My question involves traffic court in the State of: 1. My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Ca CVC 22349A; stopped 237 @ whisman (4 lanes divided highway=not surface road per ca road maps), alleged speed=75mph, at time of stop demanded all rights, demanded criminal "probable cause" / 4th amendment warrant, no PC provided only speeding- threat of arrest if "Papers not provided".... signed summons under "threat of arrest- duress coercion".
2. At arraignment ; demanded all rights asserted right to travel; CDL from ca not needed at time of stop = not in commercial capacity filed 20 page motion, challenged jurisdiction; provided numerous Supreme court cases about right to travel etc etc. (I have original 1948 CA revenue code statute that defines operator = for hire non operator NOT FOR HIRE") statute now watered down = fraud/abrogation per Miranda v Arizona cases etc etc. also : Ca state involved in Fraud/concealment by claiming all persons are operators/drivers. 3. (cop was NOT present at first trial? claimed injured!!?) I objected "speedy trial violation" Objection Overruled. 2nd trial (past 45 days due to cops "injury"?) I objected speedy trial again: overruled; challenged jurisdiction again; motion denied (judge said he read it but blah blah who cares denied) total right violator / treasonous, Preempt challenge DENIED; Judge showed Bias for sure.
IF they are claiming Jurisdiction, (as they are) although it was not asserted by court thus court LOST IT per common law; on appeal I will argue; items 1-2 out of jurisdiction; 3-4 in jurisdiction
"
1. Rights violations per US supreme court case law- right to travel is inalienable & state is involved in fraud/concealment of facts and inalienable rights violations.
2. speedy trial violation (past 45 days) no ends of justice set forth by judge... just "cops injury"? defendant has the burden of establishing that the government engaged in intentional delay to gain a tactical advantage, and that he suffered actual prejudice; I assert this claimed Injury caused tactical advantage! and Bias was clear.
3. CVC 22349b road must be ONLY 2 lanes, <40 ft wide; and NOT divided. It was 4 lanes; wider than 40 ft and divided. thus 4
4. Judge showed clear prejudice and would not allow me to file the above tax code statute defining "non operator or operator" or "peremptory challenge" motion and DENIED both motions from being FILED IN THE RECORD in open court and I objected and demanded them to be filed in the court record. which were critical material for my defense thus creating multiple fatal due process error(s).
ohh from another case: excerpt-- Researching the Speed Trap section (40802(b) at that time, now 40802(a)(2) see below), I found that in a recent ruling (People v. Goulet, 13 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1), the court had held that in order to use radar without creating a speed trap, speed limits must be set in compliance with the CalTrans Traffic Manual, section 8-03.3, subdivision B.2.b. This says that speed limits should normally be set at the first five mile per hour increment below the 85th percentile speed, with a further five mile per hour reduction only if there are unusual conditions not readily apparent to drivers, and if those conditions do exist, they should be documented on the speed zone survey or the engineering report.
Armed with this information, I reread the survey and discovered that the section of highway in question had a critical speed (i.e., 85th percentile) of 59 mph, with nothing to justify the lowering of the speed limit to 50.
When I presented this as my defense, Judge Pro Tem Kenneth Slimmer ruled that the speed trap law did not apply since I was contesting a charge of 22349, not 22350.
The Superior court held (on Appeal) that the speed trap laws did apply because the limit posted was a prima face limit and not the maximum limit. They further held that the survey did not justify the 50 mph limit, and reversed the lower court.
comments? suggestions? Tnx! I can send any copies of motions or statutes/papers if desired:
2. At arraignment ; demanded all rights asserted right to travel; CDL from ca not needed at time of stop = not in commercial capacity filed 20 page motion, challenged jurisdiction; provided numerous Supreme court cases about right to travel etc etc. (I have original 1948 CA revenue code statute that defines operator = for hire non operator NOT FOR HIRE") statute now watered down = fraud/abrogation per Miranda v Arizona cases etc etc. also : Ca state involved in Fraud/concealment by claiming all persons are operators/drivers. 3. (cop was NOT present at first trial? claimed injured!!?) I objected "speedy trial violation" Objection Overruled. 2nd trial (past 45 days due to cops "injury"?) I objected speedy trial again: overruled; challenged jurisdiction again; motion denied (judge said he read it but blah blah who cares denied) total right violator / treasonous, Preempt challenge DENIED; Judge showed Bias for sure.
IF they are claiming Jurisdiction, (as they are) although it was not asserted by court thus court LOST IT per common law; on appeal I will argue; items 1-2 out of jurisdiction; 3-4 in jurisdiction
"
1. Rights violations per US supreme court case law- right to travel is inalienable & state is involved in fraud/concealment of facts and inalienable rights violations.
2. speedy trial violation (past 45 days) no ends of justice set forth by judge... just "cops injury"? defendant has the burden of establishing that the government engaged in intentional delay to gain a tactical advantage, and that he suffered actual prejudice; I assert this claimed Injury caused tactical advantage! and Bias was clear.
3. CVC 22349b road must be ONLY 2 lanes, <40 ft wide; and NOT divided. It was 4 lanes; wider than 40 ft and divided. thus 4
4. Judge showed clear prejudice and would not allow me to file the above tax code statute defining "non operator or operator" or "peremptory challenge" motion and DENIED both motions from being FILED IN THE RECORD in open court and I objected and demanded them to be filed in the court record. which were critical material for my defense thus creating multiple fatal due process error(s).
ohh from another case: excerpt-- Researching the Speed Trap section (40802(b) at that time, now 40802(a)(2) see below), I found that in a recent ruling (People v. Goulet, 13 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1), the court had held that in order to use radar without creating a speed trap, speed limits must be set in compliance with the CalTrans Traffic Manual, section 8-03.3, subdivision B.2.b. This says that speed limits should normally be set at the first five mile per hour increment below the 85th percentile speed, with a further five mile per hour reduction only if there are unusual conditions not readily apparent to drivers, and if those conditions do exist, they should be documented on the speed zone survey or the engineering report.
Armed with this information, I reread the survey and discovered that the section of highway in question had a critical speed (i.e., 85th percentile) of 59 mph, with nothing to justify the lowering of the speed limit to 50.
When I presented this as my defense, Judge Pro Tem Kenneth Slimmer ruled that the speed trap law did not apply since I was contesting a charge of 22349, not 22350.
The Superior court held (on Appeal) that the speed trap laws did apply because the limit posted was a prima face limit and not the maximum limit. They further held that the survey did not justify the 50 mph limit, and reversed the lower court.
comments? suggestions? Tnx! I can send any copies of motions or statutes/papers if desired:
Hearings and Trials: Using a Speed Trap Defense on a Divided Highway, CVC 22349a
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire