Signing ticket "Innocent/not guilty"

[Codee]

There was no court reporter. There never is. It is required. There was no formal complaint. There never is. It is required.

I can show you appeals cases but this one ended with a "dismissed." and not much else. The other ticket,,, the one I signed, that exchange I published was all I ever did on it.

I have a case in appeal. If I don't F' it up procedurally then I will have a good case in my name from an appelate level. All the other wins like this from court on the trial level have no meat. You have to take my word that I won FOR THE REASONS I FEEL I DID!

PS. The judges tell the clerks my age, that they have respect for what I do, they just have a job to do too.

There job sucks. My job is great. Go freedom.

[RICKO]

If you can provide any of the court cases you have fault can you please maybe post one of them or PM me with the info please.

[Codee]

CAL. VEHICLE CODE
§ 40513. Filing of complaint

(a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere. "

If, however, the defendant violates his or her promise to appear in court or does not deposit lawful bail, or pleads other than "guilty" or "nolo contendere" to the offense charged, a complaint shall be filed that shall conform to-Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 948) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, which shall be deemed to be an original complaint, and thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law, except that a defendant may, by an agreement in writing, subscribed by him or her and filed with the court, waive the filing of a verified complaint and elect that the prosecution may proceed upon a written notice to appear.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea and, if the notice to appear is verified, upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed.

I read the above as the plea is entered as soon as the magistrate recieves it. Any abiguous language is decided in my favour. Want the cases for that one too?

CAL. PENAL CODE

740. Except as otherwise provided by law, all misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant. Such complaint may be verified on information and belief.

[RICKO]

You too quick. By the time I get done reading and understanding this it'll be midnight!!!

[Codee]

Originally Posted by http://home.earthlink.net/~venue53/car.html

“Every fact which, if controverted, plaintiff must prove to maintain his action must be stated in the complaint”
Jerome v. Stebbins (1859), 14 C. 457: Green v. Palmer (1860), 15 C. 411, 76 Am. Sec. 492; Johnson v. Santa Clara County (1865), 28 C. 545

“The complaint, on its face, must show that the plaintiff has the better right.”
Rogers v. Shannon (1877), 52 C. 99

“Complaint, to be sufficient, must contain a statement of facts of which, without the aid of other facts no stated shows a complete cause of action.”
Going v. Dinwiddle (1890), 86 C. 633, 25 P. 129

“Pleadings should set forth facts, and not merely opinions of the parties”.
Snow v. Halstead (1851), 1 C. 359

“A complaint must contain a statement of facts showing the jurisdiction of the court, ownership of a right by plaintiff, violation of that right by the defendant, injury resulting to plaintiff by such violation, justification for equitable relief where that is sought, and a demand for relief.”
Pierce v. Wagner, 134 F.2d 958

“Essential facts on which legal points in controversy depend, should be pleaded clearly and precisely, so that nothing is left for the court to surmise.”
Gates v. Lane (1872), 98 C. 499

“In pleading, the essential facts on which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and precision so that nothing is left to surmise.”
Bernstein v. Piller (1950), 98 C.A.2d 441, 220 P.2d 558

“The ‘facts’ which the court is to find and the ‘facts’ which a pleader is to state lie in the same plane - that is, in both connections, ‘facts’ are top be stated according to their legal effect.”
Hihn v. Peck (1866), 30 C. 280

“A plaintiff must set forth in his complaint the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with sufficient clarity and particularity that defendant may be apprized of nature, source and extent of his cause of action.”
Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948), 86 C.A.2d 750, 195 P.2d 492

“In general, matters of substance must be alleged in direct terms, and not by way of recital or reference.”
Silvers v. Grossman (1920), 183 C. 693, 192 P. 534; Reid v. Kerr (1923), 64 C.A. 117, 220 P. 688

“A fact which constitutes an essential element of a cause of action cannot be left to inference.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 81 C.A.2d 871, 185 P.2d 381

Material facts must be distinctly stated in a complaint.
Goland v. Peter Nolan & Co. (1934), 33 P.2d 688, subsequent opinion 38 P.2d 738, 2 C.2d 96

“Matters of substance must be presented by direct averment and not by way of recital.”
Stefani v. Southern Pacific Co. (1932), 119 C.A. 69, 5 P.2d 946

“A pleading which leaves essential facts to inference or argument is bad.”
Ahlers v. Smiley (1909) ,11 C.A. 343, 104 P. 997

“The forms alone of the several actions have been abolished by the statute. The substantial allegations of the complaint in a given case must be the same under our practice as at common law.”
Miller v. Van Tassel (1864), 24 C. 459

“A pleading can not be aided by reason of facts not averred.”
San Diego County v. Utt (1916), 173 C. 554, 160 P. 657

“Facts necessary to a cause of action but not alleged must be taken as having no existence”
Frace v. Long Beach City High School Dist. (1943), 137 P.2d 60, 58 C.A.2d 566

“A fact necessary to the pleader’s cause of action, if not pleaded, must be taken as having no existence.”
Feldesman v. McGovern (1941), 44 C.A.2d 566

In pleading, the essential facts upon which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and precision so that nothing is left to surmise.
Philbrook v. Randall, 195 Cal 95, 103 [231 P. 739].)

