six strait default defensive wins and got a “warning” for doing 95 in a 50 zone. The theory is if you taste really bad, big monsters will stop snacking on you.
First, make the court a court of record (In reality, not name alone.) Demand a state paid for stenographic, shorthand, court reporter. If there is no reporter, the record does not even exist while you are in court. Let us say a judge wants to rule on something that has transpired in the open court. You are going to object because there is nothing on the record to support what he’s talking about. The transpirations in court do not get entered into the docket until you leave and not until the next day sometimes. So if the record shows that nothing has happened then what the judge is doing is making ruling based on what he/she thinks the record will state. Ultimately I think it is better to have a reporter. In California the traffic court must supply a reporter at the county’s expense.
Now the court needs your case resolved fast, because that court reporter aint cheap ($200 per diem). So now use the three magic questions when the Judge grills you.

1) If the judge says something like it is fact (or like he is offering evidence into the record) ask: “Are you testifying/swearing that “WHATEVER YOU JUST SAID” is true and correct. If he answers “no.” then you reply “I will suppose then that what you just said has no consequence to me unless you want the court to take judicial notice of what you just said”
2) If the judge asks you any question ask: “Are trying to coerce me into giving testimony at this hearing?” If he says “yes” then you reply “As the potential defendant I would not do so voluntarily.”
3) If the judge commands something (like “Shut up.”) then you ask: “Is what you just commanded an order of the court?” (usually the answer is no) If he says that it is an order ask if you can please see it on the record. (see if there is no reporter then his little command he just gave is really not part of the record but is simply part of the transpirations of court.
4) If the judge really does tell you to shut up remind him that as the potential defendant it your “hearing” and the fundamental principal in a hearing is your right to be heard

Now the reporter tolls are going up. I have done this routine for hours with a judge. Object whenever you feel the court is out of your control to participate in.
Enter a plea of no jurisdiction ahead of time. If a defendant answers a ticket with anything other than “guilty” or “no contest” then the court loses jurisdiction until a formal complaint is filed. With this plea the court loses jurisdiction even before it can rule on the jurisdiction. The judge should have to just stop doing anything on your case (No continuing.)
Y KNOLEDGE.

[Codee]

I send this to the "DCHP" and they do not show in court (ever!) Thanks to T. Thornhill
Can't fit it all but Email me and I will send it in total to anyone. Codee@mail.com

5.a. VEHICLE CODE, section 2100 plainly reads that the legal name of the organization formerly known as "The California Highway Patrol" is currently "The Department of the California Highway Patrol" (emphasis added):
There is in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
5.b. VEHICLE CODE, section 2103 plainly reads (emphasis added):
The department is the successor to and is vested with the duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of the former Division of Enforcement of the Department of Motor Vehicles, known as the California Highway Patrol, and of the officers and employees thereof.

SEC. 75. The Department of the California Highway Patrol shall have ownership, possession, and control of all records, papers, offices, equipment, supplies, moneys, funds, land, and other property, real or personal owned or leased, connected with the administration of, or held for the benefit or use of, the California State Police Division.
6.a. VEHICLE CODE, section 2102 reads:
Wherever in any statute "California Highway Patrol" is used, it means the Department of the California Highway Patrol.

6.d.2.a. For a second example, when I attempt to apply the "read-in amendment" provision of VEHICLE CODE, section 2102 to VEHICLE CODE, section 2257 (attempted read-in amendment in square brackets):
The commissioner shall issue to each member of [The Department of the California Highway Patrol] a badge of authority with the seal of the State of California in the center thereof, the words [The Department of the California Highway Patrol] encircling the seal and below the designation of the position held by each member to whom issued.

