13 votes

California Motorist beats 5th Seat-Belt Ticket Through the Mail Using Constitutional Argument

California Motorist beats (5th) Seat-Belt Ticket Through the Mail Using Constitutional Argument


By Martin Hill

LibertyFight.com
June 19, 2013

http://libertyfight.com/2013/motorist_beats_5th_ticket_thru_...

A California man who has previously beaten four traffic infraction tickets through the mail has beaten his fifth ticket using the TRIAL BY DECLARATION option, which is available to all motorists ticketed
in California.

John Shanahan of Southern California, who's a Constitutionalist, electrical engineer and a licensed member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, just received the court ruling for his seat belt ticket. His previous victory was only four months ago on February 15th, when he beat a nearly $600 red-light camera ticket through the mail.

What's interesting is that John never denied not wearing his seatbelt and used a Fourth Amendment defense in his court declaration, and was found not guilty by the judge. This is his third ticket for not wearing a seat belt ticket that he has beaten through the mail.

Technically, Shanahan was found not guilty of the latest seat-belt offense because the officer, who is the witness for the prosecution, did not submit a response to the Trial by declaration. However, Shanahan always brings up the Constitution in his traffic declarations and no officer in any case has yet taken the time to rebuke the arguements- which is interesting in itself- hence, John wins every time.

Unlike in person court trials, officers do not collect overtime for going to the courthouse if it's a trial by declaration, so they have to take their own time and write up responses to court filings. If the cop is to lazy to do the work and doesn't reply, it's considered a 'lack of prosection' and the defendant wins.

Here's all the court filings in one zip file or if you want the short version, here is the

Trial by dec. attachment (John's main arguement in written form) and

The minute order from the judge pronouncing him NOT GUILTY. In his declaration, Shanahan stated, in part,

"Judge, since I was not hurting anyone or driving irresponsibly, the act of a police officer stopping me is certainly a violation of his oath to protect the U.S. Constitution and my rights under the 4th Amendment. I would have understood if he had just given me a repair ticket for the headlight.
Since I have 2 engineering degrees, I have taken more than one course in statistics. I would strongly question the results of any traffic safety study which tries to conclude that wearing seat belts is safer than NOT wearing them...

"It is up to me to provide for my own safety, not Officer Lepe and the "nanny state" government supervisors who give him his orders. If I had to find them, I know that I could produce various Supreme Court cases that clearly state that the police have no charter or responsibility to protect individual people. Your Honor, in view of the constant degeneration of our individual rights that are supposed to be protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the whole idea that I could be given a citation because Officer Lepe or the California General Assembly thinks that they know better how to provide for my safety than I do is absolutely outrageous. This is the type of intrusion that is so offensive when we are so close to losing our country due to other federal government actions (especially the Federal Reserve). Officer Lepe's action, while giving him his perceived appearance of merely enforcing the law, actually makes it appear to me and others that he is simply a bagman or revenue agent for big government."

The excellent free website HelpIGotATicket.com
has all the information California motorists need to beat their tickets. I first found the site in 2001 and have beaten about 15 tickets since then; one in California Superior Court of Appeals, in which a three-judge panel ruled for me and overturned a phony speeding ticket conviction. Here is their information on TRIAL BY DECLARATION. If a California motorist loses the trial by declaration, they are entitled to a brand new trial (not an appeal) called a TRIAL DE NOVO. This is all spelled out in the California Vehicle Code. It is truly a peice of cake. Countless family and friends of ours have beaten tickets using these methods, by simply invoking the CA vehicle code and exerting their right to due process and the presumption of innocence. Even my 19 year old niece, who probably weighs less than 100 lbs and had never even been to court in her life, has beaten 3 tickets- the first three she ever got: a stop sign ticket, a seat belt ticket, and a parking ticket. HelpIgotaticket.com site is great and Geo McCalip should be applauded for his public service. Here is an interview with McCalip from a few years ago.

Here are John's four prior victories along with court documents. Also be sure to check out our archives below.


Constitutionalist beats seat belt ticket through the mail
- Read this short article to see how easily one can fight and beat a traffic ticket through the mail in California. Jan. 18, 2009

Defendant wins stop sign ticket through the mail using 'TRIAL BY DECLARATION'

Motorist refers to traffic cops as "revenue agents (bagmen) for the government", wins case Oct. 30, 2009

Freedom advocate beats third traffic ticket through the mail (This was John's second seat belt ticket victory, Oct. 25, 2010.)

