Need some help on a traffic ticket junvenile case in Calif.
- First of all, I am not condoning the actions of my 15 yr old son, and
we have taken actions at home to correct the situation from growing
any further. What I don't like however, is that the court decide the
fate of my son and possibly give him fines. I do not even want him to
apply for a driver's license, so that might not be at issue here if
the DMV makes it unavailable to him til a later date.
He took my car, without my permission, and picked up a bunch of his
friends in the middle of the night and went for a spin. He was pulled
over by our local police and given a ticket for 'unlicensed driver'
and a 'red light violation', by turning right on a red without
completely stopping. (The good old California stop). We appeared in
court for the first request and did not enter a plea, but asked for a
continuance so I could get assistance of counsel, which hasn't worked
out. My court date is the 14th of this month. No injuries or
complaints were filed against my son from anyone else. We do not have
a case number, just a traffic ticket that lists the offenses as
'infractions'. They handle juvenile cases behind closed doors, one at
a time in the court room. The parent can be present, but as I
understand it, he must speak for himself. (Kind of scary). If there
were no complaints, and on the ticket, the officer wrote, "No COMM
lic", wouldn't there be a way to get out of this? He is not a
'driver', since he is not for hire. But since he is only 15, is there
a law stating a minimum age for driving on the roads? Is he subject to
their laws if he doesn't have a license? If there are no complaints,
is there really a case? Any help would be greatly appreciated....
- Did he damage or injure anyone? Did he violate
anyone's legal rights? If the answer is no to either
one of those questions, the state has no standing to
bring the charge. Please see prior posts for
information on how to deal with this.
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
- Kellie [mailto:anara@...] wrote:
> First of all, I am not condoning the actions of my 15 yr old son, andIn recent discussions we noted that in the group's file section there is
> we have taken actions at home to correct the situation from growing
> any further. What I don't like however, is that the court decide the
> fate of my son and possibly give him fines.
proof that FRNs are not legal tender (and thus nothing exists for the
officials to demand, absent your willing cooperation in imagination),
and there was a discussion about how to avoid all jail time and fines.
I won't rehash it all here unless specifically requested.
Also, since you are in California, the recent discussions regarding
oaths and disqualification of officials may be helpful.
> We appeared inAsking for, and receiving a "continuance" is a general appearance and a
> court for the first request and did not enter a plea, but asked for a
> continuance so I could get assistance of counsel, which hasn't worked
grant of jurisdiction to a court that had none up to that point. Since
everyone has the RIGHT to counsel at every meaningful stage of the
proceedings, and because arraignment is a MOST meaningful stage, a
demand for assistance of counsel must be complied with WITHOUT any need
to "ask for a continuance". The DEMAND will result in a continuance, if
that is their choice, but all you really want is the counsel, which is a
right, not something you have to "request" or ask for. Demand rights,
don't "ask" for them.
> My court date is the 14th of this month. No injuries orTo permit oneself to be prosecuted in California on "infractions" is
> complaints were filed against my son from anyone else. We do not have
> a case number, just a traffic ticket that lists the offenses as
another voluntary submission and waiver. It's better (in my opinion) to
refuse to permit moving ahead on infractions and demand all of the
rights attendant with a misdemeanor prosecution. Their option would
then be to dismiss or prosecute him as though he committed more serious
misdemeanors. This might sound bad for you (because of the potential
jail time that is ruled out by the infraction process), but I have a
feeling that they are not prepared to do that. I'd bet on it. My
studies have shown that the only people paying fines and doing jail time
in California are those who cooperate in their own prosecutions and
waive all the rights they are offered to waive.
> They handle juvenile cases behind closed doors, one atActually, he has the right to remain silent. He can also make the
> a time in the court room. The parent can be present, but as I
> understand it, he must speak for himself. (Kind of scary).
parent his counsel. Also, above you referred to "my" court date. How
are they making you a party? What were the charges against YOU? If
none, I'm a little confused.
> If thereThere were many ways out of this, but even though they were skipped
> were no complaints, and on the ticket, the officer wrote, "No COMM
> lic", wouldn't there be a way to get out of this?
over, there are probably many more. How badly do you like to pretend?
You are pretending that:
A. he needed a license (he's under age)
B. there is money to pay for fees and fines
C. your neighbors without oaths on file ("judge", "prosecutor",
"clerk", etc) have some power over you obtained in some other unknown
manner than according to California law.
D. your son cannot read the constitution and demand his rights from
impostors out of his own mouth. Alexander the Great was 14 when he
E. a "ticket" can be used as a complaint even if a formal complaint is
demanded at a real and complete arraignment.
In my locale, they use "tickets" NOT approved by the Judicial Council,
because they invested a lot (of what?$?) in them and don't want to waste
them and they know most people have no clue that they are no good and
such a small number of people will challenge their use that the few who
get off on that issue will not affect revenues as much as throwing out
the bad tickets and getting new good ones. People get what they
deserve, it seems.
> He is not aAre they subject to your laws if they don't have oaths on file? Which
> 'driver', since he is not for hire. But since he is only 15, is there
> a law stating a minimum age for driving on the roads? Is he subject to
> their laws if he doesn't have a license?
comes first, their questioning of your son, or your questioning of their
> If there are no complaints,If there are no oaths of office on file, conforming to requirements in
> is there really a case? Any help would be greatly appreciated....
the state constitution, are there really people with lawful powers of
officers dealing with you and your son? Or are they merely powerful
political figures who hold sway over fellow neighbors more ignorant than
those who know better?
Real criminals never like exposure. How many will you permit to involve
themselves with you and your son?
If you are looking for a guide to follow, consider yourself like
Columbus, acting in ways nobody else around you is considering, and most
would call folly. But then they believe the Big Lie ("the Earth is
flat"), while you may not!
You (and your son) have to know how much fraud you are willing to stand