0 votes

"UPDATE" CHP told me "the Constitution doesnt apply" help get her fired.

UPDATE:
The courts sent me a "courtesy notice" to appear in court in late june....(knowing that a "summons" is NOT an "order" and not mandatory, and knowing that after the "courtesy notice" goes uncontested for 3-10 days the court then sends an "order and notice to appear") I sent back a letter:

[[[[[[[

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT / VALLEJO BRANCH
321 TUOLUMNE ST,
VALLEJO, CA
94590

Response
Certified Mail number: 7008 1140 0002 2938 1732

RE: 07-06-2009
name
address

DOCKET NO: F 1501587

Thank you for your correspondence titled "COURTESY NOTICE", however, because this is not an order, nor have I consented to a summons by being a "resident" of California and having a "California Drivers License" or "California Registration" (see CVC 17459, CVC 17460), nor have I consented to a summons by signing a "notice to appear", as my 'signature' was under duress and threat of arrest, and accompanied by "non-assumpsit", and "under protest UCC 1-308", I must decline this offer for appearance.

This action is being taken because officer Rodriguez, operating without proper jurisdiction, as I claimed and exercised my right to travel by my private non-commercial conveyance, responded to my rejection of signing the "notice to appear' with threat of arrest, although she could not cite which section of the code, CVC or otherwise would allow her to do so.
According to California law, ONLY if I am being arrested for an "arrestable offense" may an officer arrest me for failing to sign a contract.
see California Penal Code 853.5

Furthermore, I returned my "copy" of the "notice to appear" to the Fairfield branch of the CHP within 72 hours of the issuance, and stamped "REFUSED FOR FRAUD" across the face of the contract, and no new contract has been sent.

Please review the "citation" or "notice to appear" issued by officer Rodriguez before further correspondence.
Please also review my recent correspondence to Commissioner Farrow of the CHP, and Governor Schwarzenegger, and my current fee schedule.

All rights reserved, without prejudice UCC 1-308
Thank you

_________________________________
name
ENCL:
Response
FEE SCHEDULE
LETTER TO GOVERNOR
]]]]]]]

well, I NEVER received my "order and notice" and I called today, and there was NO RECORD of this incident on file with the court!!!!

fight ALL of your tickets, the govt. hopes you just pay the fine and move on. My friend got a "job" $40 focus group to see "how much would a cell phone ticket have to be before you would fight it". this was set up and held at the court house. They do this to keep the ticket low enough so you wont fight it. THE STATES CAN NOT be a plaintiff!!!!
it is a conflict of interest for a plaintiff to be "PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" or "STATE OF ARIZONA" etc, because the judges are EMPLOYED by those states....some might say "well, then how do the States file charges?", the answer is, THEY DONT!! they are not allowed to! their job is to PROTECT your rights, not trample them!!! this is why they USE TO say "would you like to press charges?".....

example.
a cop pulls you over for a loud muffler, cites you, 75$ ticket, plaintiff= State, illegal case, conflict of interest
or....
someone who has to wake up early files a valid cause of action against you for revving your loud truck at 1:30 in the morning, they call the sheriff and file a valid complaint...now, the neighbor is the plaintiff, the judge is impartial, legal case!

ORIGINAL POST BELOW!!!!!!!

I was pulled over by a Fairfield CA highway patrol woman yesterday "officer Rodriguez". I informed her that I travel by right under the Constitution of the united States. She said:

"Do you know how old the constitution is? It doesnt apply anymore"

I couldnt believe she said that!
Even though I had no plates, she only issued me a citation for being in the wrong lane with a trailer.

I am of course fighting the ticket, since the entire California Vehicle Code ONLY APPLIES to state and local employees.
SEE CVC 21052;
"The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of
vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while
engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political
subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district,
including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code."
(There is no other section of code that I or the Sargent, or the CHP attorney could find that mentions the applicability of the code)

I refused to sign the ticket (summons) and she said she would arrest me. I asked her on what charge and she didnt know. She said "I just will". So I reserved my rights under the UCC 1-308, and signed "NON-ASSUMPSIT" I called the court today and demanded an affidavit of injured party if this prosecution is going to continue. They told me I should call the sargent and get them to cancel the ticket.

