traffic court question
RichD
facts and law are clearly on my side.
However, given that the traffic courts are essentially
a racket to loot the public - another tax - it's possible
I'll run into a prick magistrate, who ignores the facts,
and rules against me, just to collect his pound of flesh.
I may be paranoid, but this is what I fear.
In that case, is there any appeal, or other recourse?
Is the judge required to deliver a legal opinion,
or can he just say "guilty", without explanation?
This is an infraction, in California.
--
Rich
richard
Depends on how you handle it. If you're that paranoid, plead not
guilty and request a jury trial. That takes the decision out of the
judge's hands. And yes he does not have to give an explanation.
I appeared in front of 2 judges for 2 different items. Both times I
just presented my case with just the facts. Both times I walked out a
winner.
In the first case, I had pleaded not guilty. Then after speaking to
the ADA, changed to no contest because I had explained the law to her
and felt I had been wrongfully cited. She decided not to try the case.
that, of course, totally pissed off the cop.
Naughtius
> I have a traffic citation I'm going to contest. The
> facts and law are clearly on my side.
Yeah... First Thing You Do is get a Second Opinion on that...
>
> However, given that the traffic courts are essentially
> a racket to loot the public - another tax - it's possible
> I'll run into a prick magistrate, who ignores the facts,
> and rules against me, just to collect his pound of flesh.
> I may be paranoid, but this is what I fear.
I Wonder if You Realize how BADLY You Hobble Yourself with this
Attitude...
"Self-Fullfilling Prophecy" and all...
> In that case, is there any appeal, or other recourse?
There is ALWAYS [A Right Of] Appeal...
It's BETTER to CAREFULLY PREPARE Your Defense, which Includes
Familiarizing Yourself the Arcane Nuts & Bolts *Procedure* involved in
a Criminal Trial... AND the Nifty *PRE*-Trial Procedural Trickery
which could result in a *PRE*-Trial Dismissal...
Such as [Prolly Too Late For This Trick] Demanding Trial on The
Charge NOT within the Jurisdiction where the Ticket was Issued
[Stockton f'rinstance], BUT in Los Angeles WHERE You Live [FORCING The
COMPLAINING Suck-Ass Pig to Travel To LA INSTEAD of YOU Traveling To
Stockton for Trial]...
> Is the judge required to deliver a legal opinion,
> or can he just say "guilty", without explanation?
Any "explanation" will be Apparent in The Record...
The "prick magistrate" is Most Likely Not Required To State The
Obvious... ON The Record...
>
> This is an infraction, in California.
NOLO PRESS [Prolly www.nolo.com ] useta have a Lotta GOOD "Defend
Your California xxx" Books... Go There and see what kinda "BEAT Your
California Ticket" Books might be Available...
Finally, DON'T Pay ANY Attention To ANYTHING richard says...
You Do So at Your EXTREME PERIL...
>
> --
> Rich
Naughtius "The Best Way To Win Your Appeal Is To Be The *Appellee*"
Maximus
Roy
>>
>> This is an infraction, in California.
>
>
> Depends on how you handle it. If you're that paranoid, plead not
> guilty and request a jury trial. That takes the decision out of the
> judge's hands. And yes he does not have to give an explanation.
>
Sorry... Jury trials are not available for infractions in California.
richard
Oh since when?
Actress Zsa Zsa Gabor had one for slapping a cop.
A jury trial is a guaranteed right by the US Constitution.
Oh wait. California is a sovereign nation so they play by their own
rules.
richard
Then may I suggest you read this item?
It's from the California state constitution.
You may be referring to a "waiver" of which the California Supreme
Court has ruled unconstitutional in regards to the state constitution
and thusly, unenforcable.
Naughtius
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:37:40 -0700, Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
> >richard wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), RichD
> >> <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> ....
>
> >>> This is an infraction, in California.
>
> >> Depends on how you handle it. If you're that paranoid, plead not
> >> guilty and request a jury trial. That takes the decision out of the
> >> judge's hands. And yes he does not have to give an explanation.
>
> >> ....
>
> >Sorry... Jury trials are not available for infractions in California.
>
> Oh since when?
Well, *I* Don't Know *Specifically* When "Jury Trials became
UNavailable for "Infractions", [IF they EVER WERE available] BUT, it's
Entirely Possible that Californians have NOT been able to Avail
Themselves of a Jury Trial in Such Circumstances since... Ohhhhh...
