Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: I Don't Understand

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    Traffic matters is an area that is one of the most mutilated, if not the most mutilated (along with Family Law Courts ) forms of pretended adjudication I have
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 29, 2000
          Traffic matters is an area that is one of the most mutilated, if not the most mutilated (along with "Family Law Courts") forms of pretended adjudication I have come across. There are, I am sure, others of which I am not familiar.
          In California, the process set forth in the Vehicle Code isn't even followed. The Code gives the traffic citee the option of having a full-fledged municipal court proceeding, with the filing of a written complaint (called "accusatory pleading") by a prosecutor (generally a deputy city attorney for misdemeanors and infractions). OR-- at the option of the citee (so-called "defendant"), he may go the fast-track method as the system wants you to do, and by-pass the formality of an accusatory pleading and court trial, and enter a "plea" to the CITATION!
          How in the heck you can plead to a citation, without all the facts set forth upon which the accuser (usually the police) relies, I don't know. But the system depends on the ignorance of the people to coerce them into doing what the system wants you to do--  not what you have the right to do according to law. I was thrown behind bars because I wouldn't enter a plea to a traffic citation, and further, I wouldn't sign a "promise to appear" for a so-called "trial."  It wouldn't be a trial at all, because the municipal court never acquired jurisdiction by the filing of an accusatory pleading by a prosecutor, to which I would have had the right to file a demurrer rather than enter a plea. It would have been an inquisition conducted by a tyrant in a black robe (generally a municipal court commissioner acting outside his limited jurisdiction under the municipal court). It's not a court proceeding at all! It's a joke!
          But the system covers up for this corruption. I have a written opinion in the California Appellate Reports (Branson v. Martin) that is so full of holes legally, it isn't funny! Justice Nott said that the commissioner could enter a plea of "not guilty" for me under Penal Code section 1024. That section applies ONLY TO ACCUSATORY PLEADINGS-- and none is filed in traffic matters! So the section relied upon in the written opinion, doesn't have any application in my case!  The other thing the justice said was that a commissioner IS A MAGISTRATE within the meaning of the Vehicle Code-- which again is untrue and conflicts with other sections of that Code as well as with the Penal Code, as well as with abundant case law on the subject of "who is a magistrate."  Additionally, it violates constitutional law under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has written many decisions about the requirements of a "magistrate" and it must be a neutral officer, not a court official (judge, commissioner or otherwise). I'm shocked that the opinion hasn't been challenged by anyone-- it's so fundamentally flawed!
          But the system will say and do anything to uphold the tyranny. It doesn't matter how much you know, or can prove according to law. You're just ignored and subjected to character assassination, as I was. No substance or truth-- just nonsense coming from the Black Robed Gang.
          We need JAIL!!  Judicial Accountability!
      Thanks and God bless.  -Ron-

      -- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 6:27 PM
      Subject: I Don't Understand

      You cannot lawfully convict me unless


      1. You must prove I made a Dangerous left turn beyond the preponerance of evidence which means it has great weight and is most credible and convicing to the mind.

      2. There must be a credible Witness who has sworn under oath or who will testify under oath as to the facts that show me guilty of a dangerous left turn and he must show he is an expert on traffic offences.

      3. All misdemeanors and infracions must be commited in the presence of the arresting officer or proven as in number 2.

      4. I must be made to understand why, if I am to be fined more than $20 why I cannot have a lawyer apponted for me and why I cannot have a Jury trial.

      5. I must be informed whether this is a Common Law Court, an Admiralty Court, an Equity Court or a Statutory Court, in order to know what kind of defence I must use in this Court.

      6. If this is a Statutory Court I need to know where I can get the necessary court procedures in order to have a fair and proper trial.

      7.Since you, the Judge, are an expert on the law and I am a layman and I can't afford an Officer of the Court and/or an Attorney. I must have your full cooperation in the matter of Due Process and a fair trial.

      8. This being an infraction and there is no allowance for a jury trial; I cannot determine if this is a Crimianal trial or a Civil Trail. If it is a Civil trial; where is the damaged party.

      9. I just don't understand what this trial is. Is it Civil or Criminal. If Criminal why can't I be appointd an Atorney? If Civil; how come the state is the Plaintiff. I just don't understand this whole matter. It does not make sense to me


      Lulu Estelle Frye

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.