After the incident I called the Fairfield branch of CHP and talked to the Sargent, and I also called the law firm that represents the CHP and "helps" the public understand the code. I told both of them what she said about the Constitution, and fortunately they were amazed she said that.
Neither of them knew what charge she could have arrested me for!

Feel free to call and tell the Sarge that Officer Rodriguez should be fired!!
707-428-2100

Comment viewing options

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

I'm not sure when you

I'm not sure when you updated this thread but I just saw it in the list. I remember when you first posted about this incident.

Well, this is great news. You ought to write an ebook and give it out for free or maybe even sell it. The knowledge you have about these things would certainly be useful to many others.

About the gov making tickets small enough so they will not be disputed, a friend of mine who was a public defender in my area told me basically the same exact thing in regards to some new traffic cameras. He said that the local gov made the fine ridiculously low simply because they both knew that most people would not take a day off work to fight a $25 ticket but also because the gov knows that the ticket is not enforceable for some reason. So, the $25 ticket is low enough that the local gov still can make some money on it. He said they were setup in our area as a revenue generator and not for the purpose of serving justice.

...

yes.... an ebook... type it out...

on word...and wala... you have a way to help out any Patriot who is self willing to follow your instructions...

fascinating discussion both

fascinating discussion both of you sound very wise in your own ways. I think Goldwater may have a better grasp on actually court proceedings and how to prepare for that!

Web of BS

We are caught up in a web of statutory and administrative law that we unknowingly agree to we getting a drivers license, get license plates, etc.

You would have a case if we truly were a country of truly common law, as prescribed in the Constitution.

-------
http://www.RebootTheRepublic.com

Never try to argue case merit

in court you lose everytime. Don't argue with a cop on the street just let them do their thing and nail them on subject matter jurisdiction in court.
Use every remedy available to you and there are alot.

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

As much as I like to see you

As much as I like to see you nail the CHP, you cannot use codes that are inapplicable.

"I informed her that I travel by right under the Constitution of the united States." That is the first mistake. You do not have a right under the Constitution for anything.

The court actually told you to call the officer and have them cancel the ticket? I find that difficult to believe unless you are dealing with a complete moron there.

For example your citation of §21052, related to Public Officers and Employees, and not the general public.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21052.htm

There are other ways to fight a ticket, but writing NON-ASSUMPSIT isn't going to do anything, especially since the ticket probably already states that you are not admitting guilt by signing.

Last, the UCC deals with commercial instruments/transactions and although there is a myth that you can just apply this code to other codes, there simply isn't proof of it.

evidently, the officers here

evidently, the officers here in CA can terminate a ticket upon determining that it was issued in error.
ive included a few codes of the municipal code to show that a violation of the code equals an infraction, and that an infraction results in an administrative citation, and that the citation can be dismissed. I called the sergeant at the time, and the court told me to talk to the officer about dismissing the ticket before it was submitted to the court. The sergeant said that it was allowed, but up to the issuing officer.

A1-31. Violation--Infraction.
Except as otherwise provided (and regardless of the availability of other civil or administrative remedies and procedures for enforcing this code), every act or condition prohibited or declared unlawful by this code, and every failure or omission to act as required herein is a violation of this code and is an infraction.

A1-38. Administrative citation.
A. Whenever an enforcement officer charged with the enforcement of any provision of this code determines that a violation of that provision has occurred, the enforcement officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation to any person responsible for the violation.
B. Each administrative citation shall contain the following information:
1. The date of the violation;
2. The address or a definite description of the location where the violation occurred;
3. The section of this code violated and a description of the violation;
4. The amount of the fine for the code violation;
5. A description of the fine payment process, including a description of the time within which and the place to which the fine shall be paid;
6. An order prohibiting the continuation or repeated occurrence of the code violation described in the administrative citation;
7. A description of the administrative citation review process, including the time within which the administrative citation may be contested and the place from which a request for hearing form to contest the administrative citation may be obtained; and
8. The name and signature of the citing enforcement officer.