1849...
IDIOT.
> Actress Zsa Zsa Gabor had one for slapping a cop.
DID She?
HOW Do You Know?
HOW Do YOU Know there's such a thing as "Zsa Zsa Gabor?
IDIOT.
> A jury trial is a guaranteed right by the US Constitution.
NO it's NOT...
IN FACT, The US Constitution Specifically DISALLOWS for a Jury
Trial in Such Circumstances...
IDIOT.
>
> Oh wait. California is a sovereign nation so they play by their own
> rules
No... "play[ing] by their own rules"... "Operating On Self-
Creating, Self-Serving, Self-DELUDING Rules, TO THE EXCLUSION OF of
ALL Reason and Rationale" is the PROVEN Domain of NONE OTHER THAN
"richard The Dumb"...
As For *California", [Which, WRT NO Jury Trials For Infractions, is
Identical To Nebraska] The Wise & Prudent Legislative Fathers Comport
Themselves... ummmm... "Religiously" with the MANDATE of The US
Constitution...
That Is: *NEITHER* is "playing by their own rules"...
IDIOT.
RESTATEMENT: "Irrespective of the RARE OCCURENCE when richard
Inadvertently, Accidentally Gets *Something* Right, He or She Who
Gives Effect To ANYTHING richard Says, Does So At Their EXTREME
PERIL"...
Naughtius "Greeeen Acres Is The Place For Me... FAAARM Livin' Is The
Life Of Ease..." Maximus
Roy
I suspect Zsa Zsa Gabor was charged with a misdemeanor (a crime) and not
an infraction.
The law says
"Cal Pen Code � 19.6 (2004)
� 19.6. Punishment for infractions; Entitlement to public defender
An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment. A person charged
with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury. A person
charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to have the public
defender or other counsel appointed at public expense to represent him
or her unless he or she is arrested and not released on his or her
written promise to appear, his or her own recognizance, or a deposit of
bail."
for a reading on what the courts say, check out People v. Sava
http://section520.org/sava.pdf
"The limitation on an accused's right to jury trial of infractions has
withstood constitutional attack upon the rationale the Legislature did
not intend to classify infractions as crimes. (See People v. Oppenheimer
(1974) 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4 [116 Cal.Rptr. 795] and People v. Battle,
supra, 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1.) The only occasion when an accused might
be afforded a jury trial on an infraction is when the accused is charged
with both a misdemeanor and an infraction and jury trial of the
misdemeanor charge is not waived. (Pen. Code, � 1042.5.) fn. 2"
Deadrat
news:5riu45pdmrg844i7t...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:37:40 -0700, Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>>richard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), RichD
>>> <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> This is an infraction, in California.
>>>
>>>
>>> Depends on how you handle it. If you're that paranoid, plead not
>>> guilty and request a jury trial. That takes the decision out of the
>>> judge's hands. And yes he does not have to give an explanation.
>>>
>>> ....
>>
>>Sorry... Jury trials are not available for infractions in California.
>
> Oh since when?
> Actress Zsa Zsa Gabor had one for slapping a cop.
Since when is slapping a cop a traffic violation, you ignoramus?
> A jury trial is a guaranteed right by the US Constitution.
Right by the Constitution? How close?
> Oh wait. California is a sovereign nation so they play by their own
> rules.
Oh, wait. California is a state so they play by the rules of federalism,
selective incorporation, and the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Which means that you don't necessarily get a jury trial for traffic
offenses.
richard
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.
Do note the words "ALL Criminal Prosecutions".
Even though the jurisdiction has decided to use the term "infraction",
this does not negate the sixth amendment by any means. The act is
still a "crime" because the person must still pay a fine and appear in
criminal court.
Naughtius
So NOTED... And?
>
> Even though the jurisdiction has decided to use the term "infraction",
> this does not negate the sixth amendment by any means. The act is
> still a "crime" because the person must still pay a fine and appear in
> criminal court
OHHHhhhhh, SHIT!!
I Never Thought Of THAT!!!
JEEzus!! What a SHITSTORM there's gonna be when Umpteen DECADES
Worth of WRONGLY DENIED "Infraction Scofflaws" Learn that they WERE
DENIED [MANDATORY] DUE PROCESS!!