6.e.2. My second reasonable inference from the foregoing information is that each and every such section has been in violation of the prohibition set out in Art. 4, section 9, cl. 4, of the California Constitution since the time it was suppossedly amended.
6.e.3. My third reasonable inference from the foregoing information is that each and every such section is void and invalid without any further court action or decision.
6.f. However, until such time as the statutes in question are submitted to a court of competent jurisdiction and finally adjudicated to be unconstitutional, the statutes in question are presumed to be constitutional.
7. The Supreme Court of California has held (emphasis added):
[a.] The de facto doctrine in sustaining official acts is well established. Present a de jure office, "Persons claiming to be public officers while in possession of an office, ostensibly exercising their functions lawfully and with the acquiescence of the public, are de facto officers. . . . The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, are, if done within the scope and by the apparent authority of an office, as valid and binding as if he were the officer legally elected and qualified for the office and in full possession of it." (Town of Susanville v. Long (1904) 144 Cal. 362, 365 [77 P. 987]); see also Oakland Paving Co. v. Donovan (1912) 18 Cal.App. 488, 494-496 [126 P. 388]; Clark v. City of Manhattan Beach (1917) 175 Cal. 637, 639 [166 P. 806, 1 A.L.R. 1532].)...
In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. Goldman (1964), 61 Cal. 21, 42-43, 37 Cal.Rptr. 74, cert. den. 379 U.S. 28, 13 L.Ed.2d 173, 85 S.Ct. 190.
[b.] There must be a de jure office to be filled before there can be a de facto officer.
If the former exists, and the latter holds it under and pursuant to a regular commission purporting to empower him to act, his acts in such office, until his right thereto is judicially determined, the law holds upon principles of policy and justice to be valid so far as they involve the public and third parties, notwithstanding the personal liability of the incumbent for intruding into such office.
People v. Hecht (1895), 105 Cal. 621, 629-630.
7.c. I reasonable infer from the foregoing information that, absent a de jure office (the no-longer-existent "Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol"), there can be no person who can lawfully, legally, or de facto occupy it and there can be no de facto "Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol" to hire or appoint de facto officers of "the California Highway Patrol".
8.a. After the effective date of the 1959 enactment of the VEHICLE CODE, whenever a purported employee of The Department of the California Highway Patrol interacts with me while wearing a badge, patch, and/or uniform which reads "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL" and I know "the California Highway Patrol" no longer legally exists, I have Probable Cause to believe that person is prima facie in violation of VEHICLE CODE, section 27, which reads (emphasis added):
section 27. Any person who without authority impersonates, or wears the badge of, a member of the California Highway Patrol with intention to deceive anyone is guilty of a misdemeanor.
8.b. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code, section 538d reads (in part):
(a) Any person other than one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses the authorized uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing, of a peace officer, with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b)(1) Any person, other than the one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses the badge of a peace officer with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(2) Any person who willfully wears or uses any badge that falsely purports to be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, or which so resembles the authorized badge of a peace officer as would deceive any ordinary reasonable person into believing that it is authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, for the purpose of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code (2004), section 538d.
9. The foregoing information effectively rebuts the presumption(s) that a person wearing a badge reading "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL" has any Official Authority or Good Faith as a member of The Department of the California HIghway Patrol and creates Probable Cause that I am now dealing with an unidentified person who is knowingly and illegally impersonating a member of the no-longer-legally-existent California Highway Patrol while in my presence.
This Court repeatedly has explained that "probable cause" to justify an arrest means facts and circumstances within ... knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.
Michigan v. DeFillipo (1979), 443 U.S. 31, 61 L.Ed.2d 343, 349, 99 S.Ct. 2627.
10. The foregoing information gives me certain legal rights and obligations:
a. make a Citizen's Arrest of him/her for a prima facie violation of VEHICLE CODE, section 27 and of West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code, section 538d committed in my presence:
section 837. Private persons; authority to arrest
ARRESTS BY PRIVATE PERSONS. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code (2004), section 837.
11.a. Realistically, I am not prepared to physically restrain (arrest) a person carrying a firearm under color of authority in a public place, but I reserve the right to file a cross-complaint based upon the foregoing information against both The Department of the California Highway Patrol and any supposed "officer" thereof should it or any supposed "officer" thereof initiate any legal proceeding(s) against me.
11.b. I also do not wish to be placed in the position of having to meet force with force in defending myself, so I must rely upon whatever sense of professionalism the purported CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL officer may possess in choosing a reasonable option as set out below.
12. The foregoing information gives each and every person wearing a uniform and a badge reading "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL" certain rights and obligations:
a. He/she may choose to immediately remove himself/herself from my presence, without Retaliation, Reprisal, Recourse, or Remedy against me, for prima facie lack of any evidence of legal authority; or
b. He/she may choose to immediately identify himself/herself to my satisfaction by presenting his/her currently valid photographic identification card from "The Department of the California Highway Patrol", his/her "The Department of the California Highway Patrol" business card, and his/her currently valid CALIFORNIA DRIVER LICENSE; and then remove himself/herself from my presence.

