Traffic Ticket Advice (California City, Needles: lawyers, codes, price)

[nr5667]

Originally Posted by Fighter 1

How convenient you left out 40513 (b) . RE; if the "NOTICE TO APPEAR" is not verified. To be verified it has to be "SIGNED " In front of a Notary, the ticket is not signed by the cop ( the cops print their name ) , there is no Notary stamp, or signature. The first few Judges ( Commissioners) that this was brought to their attention did the same thing they only stated (a) and left out ( b) but when it was brought to their attention they dismissed the action because the court did not have and the cops could not provide the required Verified complaint when it was demanded by the Defendant. If you are not educated in their laws then they don't have to tell you they are violating your right. Legal system is really great !.
Additionally it states: In lieu of a verified complaint the notice to appear can be used to move forward "IF" the defendant enters a plea of "GUILTY or NO-LO" How much clearer can it be stated, c.p.c.853.9 says the same. and c.p.c. 740 says the court must move on a verified complaint . How can they move forward if legally they don't have or have not met that requirement?

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea and, if the notice to appear is verified, upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed. In the case of an infraction violation in which the defendant is a minor, the defendant may enter a plea at the arraignment upon a written notice to appear. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of an infraction violation, no consent of the minor is required prior to conducting the hearing upon a written

I'm not sure where in this subdivision it says anything about being signed in front of a notary.

To help me understand - when you successfully used this defense in court, exactly what was the sequence of events?

[Meowen]

Originally Posted by Phil306

Finally someone with some common sense. Yep, cops get paid OVERTIME for going to court. So, they go to court, whether or not they remember the ticket or not. With budget cutbacks, pay reductions, etc. You better BELIEVE cops show up for court now. Its one of the FEW issues they CAN get overtime for.

Well it worked for me the last two times I fought traffic tickets, both in San Jose. But what do i know...

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by 80skeys

Sorry but courts aren't impressed with amateurs citing case law.

Citing case law, maybe not , but they understand citing procedural Rules and Requirements for jurisdiction in the hearing of a case when they are stated on the " NOTICE TO APPEAR".

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by nr5667

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea and, if the notice to appear is verified, upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed. In the case of an infraction violation in which the defendant is a minor, the defendant may enter a plea at the arraignment upon a written notice to appear. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of an infraction violation, no consent of the minor is required prior to conducting the hearing upon a written

I'm not sure where in this subdivision it says anything about being signed in front of a notary.

To help me understand - when you successfully used this defense in court, exactly what was the sequence of events?

No it is not stated in that subdivision , but all anyone has to do is go on line and see what the requirements are for a complaint to be verified and then look at the notice to appear, it even states that it is not an admission of guilt. That's why I keep stating people need to get educated, know what your rights are before they are all gone and you ask the question
What happen!

[nr5667]

Okay, but walk me through the process when you did it. Reading some statutes doesn't quite help me understand, because it seems to me that the state will treat the notice to appear as though it were a verified complaint.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by nr5667

Okay, but walk me through the process when you did it. Reading some statutes doesn't quite help me understand, because it seems to me that the state will treat the notice to appear as though it were a verified complaint.

100% correct , they do all the time , many Judges and Commissioners deny the motion for a verified complaint at the arraignment hearing pursuant to c.p.c.853.9, c.p.c.740 VC 40513 . That's where they get into trouble by Violating your right to due process ( U.S.Title 42 , 1983) That is serious problems for them . After the hearing they get a chance to really read the Points and Authority( 4 pgs ) they were given when they set your case for trial out 30 days. When you come back for your trial that Judge or Commissioner in the interest of justice ( because the cop just happen to not be able to attend the hearing) dismisses the case. Not just 1 time but 107 people so far that have used this info. Knowledge is a wonderful thing.

[nr5667]

Originally Posted by Fighter 1

100% correct , they do all the time , many Judges and Commissioners deny the motion for a verified complaint at the arraignment hearing pursuant to c.p.c.853.9, c.p.c.740 VC 40513 . That's where they get into trouble by Violating your right to due process ( U.S.Title 42 , 1983) That is serious problems for them . After the hearing they get a chance to really read the Points and Authority( 4 pgs ) they were given when they set your case for trial out 30 days. When you come back for your trial that Judge or Commissioner in the interest of justice ( because the cop just happen to not be able to attend the hearing) dismisses the case. Not just 1 time but 107 people so far that have used this info. Knowledge is a wonderful thing.

Exactly how has your right to due process been denied by them treating the notice to appear as a verified complaint?

Just walk me through it, what did you do to get your ticket dismissed under this line of reasoning?

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by nr5667

Exactly how has your right to due process been denied by them treating the notice to appear as a verified complaint?

Just walk me through it, what did you do to get your ticket dismissed under this line of reasoning?

READ MY MANY POST ON HOW TO( STEP BY STEP)get the results I have .

You have got to be kidding me! How simple can it be , READ the California Penal Codes I have stated . If the laws they put in play state you have a right to some thing and they deny it have your rights not been violated ? YES. how do I know this , How do I know this works ? because I filed a suit in a California court against a California City using this same thing 'Violation of my rights to due process" and after 3 1/2 yrs in court Pro-per with the help of a retired Law professor I won. They didn't follow their own laws . Same here , if laws says they need to have a"verified complaint to move forward and the codes stated clearly state the notice to appear is in lieu of that document under certain circumstances, and those circumstances do not exist they have violated you rights to due process.

[80skeys]

Fighter1: sounds like you've been there and done it and you know the laws on this particular issue. The question would be whether it's worth the time and hassle to do what you suggest (I believe you said you spent three years in court), or if the same or similar result (dismissal or reducing the fine) can be achieved through simpler, quicker means, such as a simple apologetic letter to the court.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by 80skeys

Fighter1: sounds like you've been there and done it and you know the laws on this particular issue. The question would be whether it's worth the time and hassle to do what you suggest (I believe you said you spent three years in court), or if the same or similar result (dismissal or reducing the fine) can be achieved through simpler, quicker means, such as a simple apologetic letter to the court.

Just to clarify, in the case of the traffic ticket the post was about , you go to your arraignment hearing , you present the Judge ? commissioner with a demand letter pursuant to the codes i mentioned , they either dismiss right then and there( the courts in all county's of california have seen this demand letter)they either accept or get mad and demand you enter a plea, you enter a plea of not ty, they set trial date 30 day's out , you got to your trial date and are told your case has been dismissed! ( the courts do not want to argue this demand and expose the fraud they have been doing) . NOW is that so hard?, is that not worth a little time doing so you can keep some of your constitutional right's? I say yes but that 's why they keep on doing it because so many people do want to take the time. NOW ! as to the issue of my fighting in court for 3 1/2 yrs . That was a totally different matter although it was about a violatiuon of due process. In that matter the city did an abatement on my property and took a large sum of money from the sale of the property for their cost,but they did not have the required court judgement ( order)to take the funds from escrow , in the end I got my funds back along with $750,000.00 in damage's ( the sub contractors stole 15 vehicles) for their violation of my due process right's. They took the money without court Order, Their sub contractor's were not licensed by city, county or state to do the abatement they violated their own laws. In plain English they didn't follow their own and the courts rules. Most traffic tickets only require you to go to court 2 times. in this OP's case it is well worth the time.