RIOTS In The STREETS!! PUBLIC EXECUTIONS!! Of Irredeemably EVIL AND
CORRUPT Judges... AND Jurors of JURIES That NEVER WERE!!!
TSUNAMIS!! EARTHQUAKES Opening GREAT CHASMS; DEVOURING The UNclean
UNbelieving NON-TV Watchers!!!!!
The Time-Space Continuum REVERSES and Flows BACK TO the BIG BANG!!!
BEFORE There Was a Universe!! BEFORE GOD!!! BEFORE TV!!!!
AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is ONLY ONE THING that Can SAVE ALL EXISTENCE!!!
The OP _MUST_ Appear In Court and NOT BE MOVED UNtil, - On rich "I
Like To Watch" ard's Say So, The EVIL prick magistrate RELENTS... And
SEATS a JUUUURRRRRY!!!
And to think... We The People owe it all to an UNpretentious Little
One-Eyed Drooling Hunchback Watching "COPS" in Smegma, Indiana...
THAT SETTLES IT!! I'm Buying a TV and a WareHouse of PotaTOE Chips,
RIGHT NOW!!!
And SOME DAY, ALL EXISTENCE will Be THANKING *ME* for Preventing
The DECONSTRUCTION of The Known Universe...
Anyone *Per Chance*, Know what Channel "COPS" is on?
Naughtius "I Saved All The Known Universe And All I Got Was This Lousy
T-Shirt!" Maximus
Roy
That's a nice opinion but it isn't the law as currently enforced. The
OP was asking about California Traffic Court and the CA Courts have
upheld the law several times from the info above
Deadrat
news:6omv455lcehkukvtb...@4ax.com:
Do note that you're an ignoramus.
> Even though the jurisdiction has decided to use the term "infraction",
> this does not negate the sixth amendment by any means.
Of course not. But it also means that you don't get a jury trial for
infractions.
> The act is
> still a "crime" because the person must still pay a fine and appear in
> criminal court.
Jury trials are required only for those offenses the punishment for which
exceeds a $500 fine and 6 months in prison per Duncan v Louisiana,
391US145 (1968). So traffic infractions (for which the defendant appears
in *traffic* court) don't count.
Sorry, but that's what happens when you're an ignoramus. The text of the
Constitution won't tell you everything you need to know. You need to
understand the law.
And being an apparently incorrigible ignoramus, you don't.
This is a curable condition, by the way.
richard
That could very well happen.
The 6th amendment gives no minimum monetary value in order to obtain a
jury trial. If it is a "crime" in which the defendant appears in
criminal court, then the defendant is entitled to a jury trial.
A few years ago the US DOT passed new laws for truckers in the "hours
of service" (HOS). California refused to abide by those rules and
began citing out of state truckers for not taking enough time off duty
before they could drive again. Several lawsuits challenged those
citations.
Gary Ring was cited by the state of Louisiana for being overweight in
a commercial vehicle. His truck, and cargo were seized until he paid
the fine. While drivers who were residents of the state were allowed
to sign the ticket and leave. Mr. Ring won the case.
What may be common practice, may actually be illegal and
unconstitutional. Even though state courts have upheld the practice.
Deadrat
news:67n155hidgpi5kav6...@4ax.com:
And I could very well be young, rich, and handsome.
> The 6th amendment gives no minimum monetary value in order to obtain a
> jury trial. If it is a "crime" in which the defendant appears in
> criminal court, then the defendant is entitled to a jury trial.
Wrong. As usual.
> A few years ago the US DOT passed new laws for truckers in the "hours
> of service" (HOS). California refused to abide by those rules and
> began citing out of state truckers for not taking enough time off duty
> before they could drive again. Several lawsuits challenged those
> citations.
On 6th Amendment grounds?
> Gary Ring was cited by the state of Louisiana for being overweight in
> a commercial vehicle. His truck, and cargo were seized until he paid
> the fine. While drivers who were residents of the state were allowed
> to sign the ticket and leave. Mr. Ring won the case.
On 6th Amendment grounds?
> What may be common practice, may actually be illegal and
> unconstitutional. Even though state courts have upheld the practice.
What is pronounced by the Supreme Court is actually legal and
Constitutional. No matter what state courts say.
richard
Neither the 6th nor 14th amendments give any monetary or "seriousness"
value to a criminal act to be exhalted from a jury trial. What they
fail to do is, define what a jury is. Does this mean then that
appearing before a judge equates to a jury trial? Could be.