A1-44. Dismissal of citation.
At any time before the hearing, if the enforcement officer determines that there was no violation as charged in the administrative citation or that the citation should be dismissed in the interest of justice, the enforcement officer shall dismiss the administrative citation, cancel the hearing, and refund any administrative citation fine paid pursuant to Section A1-47(D) of this article.

Correct, the US

Correct,
the US constitution, as originally composed, does NOT apply to State Citizens or Nationals. It only applied to Citizens of the United States, people living in Washington DC and the US territories. Only the State constitutions applied to State citizens.

It wasn't until the 14th amendment was unlawfully ratified by military coup in the Southern states in 1868 that we became "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"... Through judicial review and case precedent, the courts have since used the 14th amendment to apply the US constitution to you in the present day...

I have a right to travel,

I have a right to travel, and the constitution (is suppose to) help support my claim by limiting the govt.. The REASON I made this claim is because of an important piece of case law:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
and because of "right of election"
This basically means, that if I dont make claim to a right, I potentially forfeit it.
read federal rule:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 8(b)(6), every fact or statement that is not denied or rebutted shall be conclusively established as admitted.

as to your second part, in California, the officer who issues a citation has a duty and obligation to cancel a citation upon review without the courts...it turns out, that he didnt cancel the citation, and sent me a "summons" to appear, but because I do not consent to summons in California because I do not have a CA DL, or registration, the only way I can consent is by signing the ticket. A signature, accompanied by "non-assumpsit" means"dont assume I will adhere to this contract just because my signature is on it, further more a contract (which is what a notice to appear is, under the rules of the UCC) signed under duress is invalid.
I sent the summons back with a letter, letting them know that I decline their invitation:

DOCKET NO: F 1501587

Thank you for your correspondence titled "COURTESY NOTICE", however, because this is not an order, nor have I consented to a summons by being a "resident" of California and having a "California Drivers License" or "California Registration" (see CVC 17459, CVC 17460), nor have I consented to a summons by signing a "notice to appear", as my 'signature' was under duress and threat of arrest, and accompanied by "non-assumpsit", and "under protest UCC 1-308", I must decline this offer for appearance.

This action is being taken because officer Rodriguez, operating without proper jurisdiction as I claimed and exercised my right to travel by my private non-commercial conveyance, responded to my rejection of signing the "notice to appear' with threat of arrest, although she could not cite which section of the code, CVC or otherwise would allow her to do so.
According to California law, ONLY if I am being arrested for an "arrestable offense" may an officer arrest me for failing to sign a contract.

Furthermore, I returned my "copy" of the "notice to appear" to the Fairfield branch of the CHP within 72 hours of the issuance, and stamped "REFUSED FOR FRAUD" across the face of the contract, and no new contract has been sent.

Please review the "citation" or "notice to appear" issued by officer Rodriguez before further correspondence.
Please also review my recent correspondence to Commissioner Farrow of the CHP, and Governor Schwarzenegger, and my current fee schedule.

All rights reserved, without prejudice UCC 1-308
Thank you

_________________________________

ENCL:
Response
FEE SCHEDULE
LETTER TO GOVERNOR

Let me respectfully disagree

Let me respectfully disagree on a number of points.

Right to travel has nothing to do with driving in a car. There is no right to just get in an airplane and fly around. You can travel on a bus, train, plane etc. That is what travel is -- movement, on foot, or whatever. You can't argue that you should have a right to travel by rocket ship.

Show me where it says you have a right to drive a car in the Constitution. Second, you have to apply the Constitution in the State you live.

You can't use Federal Rules of Procedure in a State court, unless they have been adapted. California has not adopted them.

"the officer who issues a citation has a duty and obligation to cancel a citation upon review without the courts" according to what?

Citation is a summons to appear. Same thing. It is irrelevant whether or not you have a CA DL. You can absolutely be SERVED in the state you are in, even if you don't live there. The same way you can get arrested in North Korea via visiting, and you can be punished too.