“When pleading is silent as to material dates, or does not clearly state facts relied on, it must be presumed that statement thereof would weaken pleader’s case.”
Whittemore v. Davis (1931), 112 C.A. 702, 297 P. 640

“... if a fact necessary to the pleader's cause of action is not alleged it must be taken as having no existence.
Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co., 139 Cal. 22 [72 P. 395]; Callahan v. Loughran, 102 Cal. 476 [36 P. 835].

And that is a complaint...

[Codee]

Originally Posted by http://home.earthlink.net/~venue53/car.html

A defendant charged with a traffic violation who maintains his innocence, who does not plead guilty when arraigned on a traffic ticket, against whom a formal complaint is filed, and who has a trial, is not entitled to attack the constitutionality of this statute.
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 410.

With parking violations, where no promise to appear has been obtained (Veh Code, § 40500 et seq), the offender is first given a notice attached to the vehicle (Veh Code, § 41103, subd (1)). If no bail is deposited within the time fixed in the notice, a complaint is filed (Veh Code, § 40513), but before an arrest warrant can issue a further notice of the violation must be given to him (Veh Code, § 41103, subd (2)).
People v Weitzer (1969, 1 st Dist) 269 Cal App 2d 274, 75 Cal Rptr 318.

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.
Ralph v Police Court of El Cerrito (1948) 84 Cal App.2d 257, 190 P2d 632.

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

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

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

The trial court did not err in denying a petition for a writ of mandate that would have required the municipal court to accept for filing and processing, duplicate notices of parking violations left by campus police on unattended and illegally parked vehicles at a state university campus. Such a notice is not the equivalent of the "notice to appear" referred to in Veh. Code, § 40513, to which a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may be entered. It is only when a complaint with supporting affidavit is filed that the municipal court can be required to assume jurisdiction. Up until that time the payment and receipt of money for a parking ticket is an administrative function which does not require the use of the judicial branch of government.
Board of Trustees v Municipal Court for San Luis Obispo Judicial Dist. (1979, 5th Dist) 95 Cal App 3d 322, 157 Cal Rptr 133.

The trial court properly denied a city's petition for a writ of mandate to compel a municipal court to process parking violation notices. The jurisdiction of the municipal court is limited to cases and proceedings in which it is expressly conferred, and while Pen C § 1462, provides that municipal and justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases involving violation of ordinances of cities or towns within the court district, the filing of a complaint is essential to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Accordingly, until a complaint is filed the municipal court does not have a duty enjoined by law to exercise its jurisdiction in matters involving parking violations established by local ordinance. No statutory authority provides that the filing of the notice of a parking violation is
the equivalent of the filing of a complaint.
San Diego v Municipal Court for San Diego Judicial Dist. (1980, 4th Dist) 102 Cal App 3d 775, 162 Cal Rptr 420.

In a prosecution for failing to wear a safety helmet while operating a motorcycle (Veh. Code, § 27803,subd. (b)), a notice to appear, to which a not guilty plea was entered, properly served as a complaint to initiate the prosecution and confer jurisdiction on the trial court to proceed to trial. The arresting officer is sued a verified notice to appear, on a form approved by the Judicial Council, directing defendant to appear in court. The provisions of Veh. Code, § 40513, subd.(b) (notwithstanding other requirements for filing verified complaint, written notice to appear on form approved by Judicial Council may constitute complaint), indicate that it is an exception to Veh. Code. § 40513, subd. (a) (verified complaint must be filed if defendant pleads other than guilty or nolo contendere). Veh. Code, § 40513, subd. (b), has no limiting language with respect to a particular type of plea that can be entered to a written notice to appear that has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council. The intent was that it apply to any plea. Thus, where the written notice to appear has be so prepared, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice, when filed with the magistrate, constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or not guilty. Such a notice to appear may be filed in lieu of a formal verified complaint even where the defendant enters a not guilty plea and the case proceeds to trial.
People v Barron (1995, App Dep't Super Ct) 37 Cal App 4th Supp 1, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 348.

In the absence of a waiver. this statute, in reciting that a complaint shall be filed against a defendant who pleads other than guilty to a traffic violation charge and that "thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law," requires an arraignment on such complaint.
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 410.

The mere absence of a formal arraignment on a traffic violation charge is not a denial of due process.
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 410.

Notwithstanding error in failing to arraign a defendant charged with a traffic violation before putting him to trial, reversal is not required. where the cause was tried by both sides on the theory that a plea of not guilty had been entered, defendant received the benefit of such plea as fully as if it had been made, and evidence supports the conviction.
People v. Agnew (1952, App Dep’t Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 410

And that is the requirement of the formal complaint.

[RICKO]

Not sure of the understanding of the issue of formal complaint.

[Codee]

Where defendant pleaded not guilty the formal complaint was mandatory. A ticket is not a formal complaint. One can plead not guilty to a formal complaint. One cannot pead not guilty to a ticket in California.

[RICKO]

Your space has met its limit codee and of course I had nothing to do with that