The "state" is not allowed to simply "toss you in jail and throw away
the key". The state must follow the guidelines and at least give the
accused the right to face his accusers and be given the right of
counsel. Regardless of what value or level of seriousness there is in
the criminal act. So the state can not place a dollar value and say
"well your fine doesn't allow you a trial by jury".
In my case in Ohio, the fine was only $60. Had I gone ahead and fought
the ticket with a jury trial, the state of Ohio would have to allow
it.
The 6th amendment says "all criminal...". While the 14th amendment
says "no state shall deny the right....without due process....".
In duncan vs Louisiana, duncan was observed slapping one of his
relatives on the head. The fine was $150 and he was sentenced to 6
months in prison. Duncan asked for a jury trial and was denied because
the state the minimum value was not met. This is unconstitutional on
the federal level because the 6th amendment makes no such distinction.
Although the state court ruled in favor of the state, in my opininion,
they were wrong. This is precisely why we have SCOTUS.
Deadrat
news:2qo155dg5oohgo2m6...@4ax.com:
What the hell is "exhalted"? Exalted? That doesn't make sense.
Exempted?
If that's what you meant, then we rely on the Supreme Court to give these
limits. And they have.
> What they
> fail to do is, define what a jury is. Does this mean then that
> appearing before a judge equates to a jury trial? Could be.
Of course, not. The Supreme Court has defined what a jury is.
> The "state" is not allowed to simply "toss you in jail and throw away
> the key". The state must follow the guidelines and at least give the
> accused the right to face his accusers and be given the right of
> counsel. Regardless of what value or level of seriousness there is in
> the criminal act. So the state can not place a dollar value and say
> "well your fine doesn't allow you a trial by jury".
No one is claiming that you don't get due process. But certain offsenses
do not qualify for jury trials.
> In my case in Ohio, the fine was only $60. Had I gone ahead and fought
> the ticket with a jury trial, the state of Ohio would have to allow
> it.
Wrong. As usual.
<quote src="Ohio Revised Code" Chapter="2945" Section="17" Title="Right
to jury trial">
(A) At any trial, in any court, for the violation of any statute of this
state, or of any ordinance of any municipal corporation, except as
provided in divisions (B) and (C) of this section, the accused has the
right to be tried by a jury.
(B) The right to be tried by a jury that is granted under division (A) of
this section does not apply to a violation of a statute or ordinance that
is any of the following:
(1) A violation that is a minor misdemeanor;
(2) A violation for which the potential penalty does not include the
possibility of a prison term or jail term and for which the possible fine
does not exceed one thousand dollars.
(C) Division (A) of this section does not apply to, and there is no right
to a jury trial for, a person who is the subject of a complaint filed
under section 2151.27 of the Revised Code against both a child and the
parent, guardian, or other person having care of the child.
</quote>
> The 6th amendment says "all criminal...". While the 14th amendment
> says "no state shall deny the right....without due process....".
>
> In duncan vs Louisiana, duncan was observed slapping one of his
> relatives on the head.
Wrong. As usual.
Duncan was black; his cousins were black; this was 1966 in Louisiana. Do
you really think the state of Louisiana cared whether a black man slapped
a black kid?
Duncan wasn't observed doing anyting. There were two white kids with
Duncan's cousins. One of the white kids claimed Duncan slapped him.
> The fine was $150 and he was sentenced to 6
> months in prison. Duncan asked for a jury trial and was denied because
> the state the minimum value was not met. This is unconstitutional on
> the federal level because the 6th amendment makes no such distinction.
Wrong. As usual. It was unconstitutional on the federal level because
the maximum punishement for simple battery was two years. Petty offenses
require fines of no more than $500 and prison terms of no more than six
months. Duncan v Louisiana incorporated this rule against the states.
>
> Although the state court ruled in favor of the state, in my opininion,
> they were wrong. This is precisely why we have SCOTUS.
Wrong. As usual. Duncan v Louisiana was a SCOTUS case. And it set the
standards for jury trials. Some petty crimes don't need juries.
Roy
> ...
>
> In duncan vs Louisiana, duncan was observed slapping one of his
> relatives on the head. The fine was $150 and he was sentenced to 6
> months in prison. Duncan asked for a jury trial and was denied because
> the state the minimum value was not met. This is unconstitutional on
> the federal level because the 6th amendment makes no such distinction.