Non-assumpsit actually means: "plea almost every matter may be given in evidence, on the ground, it is said, that as the action is founded on the contract, and the injury is the non, performance of it, evidence which disaffirms the obligation of the contract, at the time when the action was commenced, goes to the gist of the action." Not sure where you are getting your definition from.

Not even sure if that plea is allowed in California. I doubt it, especially in the Penal Code.

I think you are mixing and matching different things without a clear understanding of it. The UCC has no impact on the Penal Code in California. Unless, of course you have some authority to the contrary.

Now, I have already given you plenty as to why your arguments are doomed. There are much better ways to handle that type of stuff.

I think you are headed down the wrong road of trouble, i.e. arrest etc. I wish you the best of luck.

Article the eleventh

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

Let's look at this by the "common" mode of travel.
200 years ago it was the horse.
Did one need a license to ride a horse?

No one had a drivers license in the early 1900's.

------------------------------------------
"...we are face to face with the problem whether ours is a government under a written constitution and the laws made pursuant thereto, or whether it is a government by ambitious and usurping men.'" -- F.Pierce

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

No you did not need a

No you did not need a license to ride a horse. You don't need one today, nor one to ride a bicycle. Would you suggest people begin to ride horse on the highways with cars? Should they be free to do what they want?

Licenses came about carriages, which did indeed include horse carriages. It came down to commercial activity on PUBLIC streets and highways. Essentially the nature of the vehicle code was to regulate COMMERCIAL activity on the streets and highways. That really hasn't changed, but try to argue that in court. Good luck.

Believe me, I spent years on this issue. It's not worth fighting, unless you do it through legislation.

To your first

To your first question,no,but as I stated,let's look at this as the "common" method of travel.Those that are doing it exclusively for commercial business should need a license to do so.Those that are just traveling should also have the option to attain a drivers license,but the state should not be the sole issuer of a license.Let driving schools,parents/friends/neighbors,teach and license others.It is the same as teaching a child to walk and talk,or teaching a trade,it is a right that can't be taken away in a free country.

I'll agree on the legislation part.Many laws need repealed and more liberties need promoting to have a true free society,but the ruling class will use the same old scare tactics and play on fears.The "business" of all levels of government is to generate revenue by controlling it's people through violations,citations,intimidation and misuse of authority.Of course any abuses are paid for by whom?The people that live in it.
The abusers may receive lite "punishment",but those that control stay in and the next in line are those with the same philosophy,it's a cycle the majority seem to be blind to.

------------------------------------------
"...we are face to face with the problem whether ours is a government under a written constitution and the laws made pursuant thereto, or whether it is a government by ambitious and usurping men.'" -- F.Pierce

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

Why?

GoldWater you say, "that is what travel is -- movement, on foot, or whatever".... can you please define 'whatever' for me? Why wouldn't you have the right to travel by rocket ship? Why would anyone care how you travel around......unless you're infringing on their rights or property....or you're some Corp Gov't agent(cops, judges, politicians) trying to extort peoples labor thru bs codes and statutes.

There are a number of reason

There are a number of reason why.

1) You don't have an absolute right to pollute.
2) The Government has decided that driving is not an absolute right. Whether you or I disagree with that decision is irrelevant.
3) Vehicles by operation of law are commercial and thus subject to fees, registration and regulation.
4) Streets and highways are public property and thus subject to regulation.

Even though I agree with your underlying premise of unless you are hurting others no one should care, there is a reality here, with good reason

Whatever means any means that is permitted by law. I.e. they do not restrict your right to travel, since you can go pretty much anywhere you want. They do, however, restrict HOW you travel.

Otherwise, people could ride around on bulls on the highways. Are you suggesting you should do whatever you want where ever you want? Then you can ride around a tank with bombs attached. I know that is extreme, but where is the line?

Should we get rid of traffic signs etc? if not, as long as they are there, they can regulate through them.

Goldwater is way off

Goldwater is way off base.

