Where is it written that you HAVE TO ask for and possess LICENSE PLATES if you use your property for NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES?
Gee, do you think your LAW MAKER, you know, the ASSEMBLY MEMBER for your district would know or at the very least could look it up?
See Evidence Code section 601
If you have a license plate on your car it’s PRESUMED you’re in commerce. The license plate is EVIDENCE of commercial activity.
If there’s no license plate on your car what’s the PRESUMPTION?
1. It’s stolen
2. You’re not in commerce
Officer, are you responding to a report of a stolen car matching the description of this one?
Officer, at the time of your contact were you responding to a report of a stolen vehicle matching the description of the one I was in?
NO PLATE REBUTS THE PRESUMPTION YOU'RE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS.
On Thursday-Jul-02-2015 12:20 PM, Keith Broaders wrote:
********************************************************************************************
The scenario: Plaintiff (PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) doesn't appear at their trial, their attorney doesn't appear on their behalf, the State's witness puts on the State's case, the State's witness IS NOT SWORN IN.
Q: HOW, UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, DOES THE DEFENDANT LOSE?
The defendant lost. The defendant established at trial that the arresting officer DID NOT HAVE authorization to make the arrest. The defendant appealed. The Appellate department ruled against the defendant.
Q: HOW DOES THAT COMPORT WITH PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW?
It happened here in California. This is the shit that passes for justice in COURTS OF LAW in this country.
*************************************************************
Did you hear the one about the cop who wasn't sworn in?
This IS NOT A JOKE.
I helped a buddy with an infraction case. The decision went against him. After getting the transcript I discovered the cop was NOT SWORN IN.
Add to that, the judge, not a commissioner but a judge, said on the record THERE IS NO NOTICE TO APPEAR.
Honorable Paul Lo, Merced County Superior Court, Department 9: Well, it's not only a notice to appear, it's a traffic citation, sir. I don't know what you mean by a "notice to appear."
JUDGE LO: We don't have a notice to appear.
DEFENDANT: He (cop) doesn't have a notice to appear?
JUDGE LO: I don't know what you mean by that, but we have a traffic ticket.
You read that right, a JUDGE said all that, yet that's the NAME of the paper the cop issued the defendant during the traffic stop.
Further, even though the Defendant wasn't provided with any discovery, to which he notified the court, the judge ruled there was no Brady violation.
Further, California Evidence Code section 451 doesn't apply to him because he doesn't HAVE TO take judicial notice of courts of superior jurisdiction's decisions which on this planet would be a violation of The Doctrine of Stare Decisis.
This issue of the cop not being sworn in was the ONLY contention on appeal. It seemed preeeeety straight forward and we didn't want the appellate department judges to have to work too hard so we just gave em one CONDITION PRECEDENT that wasn't met that SHOULD have caused the house of cards to collapse. My buddy got the Appellate Department's ruling yesterday. Theoretically the decision SHOULD HAVE been reversed. It wasn't.
So here's what's goin on re traffic trials, there's no witness, no plaintiff, no prosecutor, no discovery, and no complaint, and you're gonna lose.
This is the JUST US system in this country and you ain't a part of it, but you're GONNA PARTICIPATE IN IT WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT AND FUND IT!
Views: 6
Replies