>
> Although the state court ruled in favor of the state, in my opininion,
> they were wrong. This is precisely why we have SCOTUS.
>
>
You should read the whole opinion in Duncan. Duncan was charged with a
crime that could have put him in jail for two years. In ruling for
Duncan the court clearly states that there is an exception for "petty
crimes."
The synopsis is available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana
"By a 7-2 majority the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duncan, arguing
that the right to a jury trial in criminal cases was fundamental and
central to the American conception of justice. As such the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to honor requests for
jury trials.
The Court made an exception for "petty crimes", which are defined as
those punishable by a maximum of a $500 fine and six months in prison.
In such cases, states are not obligated to provide jury trials."
Here is the opinion
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/duncan.html
An extract
"It is doubtless true that there is a category of petty crimes or
offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial
provision and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury
trial requirement here applied to the States. "
further and definitely to the point
"Of course the boundaries of the petty offense category have always been
ill-defined, if not ambulatory. In the absence of an explicit
constitutional provision, the definitional task necessarily falls on the
courts, which must either pass upon the validity of legislative attempts
to identify those petty offenses which are exempt from jury trial or,
where the legislature has not addressed itself to the problem,
themselves face the question in the first instance. In either case it
is necessary to draw a line in the spectrum of crime, separating petty
from serious infractions. This process, although essential, cannot be
wholly satisfactory, for it requires attaching different consequences to
events which, when they lie near the line, actually differ very little.
We need not, however, settle in this case the exact location of the line
between petty offenses and serious crimes."
RichD
> That's a nice opinion but it isn't the law as currently enforced. The
> OP was asking about California Traffic Court and the CA
So, I go into the arraignment (court date
printed on the citation), and plead not
guilty. The judge sets a trial date, I show up,
and presumably the cop, we each tell our side,
and that's it? If I lose, any recourse for appeal?
This is the first time I contested a traffic ticket,
so I don't know the process.
--
Rich
Deadrat
news:60b518e6-108c-4207...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 4, Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>> That's a nice opinion but it isn't the law as currently enforced.
>> �The OP was asking about California Traffic Court and the CA
>> Courts have upheld the law several times from the info above.
>
> So, I go into the arraignment (court date printed on the citation),
> and plead not guilty. The judge sets a trial date, I show up, and
> presumably the cop, we each tell our side, and that's it?
What more do you expect? Is there any other evidence? Are there any other
witnesses?
> If I lose,
Whaddyamean "if"?
> any recourse for appeal?
What grounds do you think there will be? You generally can't appeal a
finding of fact. What law do you think might be wrongly applied?
Roy
Sounds about right. I found this website for you
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/traffic/index.htm
It covers the appeals process. Note that the appeals process is not to
see if the wrong decision was made but if any rules were broken in
deciding the case. See
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/cr141info.pdf
AFIAK, if you are found guilty and you are eligible for traffic school,
you need ask the judge for it. If you want to just go to traffic
school, you can request that of the court clerk before the trial. After
the trial only the judge can do it.
You can roll the dice and request a trial and hope the cop doesn't show
up. If he does, you just change your plea to guilty and ask for traffic
school.
RichD
> >> The OP was asking about California Traffic Court and the CA
> >> Courts have upheld the law several times from the info above.
>
> > So, I go into the arraignment (court date printed on the citation),
> > and plead not guilty. The judge sets a trial date, I show up, and
> > presumably the cop, we each tell our side, and that's it?
>
> What more do you expect? Is there any other evidence?
> Are there any other witnesses?
no
> > If I lose,
>
> Whaddyamean "if"?
So you agree the system is stacked?
> > any recourse for appeal?
>
> What grounds do you think there will be?
Gross monetary grubbiness... "California is
suffering a fiscal crisis, we can't bother about
ethics or fairness!"
> You generally can't appeal a finding of fact.
> What law do you think might be wrongly applied?
California VC 21650.1
--
Rich
Deadrat
dfc11e...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 7, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> >> �The OP was asking about California Traffic Court and the CA
>> >> Courts have upheld the law several times from the info above.
>>
>> > So, I go into the arraignment (court date printed on the citation),
>> > and �plead not guilty. �The judge sets a trial date, I show up, and
>> > presumably the cop, we each tell our side, and that's it?
>>
>> What more do you expect? �Is there any other evidence? �
>> Are there any other witnesses?
>
> no
OK, then "that's it."
>> > If I lose,
>>
>> Whaddyamean "if"?
>
> So you agree the system is stacked?
Of course.
>> > any recourse for appeal?
>>
>> What grounds do you think there will be? �
>
> Gross monetary grubbiness... "California is
> suffering a fiscal crisis, we can't bother about
> ethics or fairness!"
Gross monetary grubbiness is not grounds for an appeal.
>
>> You generally can't appeal a finding of fact. �
>> What law do you think might be wrongly applied?
>
> California VC 21650.1
<quote src="California Vehicle Code" Section="21650.1">
A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of a highway, shall be
operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon
the roadway.
</quote>
It is almost impossible for this law to be wrongly applied. You were
either riding a bicycle or you weren't. If you were, then you were
either riding on a road or the shoulder or you weren't. If you were,
then you were either riding in the same direction as the traffic or you
were riding against the traffic. There being no other evidence
available, the judge will listen to you and the cop, and then decide all
three points of fact.
We can suppose without loss of generality that the judge will decide you
were biking illegally. On appeal, you don't get to dispute that finding
of fact. You may argue only the law: the judge violated your rights,
for example, or the judge allowed the introduction of impermissible
evidence, or some other procedural fault.
> Rich
RichD
> >> >>'The OP was asking about California Traffic Court
> >> >>and the CA Courts have upheld the law several times
> >> >>from the info above.
>
> >> >So, I go into the arraignment (court date printed on the
> >> >citation), and plead not guilty. The judge sets a trial date,
> >> >I show up, and presumably the cop, we each tell our
> >> >side, and that's it?
>
> >> What more do you expect? Is there any other evidence?
> >> Are there any other witnesses?
>
> > no
>
> OK, then "that's it."
>
> >> > If I lose,
>
> >> Whaddyamean "if"?
>
> > So you agree the system is stacked?
>
> Of course.
>
> >> > any recourse for appeal?
>
> >> What grounds do you think there will be?
>
> > Gross monetary grubbiness... "California is
> > suffering a fiscal crisis, we can't bother about
> > ethics or fairness!"
>
> Gross monetary grubbiness is not grounds for an appeal.
Figures.
> >> You generally can't appeal a finding of fact.
> >> What law do you think might be wrongly applied?
>
> > California VC 21650.1
>
> California Vehicle Code Section= 21650.1
> "A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of
> a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as
> vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway."
>
> It is almost impossible for this law to be wrongly applied.
If you say so.....
> You were either riding a bicycle or you weren't. If you
> were, then you were either riding on a road or the shoulder
> or you weren't.
Suppose I was riding in the pedestrian crossing lane?
(with the crossing signal, though I don't see that matters,
given the specific charge)
> We can suppose without loss of generality that
> the judge will decide you
> were biking illegally. On appeal, you don't get to
> dispute that finding of fact.
Suppose he decides I biked illegally, despite
the acknowledged fact that I was not actually
on the road, or shoulder, referenced?
--
Rich
Deadrat
0f617d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 10, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
<snip/>
>> >> You generally can't appeal a finding of fact. �
>> >> What law do you think might be wrongly applied?
>>
>> > California VC �21650.1
>>
>> California Vehicle Code Section= 21650.1
>> "A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of
>> a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as
>> vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway."
>>
>> It is almost impossible for this law to be wrongly applied. �
>
> If you say so.....
I do. And I'll demonstrate below.
>> You were either riding a bicycle or you weren't. �If you
>> were, then you were either riding on a road or the shoulder
>> or you weren't. �
>
> Suppose I was riding in the pedestrian crossing lane?
> (with the crossing signal, though I don't see that matters,
> given the specific charge)
<below>
OK, let's suppose the cop handed you the ticket for cycling in a
crosswalk.
The judge, as trier of fact, will determine four such facts, namely
whether
1. It was you,
2. on a bicycle,
3. on a roadway or shoulder,
4. going in a wrong direction.
The first three I believe that you'll stipulate to. Easy so far?
The only point of contention is whether you were moving on the roadway in
the same direction as cars are required to move.
If you look at the curblines that define the roads, a car passes through
a crosswalk *before* it reaches the interesection (which is, of course,
part of two roadways in the simplest case). At least, that's my
observation where I live and my recollection from the time I lived in LA.