Just because YOU say "travel" means on foot...doesnt make it so.,
and you say having a drivers license or registration isnt where consent to a summons comes from???
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17459.html
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17460.html

Listen, you have the RIGHT to do anything you want, so long as it does NOT interfere with the rights of another.
That is the ENTIRE reason for this country.

you say "where is the line?", the line is this:
you do NOT have the right to point a gun at someone, because it violates their right to feel safe, so, if you point a gun at someone, loaded or not, they can file a valid cause of action against you.
now, if you are driving a bull on the road, or a tank covered in bombs, as you suggest, does someone have the right to file a valid cause of action,? yes! If someone feels that their rights are affected by you riding on a bull, then, they can, under penalty of perjury, sign an affidavit of injured party. Then, THIS is where the courts with a jury of your peers are able to come into play to decide, if this is really affecting your rights.
That was the whole point of court, was to determine if an injured party was actually injured (financially, physically, emotionally, mentally.

As far as traffic signs, the towns have decide that they should exist in order to regulate the roads, this however does NOT mean that a violation of one of the regulations creates an injured party. These traffic devices are ONLY adhered to through consent, the consent of the people who want them. YOU can NOT be forced into consent in America!

So if someone blows through a stop sign, and runs into someone, or even makes the other person have to slam on their brakes, they can file a valid cause of action.

we have been so trained to think that it is the place of the govt. to protect us all from each other and ourselves, but it really is not. The only reason for the govt is to maintain and protect individual rights.

"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).

Show me where I said

Show me where I said ""travel" means on foot."? I NEVER wrote that. You are putting words in my mouth.

YES, you CAN get summoned (which is what a citation is) with or without a license. It has nothing to do with it. Are you suggesting that you go to Germany and break their traffic laws you cannot be summoned to their court and fined? Of course you can. Don't be silly.

The codes you cite don't exclude you, because you have a out of state license, or not license. here is the thing you need to know. Majority of time, courts exercise jurisdiction where the ACT took place that is in violation of the law. Really that simple.

You wrote:

"Listen, you have the RIGHT to do anything you want, so long as it does NOT interfere with the rights of another."

Well, if you believe that, ride nude on a Hippo down the highway and argue that in court.

I know you probably just learned a bunch of legal defenses from your local patriot chapter from what you write, but honestly, you need to fully investigate what you are saying.

For example: "under penalty of perjury, sign an affidavit of injured party."

There is no such thing as that. Affidavits are not declarations under the State, so you don't sign them under penalty of perjury.

The courts disagree with you on the non-injured party theory, even though I agree there should not be laws without an injured party, but what you and I believe is irrelevant, because the courts are rejecting the arguments.

The House v. Cramer case had to do with people riding in their automobiles being able to travel on the same roads as horses etc. The courts ruled they had. That has nothing to do with the "right" to drive around in a Hummer without a license. They have ruled that to be a privilege.

"On July 24th, 2009

"On July 24th, 2009 GoldWater says:

Let me respectfully disagree on a number of points.

Right to travel has nothing to do with driving in a car. There is no right to just get in an airplane and fly around. You can travel on a bus, train, plane etc. That is what travel is -- movement, on foot, or whatever. "

this is where you said travel is on foot,
secondly there elements to an affidavit and one is that it must be signed under penalty of perjury, another is it must name the affiant.

as far as getting a ticket in Germany, Germany is not a constitution republic that is protected by the constitutions limitation of government.

Riding naked on a hippo is a case that could be won in court, depending on how the person was naked. If they made a case that it was artistic there would be a good chance. I have yet to see a "No Hippo on street" sign.

Nudity can have an injured party, remember there is more than one type of injury, mental, emotional, financial, physical.

Now, since I answered your questions, I want you to show me ONE case (supreme court) that says traveling is a not a right...NOT DRIVING because that is different.

Im not sure why you hate the idea of freedom of travel so much, but you sure are spendiing a lot of energy trying to disprove something that has aleady been proven over and over.

