[FoRK] I just had to do it
mdw at martinwills.com
mdw at martinwills.com
Thu Feb 17 09:51:30 PST 2011
> On 2/17/11 7:11 AM, mdw at martinwills.com wrote:
>> I myself have a State Supreme Court issue (it was transferred from the
>> State Court of Appeals because I inadvertently raised "Issues of first
>> impression, issues needing clarification, and applicability of the Rules
>> of Civil Procedure." -- I didn't want to do that since it added two more
>> months to the appeal) that I am appealing pro se. I have filed 2 other
>> state civil matters and 1 federal civil rights matter pro se. The
>> that I have found out is 1) Lawyers and the Judges are long time
>> 2) In most states the court judges are elected -- and -- a judge today
>> be a lawyer tomorrow pleading before the lawyer from yesterday. So you
>> are hurting yourself as a pro se.
> Oh yea, I know that's how it generally works, at least at the first
> levels. There is however a general directive (somewhere,
> don't have the reference handy) to give a pro se wide latitude as they are
> not (generally) professionals. So, all the
> professionals will inwardly groan, but they are obligated to not simply
> dismiss the arguments out of hand. Not that that will
> stop them much of the time.
Yes, and my appeal in part was based on that Judge after being reminded of
this very point said (and I quote from my abstract of the case) "I went to
law school and know this. You know the old saying 'ignorance of the law
is no excuse' that is why I went to law school." The Judges are
experienced and they know the law. They will do whatever they want and
know how to work the 'system'. In response to the above quote, the
Appellate Court stated that "The Judge simply made an state of his legal
background". Remember, Appellate Court Judges were lawyers and judges
before their appointments, and they watch out for their own...
> I'd be interested in reading your filings and the responses at some point
> if you don't mind.
>> That being said... The Courts want you to present your case with as
>> "jargon, scientific, or technical presentation". The matters are to be
>> simplified down to a 6th grade interpretation (the majority of US
>> are at the 6th grade level and the COURT HAS TO provide rulings that the
>> majority of the average american can read and understand, in-order to
>> comply with the Constitution). After reading your email... It appears
>> are fighting a right turn citation at a no right turn on red
>> You are trying to bring 'speed trap' legislation into the picture.
At this point I am a little confused... How does a traffic violation end
up in an Appeals Court anyway? The only way I know of is that you would
have to have the Appeals Court either rule on the proceedings of a
Circuit/Superior Court (not district or city court) for:
1) Trial Errors or law interpretation issues (such as in VA).
2) Or your trying to have the Appellate Courts rule that a "prohibition of
the right turn on red is violation of a Constitutional Guarantee" via a
writ of prohibition or writ of certiorari.
3) Or your raising a legitimate legal question asking them to review and
interpret the law in light of the legislative act because you have been
charged by an exception to the common usage of that law and you want the
Court to clarify the law? (usually in response to a writ of certiorari).
These are the only ways to get it before an Appellate Court...
Remember the 20' rule. The Court when presented with this case will
mentally build a fence with a 20' diameter around the scene. He will only
consider what happened inside that fence from when the Officers observed
you until the Officer left you. He doesn't care about the CHP officer
driving by that fence at 100 mph. He won't care if there is a parade of
Martians in full military gear invading and using that street going by
that fence. The Officer doesn't know you from Joe Blow and wouldn't know
your a pilot (nor were you flying inside the fence at the time). The
Officer nor the Court could care less that the plans and modifications to
this particular intersection inside that fence happened recently. The
Court WON'T CARE.
So what element of the law --or-- incorrect interpretation of the law by
the Officer, are you trying to get the Court to agree with you on? The
Court can't change the sign (that is executive branch). The Court can't
change the law that a right on red is legal even though it is marked
"Right Turn Prohibited" (that is the legislative branch). The Court can't
fire the Police Officer (that is the executive branch). The Court can't
find the Officer erred because you are a Pilot and should have known you
can multi-task and therefore a 'exempt' from following that particular
sign (that is an act of a deity).
Now if you can't claimed you were from out of state and your out of state
drivers license and out of state car tags should have alerted the Officer
that you probably haven't been through that intersection before and maybe
should have used his discretion to leave you with a 'warning'. The Court
wouldn't care because that is Officer's discretion and department policy
(that is the executive branch).
As for the Officer admitting that he sat there and regularly did that, is
not a violation of the law. He was simply performing his duty per the laws
of the State of California (I used to be a cop in CA.. :-) ) Most school
systems have police officers stationed around school zones and write
tickets when the speed changes (in my town it is from 40 to 15 when school
is in session and I have many friends who have been ticketed). The
argument of the Speed-Trap is for just that... A speed trap -- you haven't
been cited for a speed issue -- so that point is moot and won't be given
any merit (unless you can provide Appellate precedent where this law was
used to defeat a similar legal challenge).
So you have a hearing before a city or municipal judge on a traffic
violation and their decision concerning a traffic violation cannot be
appealed to the Appellate Courts. The issue of whether that sign should
be there is an issue for the City/State executive branch responsible for
maintaining and the zoning of that intersection. The issue of whether
that Officer violated department policy is up to his employer and that is
the executive branch.
More information about the FoRK