Archive for traffic ticket defense

Lets start with this. The Mother of all evils. This is the open door to all the dances we do here at Caticketbusters.com

This is the actual code:

853.9.  (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed by an officer or the prosecuting attorney with the court pursuant to the provisions of Section 853.6 of this code, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead “guilty” or “nolo contendere.”  If, however, the defendant violates his or her promise to appear in court, or does not deposit lawful bail, or pleads other than “guilty” or “nolo contendere” to the offense charged, a complaint shall be filed which shall conform to the provisions of this code and which shall be deemed to be an original complaint; and thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law, except that a defendant may, by an agreement in writing, subscribed by him or her and filed with the court, waive the filing of a verified complaint and elect that the prosecution may proceed upon a written notice to appear.
 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section, 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.

This Penal Code is listed on the bottom of your Notice To Appear, or your traffic ticket. It also ‘mirrors’ Vehicle Code 40513. They each have an (a) and (b) paragraph. The court only wants to use the (b) paragraph because they figure/believe/hold you to  if the ticket is signed by the Officer, then it must be a Verified Notice to Appear.

What the hell is a ‘Verified Notice to Appear’? We have not been able to find a single reference to it, or what it entails, or how it is quantified or qualified, or the time frame for submitting it, and submitting it to whom and in what procedure or format.

In the code, it says ”If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed.”

Because the traffic ticket or notice to appear is on a form approved by the Judicial Council, they feel that if the officer signed it, it is ‘verified’.

To me,  my thoughts on Verification means:

A “NOTICE TO APPEAR” IS NOT A VERIFIED COMPLAINT

The signing of a notice by the a forenamed officer under penalty of perjury that the offense occurred does not constitute a “verified Notice to Appear” to be used as a verified complaint.

Black’s Law Dictionary, (6th) edition, defines verify (verified):

“Verify. To confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit. propecia for hair loss Particularly used of making formal oath to accounts, petitions, pleadings, and other papers. The word “verified,” when used in a statute, ordinarily imports a verify attested by the sanctity of an oath. It is frequently used interchangeably with “sworn”.”

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2009 states:

“An affidavit may be used to verify a pleading or a paper in a special proceeding, to prove the service of a summons, notice, or other paper in an action of special proceeding . . . . . . . . . and in any other case expressly permitted by statute.”

My next challenge is, in paragraph (b) is “an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate. . . . . .”

I have never seen an exact legible duplicate copy when I have been in court, and my challenge is this: did anybody (police officer or court officer) file the NTA with a Magistrate??? Bingo. We know from normal procedures  that there are several codes that must be followed for time line, time frame, who, what, when, where and why. PC 738, 739, 872(a), 950 & 1382 for starters. Also, remember, a Commissioner is NOT a Magistrate! And if the officer wrote anything on the ticket before he turned it in, we can have your case dismissed because he changed the document (it’s actually a misdemeanor against him!)

But here, no. The Police Officer signed the NTA, so it must be a Verified Notice To Appear. We challenge it and every aspect.

Now my challenges to items in the (a) paragraph.

except that a defendant may, by an agreement in writing, subscribed by him or her and filed with the court, waive the filing of a verified complaint and elect that the prosecution may proceed upon a written notice to appear.

 What does that mean? That you would, by an agreement in writing, signed by yourself, and filed with the court, waive the filing of your verified complaint.  So, (1) did you agree to this in writing, (2) did you sign papers for same and (3) file them with the court, (4)  BEFORE you went to court?

Again, I personally have used this on several California speeding tickets and traffic tickets, namely cell phone tickets, commuter lane tickets, red light tickets, red light camera tickets and seat belt tickets to tie them up and use their own rules of court against them. Remember  It  works for all California infractions,  to have them treated for our purposes, to hold them to the Misdemeanor laws and rules of court!

I have included the video below, so you can hear the reading of the code itself.

To your empowerment!

Ronald Cupp PhD

Comments (2)

19.7. Except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial and burden of proof.

Well, what does this mean? It means that your infraction (public offenses  and all California speeding tickets, traffic tickets, cell phone tickets, red light tickets, commuter lane tickets, stop sign tickets, red light camera tickets, and seat belt tickets) are all suppose to be treated, prosecuted, and handled like Misdemeanors.

So even though the court, in its infinite wisdom, in the past, changed the law and got rid of the ‘inferior’ court called the Municipal Court, or even before that, the Traffic Court, trying to make their life easier, they were not successful.

Under this code, it means that all (I’m being selective now for what is important to us) jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial and burden of proof.

If you listen to some of our court audio’s, you will hear the commissioners saying that your speeding and traffic tickets are infractions, and that you do not get a ‘verified complaint’ or other charging instrument that we ask for.  The same goes for time frames and filings, and most importantly, the burden of proof.

Well, just keep this ace in the hole for when we need it. Remember, the commissioners have not read the code(s) in a long time, and are used to the flow of sheep to the slaughter so they have not had to bone up for research most of the codes we use in our ‘recipe’ for success.

Out of all this, just know that when you need it, it is there. We can force the courts to use it’s own laws to hold them accountable for proper procedure and to protect our due process rights. Just because the laws were changed to ‘simplify’ the system for the courts (actually-now- it is simplified for their money collection scheme and that they do not have to treat it like a misdemeanor, which would give you more rights, trial by jury, public defender) so that now they do not have to spend as much money prosecuting you for the tax fine, by the way, they call ‘bail’.

Again, I personally have used this on several California speeding tickets and traffic tickets, namely cell phone tickets, commuter lane tickets, red light tickets, red light camera tickets and seat belt tickets to tie them up and use their own rules of court against them. Remember  It  works for all California infractions,  to have them treated for our purposes, to hold them to the Misdemeanor laws and rules of court!

I have included the video below, so you can hear the reading of the code itself.

propecia hair loss href=”http://ronaldcuppphd.com”>Ronald Cupp PhD

Comments (1)

Since my last post, I appeared in court today, which was my third  court appearance for my California stop sign ticket. What I am describing I personally have used this what I am describing below on several California speeding and traffic tickets, namely cell phone tickets, commuter lane tickets, red light tickets, red light camera tickets and seat belt tickets. It also works for other California misdemeanors and infractions, almost any administrative type hearing. The ticket does not matter; we only use the court rules against the court.

I love that in Sonoma they take the ‘returning’ defendants first, so I only have to show up at 8:30am and normally gone in 15 minutes. In Marin they kept us till the end of the calendar which meant we had to listen and relive the entire traffic ticket court calendar, which takes hours. Then they deal with us. Sometimes I think they do it this way so all the ‘sheep’ can’t see and learn the caticketbusters system on how to fight and beat their California speeding and traffic tickets!

Look at my last blog post for reminder of  audio. To recap my dance steps, I appeared in court April 27, 2010 and requested a ‘Verified Complaint’. When I appeared in court May 17, 2010, the bailiff (sheriff) handed me the ‘verified complaint’, that I demurred (I came prepared with a blank one from caticketbusters to answer and challenge it. She gave the DA 10 days to respond to the demur, and we start our dance about the codes and more importantly the facts and time frames.

After my appearance on May 17, 2010, on June 3, 2010 I filed two additional requests (forms/motions). One was for Discovery (against the DA so now he not only had to answer the demur but had to produce all evidence/documents just like a court case (I figured that if I gave them too much work they would not respond and leave me alone), the Second was a motion for a court reporter (you know that I was recording the proceedings with a digital recorder (which is allowed with the Commissioner’s consent buy prescription drugs online under Ca. Rules of Court 1.50)), so that it would be obvious that I wanted a record for an appeal. As you can hear, no response from the DA; and the Commissioner had to ‘research’, so she scheduled a return visit (AGAIN) for June 15th, 2010. Just keep throwing mud against the wall so we can see what will stick! I can feel my dismissal coming closer!!

I have included the video below, so you can hear the banter between the commissioner and myself and that I had to refresh her mind on all of the steps and occurrence events by date. Although I firmly believe they DO NOT currently know the actual code(s) (we do because we have just been studying them-and they are processing thousands of sheep to the slaughter who do not even question them-so why should they keep boned up on the ‘facts’). They only do when challenge them and they have to look them up to refresh!

Again, I personally have used this on several California speeding tickets and traffic tickets, namely cell phone tickets, commuter lane tickets, red light tickets, red light camera tickets and seat belt tickets. It also works for other California misdemeanors and infractions, almost any administrative type hearing or public infraction. I will pick up with my next court appearance and let you know what happened!

Ronald Cupp PhD

By Gary Richards

grichards@mercurynews.com

When Sgt. Eddie Chan makes traffic stops, the San Jose officer makes it a point never to tell propicia drivers how much their ticket will cost. He’s afraid they’ll go ballistic.

Fines on traffic tickets have surged in the past five years as the state has added fees and penalties that can raise the cost of most infractions into the hundreds of dollars. Running a red light: $446. Driving solo in the car-pool lane: $445. Speeding at 81 mph on most freeways: at least $331. Ignoring a “don’t walk” sign: $173.

Why Pay All This?

And for moving violations, tack on an extra $50 if you go to traffic school to keep your record clean.

Even fix-it tickets that once cost nothing to resolve, like a broken headlight, now run $25.

Why the fine inflation? Lawmakers are seeing traffic tickets as a relatively easy source of revenue in tough times, and add-on fees are being used to fund services that may have nothing to do with traffic violations, like collecting criminals’ DNA.

Chan says when drivers ask him how much their fines will be, he avoids answering, saying he doesn’t want to give them incorrect information.

“They aren’t too happy,” he said, “but I’ve never had anyone go off the deep end with that explanation.”

The Legislature approves fees that make tickets so expensive, and the motivation behind those costs are many, said Chris Cochran, a spokesman with the state Office of Traffic Safety.

“The courts need more money, the counties need more money,” he said, and legislators have taken the view “that people breaking the law should be paying for administration of the system that takes care of these things.”

There’s also the deterrence factor. “And if you are going to pay more,” Cochran said, “then maybe you won’t engage in bad behavior in the first place.”

The proliferation of red-light cameras in the Bay Area and the steep fine for running red lights has drawn attention to how expensive tickets have become. But surprise doesn’t begin to describe the feelings of motorists who get notice of a hefty fine. More like flabbergasted and fuming.

“Ridiculous — it’s just not fair,” said Denise Matlock of San Carlos, who failed to make a complete stop on a right turn and got a $447 ticket.

“I had heard some horror stories,” said Ed Burling, a retired De Anza College biology teacher who was nailed for going 71 mph on Highway 1 between Fort Bragg and Mendocino. He expected a $300 fine, not the $458 he was billed.

Melissa Currier of Hayward was ticketed for driving 10 mph over the speed limit on a city street. Her fine: $385. “I was shocked,” said her husband, Jason.

What jacks these tickets up so high are the dozen or so fees and penalties that are tacked onto the base fine.

Take a ticket with a $100 base fine. There’s a state penalty of 100 percent — another $100. A county penalty of 70 percent — $70 more. A state criminal surcharge of 20 percent — $20 more. Add on fees for DNA testing, emergency medical services, court construction and security costs, and the final amount is several hundred dollars.

What does DNA have to do with driving badly? Nothing, but the 2004 initiative Proposition 69, which authorized the state to collect DNA samples from criminals, imposed a surcharge on all fines to help fund the program. Emergency medical and other services are funded the same way.

“The fine structure is a bit bizarre,” said former Palo Alto Police Chief Lynne Johnson.

Violators of the state’s hands-free cell phone law may be next in line for a shock. On Tuesday, the state will begin hearings on a proposal by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, to increase the base fine to $50 for holding a phone and $100 for texting — with fees running those fines up to $255 and $445.

What irritates city officials is that most people think the money goes to the local agency that writes the ticket. Most of it, in fact, is headed to Sacramento.

If a San Jose officer issues a ticket with a base fine of $100, $83 goes to Santa Clara County, $87 to the city and most of the remaining $300-plus in fees and penalties goes to the state, according to the city of San Jose.

The impact is being felt in traffic courtrooms across California, as more drivers fight to get their tickets dismissed or their fines reduced.

“There are no empty seats,” said attorney Matt Geisick. “I’ve been to court sessions in San Mateo where 130 people are in a courtroom designed for 70. San Francisco had to add an entirely new courtroom to handle all of the trials.

“I’ve represented clients in every traffic court in the Bay Area for almost every driving infraction you can think of. Fines are too high. In these times, people just cannot pay.”

Do more expensive traffic tickets lead to better behavior behind the wheel? Contact Gary Richards at mrroadshow@mercuynews.com or at 408-920-5335.

With the amount of the cost of a ticket climbing and climbing I decided to start studying and learned some traffic ticket defense.  There has got to be a way to help people with these crazy fines. 

Your Advocate

Ronald Cupp PhD

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Categories : Traffic Ticket Info
Comments (0)
Online Traffic School, Defensive Driving, Traffic Safety, and Driver Improvement