Even your own quote from me

Even your own quote from me contradicts what you wrote before. You wrote that I said that travel means by foot, like it was exclusive. I did NOT say that. As you now correctly stated I wrote: "You can travel on a bus, train, plane etc. That is what travel is -- movement, on foot, or whatever." On foot or whatever is expansive.

You wrote: "there elements to an affidavit and one is that it must be signed under penalty of perjury." No there isn't. It isn't an affidavit then. An affidavit is one you swear and subscribe to, which is under common law. The penalty under perjury is a statutory declaration. One deals with a declarant; the other an affiant.

You wrote: "as far as getting a ticket in Germany, Germany is not a constitution republic that is protected by the constitutions limitation of government."

I honestly have no idea what that means. However, actually Germany is a Federal Republic of Germany. You can't just make it up as you go along.

"Riding naked on a hippo is a case that could be won in court, depending on how the person was naked."

Are you kidding?

Traveling is a right. Driving isn't. You are bringing up an argument that I didn't make.

You are confusing freedom to travel with driving. I made that clear several times. I was trying to help you from losing arguments you wanted to make.

I never said that you

I never said that you implied traveling on foot was exclusive, i simply pointed out where you wrote "traveling on foot" per your request.

I will agree that the signing under penalty of perjury portion of your argument is correct, however an affidavit MUST be signed!

I think we're on the same team here, im not sure why there is an argument, except that you seem certain that the method of impeaching the witness, and/or establishing that there is no standing, therefore no subject matter jurisdiction in court wont work, or establishing that there is a conflict of interest because the judge represents the plaintiff.

Instead of criticism on these ideas, you bring up analogies of riding a hippo naked.

You do have the right to get in your car (as long as it isnt registered in your state, and you dont have a license in your state) and travel anywhere in the country, it is NOT a privilege, until you sign away your right to travel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL70LQPHiQA&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcVnzaUduZU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4bfPc4xJM&feature=related

UCC

When a person is charged with a crime there is a lot at work behind the scenes, governed by UCC. While the charge is outwardly governed by civil and criminal law, the real driving force behind it is ultimately UCC. This is because the state/federal entities are actually corporations (self-admitted) as are their courts. When one is charged with an offense in which there is not an injured/damaged party, the charge is a business contract proposition. When you accept their "debt" they have a completely different set of financial books behind the scenes which must remain balanced. One fictitious debt can be discharged with another, which throws their financial books and ledgers out of balance. Keeping these books balanced under UCC is of much more critical importance to them than administering "justice". UCC is the law of God as far as they're concerned. This is a deep, complicated subject which requires a lot of study because the implications are intentionally well hidden, but if you'll do some more research on the matter you'll discover that UCC is what really matters most to the courts.

Perhaps you been reading

Perhaps you been reading Cracking the Code. In any event, can you provide some evidence of what you are saying, like: "When a person is charged with a crime there is a lot at work behind the scenes, governed by UCC." or "the charge is outwardly governed by civil and criminal law, the real driving force behind it is ultimately UCC."

Thanks

If the Constitution doesn't apply

does the California transportation code ? code of criminal procedure, penal code. Officer do the state laws or state constitution have any meaning.Nope they just make shit up as they go. If the citation is an on or before (you know you can come in 10 days after receiving the ticket and pay up)
It's illegal, at least it is in Texas. The officer issuing this citation has committed a crime. Conspiracy to solicit perjury, tampering with a govt document, official oppression. I'd go down and hand the judge in the matter criminal complaints pertaining to this officer. If he/she does not file them then create criminal complaints as well as judicial misconduct affidavits concerning the judge (if he/she is a bar member then bar grievances as well) This will get their attention and help to put the Constitution back in it's rightful place. Write me if I might help, this pertains to any readers I want to nail these so called public servants
Keith riceowlex@yahoo.com

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

And?

What was the final resolution of the ticket?

My similar event - on video.

I've been through a similar situation (not signing a ticket).
I was stopped for loud music (it was loud, but not obnoxiously loud).

When I was given the ticket, I read (as I always do) the entire ticket, looking for any mentioning of a requirement to sign, or consequences if not signed.

Part 1 - http://qik.com/video/819953
Part 2 - http://qik.com/video/819979 (After he walks away to call his Sarge, you can start part 3.. I just talk a lot while waiting).
Part 3 - http://qik.com/video/820139 (Phone memory ran out of memory, so I lost the part where Sarge comes up and explains the situation.. It picks up where Sarge returns to chat, after the citing officer and his cronies leave)

It turned into a ticket for loud music, no insurance (which I had) and he added tinted windows after I refused to sign the ticket.

All in all, the ticket ended up being about $500. I fought it, showed evidence that the officer wasn't 50 ft away in order to cite me for the music. And showed evidence that the tint was put on my car before the anti-tint laws came to exist. The insurance charge was dropped at court, because I had proof.

Anyway.. The officer who pulled me over was pretty rude, threatened arrest without knowing under what penal code. Ultimately he called for lots of backup, one of which was a career SWAT Sergeant. The Sarge knew exactly what penal code authorized the arrest, and was kind enough to read it off to me. It wasn't until he provided the code, that I agreed to sign.

The penal code which allows an officer to arrest you for failure to sign, is california penal code 853.5

Yes, I know, it's a mess. You cannot be arrested for an infraction, only cited. But yet, if you don't sign the citation (for an infraction) you can be arrested. Pretty lame loophole. And as far as the courts are concerned, a traffic stop is 'arresting' you. By signing the promise, they are allowed to 'release' you. Yes, it's garbage. But that's how it goes. You can try to argue it, but it will put you behind bars, at least for the night until you are proven right :)
Agree or not, it's how they use their tools, and they will be used.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pen/853.5-853.85.html

PENAL CODE
SECTION 853.5-853.85

"853.5. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, in any case in
which a person is arrested for an offense declared to be an
infraction, the person may be released according to the procedures
set forth by this chapter for the release of persons arrested for an
offense declared to be a misdemeanor."

"... a peace
officer shall only require the arrestee to present his or her driver'
s license or other satisfactory evidence of his or her identity for
examination and to sign a written promise to appear contained in a
notice to appear."

" Only if the arrestee refuses to sign a written promise, has no
satisfactory identification, or refuses to provide a thumbprint or
fingerprint may the arrestee be taken into custody."

meekandmild's picture

If this the actual code

For an officer to be able to arrest for not signing they would also have to "no satisfactory ID.

to be arrested for refusing to sign the law would have to be written like this:

Only if the arrestee refuses to sign a written promise, OR has no
satisfactory identification, or refuses to provide a thumbprint or
fingerprint may the arrestee be taken into custody."
without the "OR" in the statement it takes both elements to be arrested.
I don't live in CA.

good find

good find

I appreciate your

I appreciate your information, but I should inform you that I dont have a California Drivers License or registration, so I dont consent to their summons, which is what a citation is.
CVC 17459, CVC17460
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17459.html
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17460.html

Having a license or registration is the ONLY way one can consent to a summons, without signing the ticket.
as you pointed out 853.5 of the penal code is the section where the CHP will claim they can arrest you for failure to sign the citation, however, this is ONLY if you are stopped for an arrestable offense.
Some people will try to say that you are "arrested" by virtue of the car being pulled over, but this can not be...if this is the case, then the officers would need a warrant to pull you over.
Even NOT having a license is NOT an arrestable offense:

see CVC 12801.5(e) http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/12801.5.html
(e) Notwithstanding Section 40300 (drunk driving section) or any other provision of law, a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver, unless the officer has
reasonable cause to believe the person driving is under the age of 16
years.

I have had officers tell me that CVC 12500 allows them to arrest me for not signing, or for not having a license...this is CLEARLY not true
See: CVC 12500
(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway,
unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under
this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this
code.

2 things here
1) this section says "except those who are expressly exempted", anyone who the CVC doesnt apply to is expressly exempted, but they want you to think it is just the people that the CVC exempts.
2) This says NOTHING about the punishment for "Driving" a "motor vehicle" on the highway, it certainly doesnt say it is an arrestable offense.

