speeding ticket? lawyer?? (San Diego, San Francisco, Fresno: felony, safe, license)

[mrmanz]

Originally Posted by Fighter 1

No ! he violated the California Vehicle code, now for the 400th time every one needs to read California penal codes 853.9, c.p.c.740 and Vehicle code 40513 and when you finish with that try vehicle code 17459 and 17460, you will find that without you knowing ( NO where on any of the DMV form does it ask if you consent to them using your signature for any other purpose when you sign for these documents) you gave your consent to the DMV to take an action against you "IN A COURT OF LAW" for violating their "Vehicle code". Now when we talk about breaking the law This is a violation of the FEDERAL FULL DISCLOSURE LAWS ! Education They ( THE DMV) does not call these violations you are charged with "Law".

OMG so are you actually saying i did not break the law?

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by mrmanz

OMG so are you actually saying i did not break the law?

PLEASE ***take the time to read the sites , then answer the question " Did you break the Law or did you violate a code? that D.M.V. assumed when you signed for the registration and license in the State of California you consented to them taking you to a court of law for violating one of their codes without even taking the time to ask you if it was ok "..... and yes I am for real. Check it out !

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Fighter 1

PLEASE ***take the time to read the sites , then answer the question " Did you break the Law or did you violate a code? that D.M.V. assumed when you signed for the registration and license in the State of California you consented to them taking you to a court of law for violating one of their codes without even taking the time to ask you if it was ok "..... and yes I am for real. Check it out !

If this 24 year old youngster follows this advice, he's going to learn very quickly what wage garnishment is all about. But go ahead. La experiencia es la madre de la ciencia.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by revelated

If this 24 year old youngster follows this advice, he's going to learn very quickly what wage garnishment is all about. But go ahead. La experiencia es la madre de la ciencia.

OR he could learn he still has some rights , and that the cops and the court also have rules they must follow whether or not they like it . the burden of proof lies on them "Innocent until proven guilty" not by intimation. Along with the other sites I have mentioned Re: your rights, look at Justice Tolman , State of Washington, Right to Drive. Very interesting reading.

[Ascendant13]

Originally Posted by Fighter 1

OR he could learn he still has some rights , and that the cops and the court also have rules they must follow whether or not they like it . the burden of proof lies on them "Innocent until proven guilty" not by intimation. Along with the other sites I have mentioned Re: your rights, look at Justice Tolman , State of Washington, Right to Drive. Very interesting reading.

The ticket itself can be a verified complaint. They do not have to long form it. Trust me, I have seen Driving Under the Influence cases prosecuted with just the ticket. And the whole right to drive = right to travel argument, which is essentially what you are making, has no legal support. All the court cases have ruled that the government does have the right to license drivers. I get people coming into court occasionally who file very long winded complaints, wanting verified complaints and raising the right to travel issue on traffic. It never works. You are reading snippets of the law without a full understanding of it. What it comes down to is that you may THINK the law requires something, but the courts disagree. And it is the job of the court system, as the judicial branch, to interpret our laws. So if you interpret it one one, and they interpret it another, you lose

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by Ascendant13

The ticket itself can be a verified complaint. They do not have to long form it. Trust me, I have seen Driving Under the Influence cases prosecuted with just the ticket. And the whole right to drive = right to travel argument, which is essentially what you are making, has no legal support. All the court cases have ruled that the government does have the right to license drivers. I get people coming into court occasionally who file very long winded complaints, wanting verified complaints and raising the right to travel issue on traffic. It never works. You are reading snippets of the law without a full understanding of it. What it comes down to is that you may THINK the law requires something, but the courts disagree. And it is the job of the court system, as the judicial branch, to interpret our laws. So if you interpret it one one, and they interpret it another, you lose

WELL thanks for your opinion , But it would show as usual you haven't taken the time to read the sites I mentioned as stated on every "NOTICE TO APPEAR" it clearly states that the Notice to appear is just that your promiss to be in court at that time . There is nothing to be interpreted California Penal code 853.9, 740 and the DMV code are very clear . I state that fact from the many people I have helped and have the dismissal papers to prove it .Your rights are just you rights and NO judge can take them away. just because they need money does not allow them to violate you rights . Title 42 , 1983 says that. And as to right to drive, right to travel PLEASE explain then how I have been able to travel (LIVE) in my RV for the last 5 yrs when it has no plates on it , I have no drivers license, have been stopped in many south and north western states and on producing that info to the officers I have never been taken to court !

[BVitamin]

To the OP, sorry you got a ticket. If I may add for future reference, cops in CA tend to be rather anal around spring and early summer, so try to follow the rules to a T. I'm not too sure but I think they need to meet a quota on ticket issues. The three minor traffic tickets that I've gotten were around those times , all in the SoCal area.

[Ascendant13]

Originally Posted by Fighter 1

WELL thanks for your opinion , But it would show as usual you haven't taken the time to read the sites I mentioned as stated on every "NOTICE TO APPEAR" it clearly states that the Notice to appear is just that your promiss to be in court at that time . There is nothing to be interpreted California Penal code 853.9, 740 and the DMV code are very clear . I state that fact from the many people I have helped and have the dismissal papers to prove it .Your rights are just you rights and NO judge can take them away. just because they need money does not allow them to violate you rights . Title 42 , 1983 says that. And as to right to drive, right to travel PLEASE explain then how I have been able to travel (LIVE) in my RV for the last 5 yrs when it has no plates on it , I have no drivers license, have been stopped in many south and north western states and on producing that info to the officers I have never been taken to court !

You know, I have tried arguing with guys like you before and it never works, lol. I am a lawyer, I deal with traffic matters more often than I want to. Maybe someone fell for this stuff for you a few times but legally it is nonsense.

But in brief - 853.9 states that a copy of the citation filed with the magistrate may serve "in lieu of a verified complaint" In other words a copy of the ticket filed with the court IS THE COMPLAINT. That is all they need.

740 simply says that misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted with a written complaint, signed under oath by complainant. If you look at your ticket you will see that where the officer signs it says "I declare under penalty of purgery..." There is your signature under oath.

In other words, a copy of the signed ticket is sufficient to cover both those sections.

And I fairly regularly see people who have no driver's license, don't have registration, etc, and claim its ok under the right to travel. I think we have a group of them out here where I work. They file nonsense motions which have no basis in law and are routinely denied.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by Ascendant13

You know, I have tried arguing with guys like you before and it never works, lol. I am a lawyer, I deal with traffic matters more often than I want to. Maybe someone fell for this stuff for you a few times but legally it is nonsense.

But in brief - 853.9 states that a copy of the citation filed with the magistrate may serve "in lieu of a verified complaint" ( only if the defendant pleads guilty or no-lo) wooooops! guess you missed that part. In other words a copy of the ticket filed with the court IS THE COMPLAINT. That is all they need. ( Again a little miss leading )

740 simply says that misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted with a written complaint, ( Did you mean a verified complaint because thats what I read) signed under oath by complainant. If you look at your ticket you will see that where the officer signs it says "I declare under penalty of purgery..." There is your signature under oath.

In other words, a copy of the signed ticket is sufficient to cover both those sections.

And I fairly regularly see people who have no driver's license, don't have registration, etc, and claim its ok under the right to travel. I think we have a group of them out here where I work. They file nonsense motions which have no basis in law and are routinely denied.

Not wanting to be argumentative, but I have to ask why do you not post all of c.p.c. 853.9????. Because it states that the Notice to Appear can be used as a complaint "IF" the defendant pleads guilty or No lo . If he did plead guilty a plain piece of paper could be called a complaint .

#2 or if the defendant waves the filing of a "Verified Complaint" on the "NOTICE to appear" the court may proceed.

Or #3 or at arraignment the defendant may request that a verified complaint be filed./ Again and again it states that the "Notice to appear is just that , your promise to appear ,

I fined it interesting how some people have trouble reading the law when it is so plainly written ? and do not want to state the whole thing . Must be in the training they get. Also I didn't know that the printed spelling of a persons name was acceptable as your signature??

[Ascendant13]

Originally Posted by Fighter 1

Not wanting to be argumentative, but I have to ask why do you not post all of c.p.c. 853.9????. Because it states that the Notice to Appear can be used as a complaint "IF" the defendant pleads guilty or No lo . If he did plead guilty a plain piece of paper could be called a complaint .

#2 or if the defendant waves the filing of a "Verified Complaint" on the "NOTICE to appear" the court may proceed.

Or #3 or at arraignment the defendant may request that a verified complaint be filed./ Again and again it states that the "Notice to appear is just that , your promise to appear ,

I fined it interesting how some people have trouble reading the law when it is so plainly written ? and do not want to state the whole thing . Must be in the training they get. Also I didn't know that the printed spelling of a persons name was acceptable as your signature??

I didn't cite the whole section because that is a long block of text, lol. And this is the last time I will respond, because I don't care that much, but I will address your points. First off, a Notice to Appear can ALSO be a complaint. That is what section 740 refers to. They can also be separate, but that is why all such notices include the "penalty of perjury" line in there, so they can be used as a complaint. Second, you will notice that 853.9 refers to 853.6. Most of 853.6 refers to your rights in misdemeanor cases, which differ from those in infractions. Finally, I direct you to this cite. There is no right to a verified complaint when the citation is issued on an approved form. [See People v Barron (1995) 37 CA4th Supp 1, 3–5] The problem is you are reading sections of the code in isolation. The law is NOT simple. It has to be taken as a cohesive whole, and a few words taken out of context don't change anything. The courts have ruled on this EXACT issue in Barron, and they disagree with your reading. Last post friend. Good luck with your ticket fighting, but not going to write a brief on the law for this forum, lol.