I certify within the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true, accurate, and complete.

[scottinalaska]

Codee,
Along those same lines, I think this website says quite a bit:
http://www.daghettotymz.com/rkyvz/ar...cops/cops.html
It is titled,
Cops are corporate employees, not government officials and opens with:
When a cop turns on his emergency lights and you stop and he asks you for your license and registration, and then writes a summons-ticket, executes it and demands your bond in the form of an agreement to appear, he is breaking a number of laws. 1) The Turning on of lights means, an emergency is in effect. The cop wants you to think, he is stopping traffic and that you are the emergency. Where was the "emergency"? No where, of course. The cop just wanted to "traffic stop" you.
The cop perpetrated a fraud. He deceived you into thinking there was an emergency and he impersonated an official on emergency business. The cop in reality is a Corpora Ficta employee and not a government employee at all. He has no powers of a government official at all.

From there, it is a good read. Any thoughts?
scottinalaska
Codee, thanks for your generous sharing of your experience and I wish you the best in your continued attempts to simply be left alone!

[Codee]

Lets see,
Municipal Police are employees of a corporate body polotic, although I have not reaserched thuroughly about chartered cities. Muni cops are deffinitly not officers but are called officers because of some of the dumbest logic I have ever read in an opinion (at least thats what I remember thinking when I read it, I can't even remember what it was it was so incomprehesible.) Sherrifs however are a Constitutional office and a common law office, and as being an office has an "officer" with the power to deputize. I belive it is that way in Alaska too since it is a common law and the only state that was formed not about the rules of common law I think is Louisianna. There is a good Florida case on this issue that I think someone posted on this site once.
Florida Supreme Court
Case No. SC00-1860
Ultimately the conduct of the person does matter when deciding what capacity he is acting in (official or employee)
On another note you need to pin down the statutes you are relying on. These should include a statute that says "Red forward lights on a vehicle are to be used for emergency situations only." You'll also want to find some case law that says that you your conduct is not creating an "emergency" because their argument is that you did so by speeding or whatever (even driving normally is concidered "dangerous" as the basis for the police powers to enact a vehicle code. I also don't clearly see "a niumber a crimes", try to get these crimes he commited stated by statute, code, refrence to common law, or bench law at least.
In california if a DCHP officer pulled me over and felt "deceived" I would start to use something like this "Code" (and codes are just fine to use when applying them to the corporate employees of the state. In fact I would prefer to use "their" rules to steer "them" with. They just shouldn't use their rules to steer my life with.)
Vehicle Code section 27. "Any person who without authority impersonates, or wears the badge of, a member of the California Highway Patrol with intention to deceive anyone is guilty of a misdemeanor."
(there is no authorization for them to "impersonate" or to "deceive". I've checked) This might even apply to CHP officers who are doing under-cover stings, if they have a badge on them.
Good luck and I will check out that site. Thank you very much.

[Codee]

I sure wish that site had "cites" That could all be correct but how am I to know? People really need to include cites for their "opinions." But thanks for pointing it out.

[The Great Owl]

If you're looking to make a target for yourself, go over to www.libertystickers.com . Get your pick of 3 or 4 provocative patriotic statements and start popping them on the back of your car. You're sure to have plenty of practice defending your rights

[scottinalaska]

Great owl,
Those are some great stickers!
I like the one, "It's not the right vs the left. It is the State vs. YOU!"
I also thought "Treason. It's not what it used to be" with Bush and Cheney looking at each other was quite nice.
Oh, and "I'll believe whatever the TV tells me" was major tongue in cheek.
Now, if I have the time to piss off some cop, I'll put them in my window.... I don't have time. Even if Einstien's quote of "Force attracts men of low morals" is so appropo.
scottinalaska

[The Great Owl]

I think the Einstein qute will definitely get the attention of a jackboot thug....The man was truely a genius!

I have the one with Vladimir Lenin "You're either with us or with the terrorists" I haven't stuck it on the car yet. I own a rather nondescript car, and I'm not quite ready to put up a red flag yet.