NOW, who is exempted from the CVC, to know this, we have to know who is NOT exempted
See CVC 21052, CVC 4155
CVC 21052
The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of
vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while
engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political
subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district,
including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions
granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.
and CVC 4155
Registration under this code shall apply to any vehicle owned
by the United States government, the state, or any city, county, or
political subdivision of the state, except in the following
particulars:

so we know that these groups of people are NOT expressly exempted. To find this out look at CVC sec. 4
CVC 4
No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect,
and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code,
but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the
provisions of this code so far as possible.

that coupled with the case law below, prove that the CVC only applies to Employees of the state, cities, etc, and not to a human being in his automobile, UNLESS he waives that right and consents to the jurisdiction of the CVC by having and maintaining a license or registration.
This makes perfect sense, because the "State of California" and the California Highway Patrol" are literally companies:
http://sbs.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidation...
http://sbs.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidation...

and just like any other company, they can ONLY make rules that apply to their own employees. Ford employees do not have to follow the guidelines of Chevrolet, this is why when the company known as the State of California makes a rule like 23123 no talking on cellphones it can only apply to those engaged in commerce within the state, and anyone who consents to follow.

Although hidden, this is evident in the sneakiest section of the code
cvc 15210(p)(7)
...In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under
this code shall apply.
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/15210.html
notice it says "code" and not "section" or "chapter", this means that this statement applies to the entire California Vehicle Code.
CVC 10
"Whenever any reference is made to any portion of this code or
of any other law, such reference shall apply to all amendments and
additions heretofore or hereafter made."

look at the federal definition:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000031---...
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

This CLEARLY means that the term "Motor Vehicle" in the CVC ONLY means "Commercial Vehicle"
heres CVC 260(b)
(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the
transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not
commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.

Even CVC 100 implies that another definition may be required to be used:
CVC 100
Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these
definitions shall govern the construction of this code.

Case Law
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
"...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.
"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.
"Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment."Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. V. Operation Rescue, 948 F2d 218; International Org. Of Masters, Etc. V. Andrews, 831, F2d 843; Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55, 102 Sct. 2309.
"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).

Fantastic information!

I agree with your statements and your position 100%.
But being aware of what the law is, is different than what laws are exercised. Just because WE know these things to be true, will not stop them from arresting you. You will just be a wacko challenging their authority. The judge may not even let you talk, or when you do, it falls on deaf ears.
When I went to court, the officer said "This guy is a constitutionalist". As if it's some sort of derogatory term.

I've read most of what you've written, from various sources.
But, it's a moot point unless we get judges who actual obey the law instead of just making random rulings from the bench.

So much of these things could be changed, if we just had good judges.

There is a website called RateMyCop.com - there should be another, RateMyJudge.com - People can post transcripts containing judgements they believe to be unlawful, and a larger audience of the people can try to weed those corrupt judges out of the system.

Look at Irwin Schiff, the master of his trade. Got dealt some crappy judges, prevented evidence from being shown and all sorts of other shenanigans. Now he's in prison.

I applaud your research and knowledge, it's impressive and will be quite useful. Just be careful if you rely on our laws to protect you, nobody reads them anymore, except us.

http://www.freedom-school.com/travel/

What you're saying is

What you're saying is partially true, but just as there are ridiculous "laws" for traffic, loud music, overgrown lawns, etc, there are just as ridiculous laws in court.
MOST people dont understand the court system. There is a great quote that says something like:
"seldom are the courts wrong in their decisions, but rather the litigants in their understanding of definitions"

I agree with that quote. NO ONE questions the jurisdiction of the courts anymore, secondly, the lower courts are a tool to weed out the complacent, their findings mean nothing. An appeal to a higher court will almost always reverse the decision if the lower courts are handled properly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL70LQPHiQA&feature=channel

and lastly more people need to start suing these courts for damages. Half the time their is no jury, not a real judge, and instead a commissioner, and not on the record.