Ca motorist beats fourth traffic ticket through the mail (Corona red-light camera ticket- court documents on page.)

Visit our traffic ticket archives here: http://libertyfight.com/traffic.html

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened.com, Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, Veterans Today, Educate-Yourself.org, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense.com, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, Jonathan Turley blog, National Motorists Association, RomanCatholicReport.com, Republic Broadcasting Network, WorldNetDaily, Dr. Kevin Barret's Truth Jihad radio show, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, Strike-The-Root.com, DavidIcke.com, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, The Press Enterprise, Redlands Daily Facts, BlackBoxVoting, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, Whittier Daily News, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com and DontWakeMeUp.Org.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For anyone who only read the

For anyone who only read the HEADLINE.

He did not really win because of his "constitutional" arguments. Even the article notes that, so the title/headline should be changed.

Here is WHY he won per the article: "Technically, Shanahan was found NOT guilty of the latest seat-belt offense because the officer, who is the witness for the prosecution, did not submit a response to the Trial by declaration. .... and no officer in any case has yet taken the time to rebuke the arguements- which is interesting in itself- hence, John wins every time."

Even the article explains why no officer makes a trial by declaration:

"officers do not collect overtime for going to the courthouse if it's a trial by declaration, so they have to take their own time and write up responses to court filings. If the cop is to lazy to do the work and doesn't reply, it's considered a 'lack of prosection' and the defendant wins."

If you vote this down you are just a fact denier.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

the defendant did indeed not

the defendant did indeed not deny not wearing the seat belt and submitted the 4th amendment as a defense. the cop chose not to reply, thats his problem. the defendant's court filing did indeed invoke the 4th amendment. it's this very principle thats the reason such people fight these petty revenue schemes, and saved almost 200 bucks.

Let me disagree strongly.

Let me disagree strongly. First, do you live in California? 50% of the cops never show up for court in traffic cases. That does NOT mean you win on the merits of the case. It just means you win for lack of prosecution.

Every single case you cited, the article says the cop didn't show, so he won because of lack of prosecution, NOT because of his arguments. When there IS a trial and the judge rules in his favor AFTER cross examination, evidence, testimonials, etc then you may have a case for these arguments.

A procedural a win is still a win, but it is NOT a meritorious win.

What is most probably here is that the cop just doesn't want to bother with the written declaration as pointed out in the article. NOW -- that does NOT mean the arguments are frivolous. It just means they have not been ruled on by a court... yet. And until that happens you can't claim he won on his arguments.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

A Greater Opportunity

I agree with you Brian. It is very difficult to determine the specific reasons why a prosecutor might allow a case to be dismissed. In actuality, trial courts usually ignore constitutional arguments, especially if they come out of the mouths of non-lawyers.

And that is why I jumped on the opportunity to post my desire (again) for a citizen operated legal system. Government involvement in the judicial process has lead to a monopolistic system that usually does not result in an honest attempt at fairness. That's because the manipulation and weight of past judges decisions and procedure are commonly used to cloud the effect of factual evidence and Constitutional law.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

This is awesome

there are so many problems with those red light ticket cases. Out of curiosity I sat in on a "Trial" of one of those. If one made the right evidentiary objections, and the judge ruled correctly, I fail to see how a conviction could ever occur. Maybe that is one reason why they are shutting them down in many places and offer special "half price" plea offers which they don't on other types of tickets. Glad to see this one prevail with a different approach.

There are also problems under the 5th amendment, right of privacy, 4th amendment, 5th amendment due process clause, etc.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Hi, facebook banned my site

Hi, facebook banned my site for some reason. go figure., You can use this link to post it on facebook tho and it will work. this will take them to the original. thanks

http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/california-motorist-be...

Hmmm

I tried to share this on Facebook, and got this message:

You can't post this because it has a blocked link.
The content you're trying to share includes a link that's been blocked for being spammy or unsafe:

0catch.com

For more information, visit the Help Centre.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

the comment above was

the comment above was intended for you. this link will work on facebook, thanks

http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/california-motorist-be...