[FoRK] I just had to do it

mdw at martinwills.com mdw at martinwills.com
Thu Feb 17 12:41:09 PST 2011


Unless the laws have been completely rewritten in CA, traffic tickets are
not appealable in any form.  The arguments you are making should be made
to the legislature or the executive entity.  The Courts simply are there
in this matter to ensure the executive branch enforced the laws as the
legislative branch intended them to be enforced and nothing more.  Courts
can only nullify existing laws after Appellate review (and generally has
to be unanimous). They cannot write the law (legislative) and they can't
enforce the law (executive -- Prosecuting/District Attorneys are part of
the executive branch). A non-appellant State Court cannot strike down any
provision of any law, they are only allowed to use current precedent and
follow it.  If a person has developed an 'edge-case' instance, then you
can appeal the Judges decision (when you preserve it for appeal), to the
Appellate Court and they will review the law and make a determination of
either:

a) The legal precedent supports the Lower Courts decision.
b) The law is unclear and they will attempt to clarify it and the purpose
of the EVERY Supreme Court of any state is to interpret the state statues:

"The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent
of the legislature. Where the language of a statute is plain and
unambiguous, we determine legislative intent from the ordinary meaning of
the language used. The first rule in considering the meaning of a statute
is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and
usually accepted meaning in common language. The statute should be
construed so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant; and
meaning and effect must be giving to every word in the statute if
possible. The construction of a state statute by an administrative agency
is not overturned unless it is clearly wrong."

c) If the law is conflicted or contradicts another law the Appellate Court
can strike down the portion of the conflicting law(s) and refer it back to
the legislature to either amend the conflicts law or remove it. THEY
CANNOT MAKE NEW LAW.

Also as a legal tidbit... A Court cannot dismiss any criminal case.  The
Criminal case is owned by the executive branch (DA/PA) and the Court is
not allowed to reach into the Executive branch.  The only option the Court
has is to rule 'guilty' or 'not guilty' (if not a jury trial).  Once the
Court has entered it's decision the DA/PA is not allowed to appeal it
(there are a couple of edge exceptions but nothing that affects this
instant exercise).

Finally, the Courts do not rule on 'gut feeling' or 'perceived injustice'.
That is the province of juries and the legislature.  The religiously guard
their neutrality in this issue and fall back on the zealous stance of
ruling only on facts and nothing more.

--Martin--


> Nah, that would inconvenience a lot of people, cost someone, and subject
> lay people to legal arguments that they would glaze
> over on after 2 minutes.  That only makes sense if it is purely a judgment
> situation or there are important consequences and you
> are going for jury nullification.  How many juries in Humbolt County would
> convict on possession of marijuana or some such?  (I
> think it is wrong that in most places juries cannot be advised that jury
> nullification is legal, or at least has often been held
> to be legal.)
>
> And, half the fun is losing so that I can appeal (if I can appeal).  So,
> my choices are likely A) lose by quitting or B) lose
> with possible standing to keep needling the court / DA.  What if everyone
> contested unfair / incorrect tickets?  Anyway,
> legally, I think I am right, so it is my duty to say so in a proper way.
>
> Stephen
>
> On 2/17/11 11:00 AM, geege schuman wrote:
>> I was in court once facing charges of Dog At Large (my yellow lab Dixie
>> escaped (in a berg where dogs once ran in packs and attacked the
>> townsfolk))
>> and I listened to guy charged with Skateboarding on the Sidewalk (or
>> some
>> such nonsense) argue for a trial with 18 jurors.  Why don't you try
>> that?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Stephen Williams<sdw at lig.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/17/11 10:01 AM, Gary Stock wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/11 10:58 AM, Lawnun wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...I suggest you get to that point first, and not screw around with
>>>>> your credentials and general awesomeness up front.
>>>>>
>>>> Whaddya mean, "screw around"?!?  What "other" point?!?
>>>>
>>>> His Super Duper Awesomeness is ~always~ the point!  lolz
>>>>
>>> Hardly, I screw things up constantly.  I failed my first check ride
>>> (albeit
>>> at the very end at the hardest part).  I once got lost in DC airspace
>>> at
>>> night so badly that my instructor couldn't figure out where we were and
>>> we
>>> had to ask Flight Watch for a radar reading.  (I followed the VORs
>>> incorrectly.)  I have let so many opportunities slip past me it isn't
>>> funny.
>>>   (But no more of that dammit!)  I let many people and companies screw
>>> me out
>>> of thousands before I finally dug into the law a little to defend
>>> myself.  I
>>> periodically overload myself, such as accidentally taking the most
>>> difficult
>>> CompSci graduate course at Stanford without A) enough time available
>>> and B)
>>> missing prerequisite knowledge, some of which I couldn't quickly ramp
>>> up on.
>>>   My mistakes are endless and constant.  But, still, I get something
>>> done
>>> once in a while.
>>>
>>> sdw
>>>
>>>
>>>   GS
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FoRK mailing list
>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FoRK mailing list
>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
>
> --
> Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net stephendwilliams at gmail.com LinkedIn:
> http://sdw.st/in
> V:650-450-UNIX (8649) V:866.SDW.UNIX V:703.371.9362 F:703.995.0407
> AIM:sdw Skype:StephenDWilliams Yahoo:sdwlignet Resume: http://sdw.st/gres
> Personal: http://sdw.st facebook.com/sdwlig twitter.com/scienteer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>





More information about the FoRK mailing list