That is, in fact, why they call them *cross*walks: they tell pedestrians
where they may walk across a road.
So, if you were crossing an east-west road, you would be moving north or
south, while vehicular traffic would be required to move east or west.
21650.1 requires that cyclists move east or west, which you weren't
doing.
</below>
>> We can suppose without loss of generality that
>> the judge will decide you
>> were biking illegally. �On appeal, you don't get to
>> dispute that finding of fact.
>
> Suppose he decides I biked illegally, despite
> the acknowledged fact that I was not actually
> on the road, orshoulder, referenced?
I take it this is a different hypothetical. If the only evidence
introduced fails to put you on the road or its shoulder -- say, all the
witnesses agree that you were bicycling in your driveway -- but the judge
finds you guilty in spite of the fact, then you may appeal on the grounds
that the judge abused his discretion in (apparently) considering facts
not in evidence. But this wouldn't be specific to 21650.1.
> Rich
RichD
Is a pedestrian crosswalk a roadway or shoulder?
> The only point of contention is whether you were moving on the roadway in
> the same direction as cars are required to move.
>
> If you look at the curblines that define the roads, a car passes through
> a crosswalk *before* it reaches the interesection (which is, of course,
> part of two roadways in the simplest case).
> So, if you were crossing an east-west road, you would be moving north or
> south, while vehicular traffic would be required to move east or west.
> 21650.1 requires that cyclists move east or west, which you weren't
> doing.
> </below>
But that's not this situation.
The traffic was east-west. I was in the pedestrian
crossing lane, also travelling east-west, parallel to
the motor traffic lanes.
i.e. not crossing the pedestrian zone, as you suggest.
> >> We can suppose without loss of generality that
> >> the judge will decide you
> >> were biking illegally. On appeal, you don't get to
> >> dispute that finding of fact.
>
> > Suppose he decides I biked illegally, despite
> > the acknowledged fact that I was not actually
> > on the road, orshoulder, referenced?
>
> I take it this is a different hypothetical. If the only evidence
> introduced fails to put you on the road or its shoulder -- say, all the
> witnesses agree that you were bicycling in your driveway -- but the judge
> finds you guilty in spite of the fact, then you may appeal on the grounds
> that the judge abused his discretion in (apparently) considering facts
> not in evidence. But this wouldn't be specific to 21650.1.
Is a crosswalk a shoulder?
--
Rich
Deadrat
news:bb22abac-4d3d-469e...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
The crosswalk is part of the roadway it crosses. If you're in a
crosswalk, you're on a roadway.
>> The only point of contention is whether you were moving on the
>> roadway in
> �
>> the same direction as cars are required to move.
>>
>> If you look at the curblines that define the roads, a car passes
>> through a crosswalk *before* it reaches the interesection (which is,
>> of course, part of two roadways in the simplest case). �
>> So, if you were crossing an east-west road, you would be moving north
>> or south, while vehicular traffic would be required to move east or
>> west.
> �
>> 21650.1 requires that cyclists move east or west, which you weren't
>> doing.
>> </below>
>
> But that's not this situation.
>
> The traffic was east-west. I was in the pedestrian
> crossing lane, also travelling east-west, parallel to
> the motor traffic lanes.
> i.e. not crossing the pedestrian zone, as you suggest.
OK, so you were biking on a roadway going in the same direction as the
traffic and you had the right of way.
A cop gave you a ticket.
Did he explain what he thought you were doing wrong? Or should I guess
some more?
>> >> We can suppose without loss of generality that
>> >> the judge will decide you
>> >> were biking illegally. �On appeal, you don't get to
>> >> dispute that finding of fact.
>>
>> > Suppose he decides I biked illegally, despite
>> > the acknowledged fact that I was not actually
>> > on the road, orshoulder, referenced?
>>
>> I take it this is a different hypothetical. �If the only evidence
>> introduced fails to put you on the road or its shoulder -- say, all
>> the witnesses agree that you were bicycling in your driveway -- but
>> the judge finds you guilty in spite of the fact, then you may appeal
>> on the grounds that the judge abused his discretion in (apparently)
>> considering facts not in evidence. �But this wouldn't be specific to
>> 21650.1.
>
> Is a crosswalk a shoulder?
Of course not, but that hardly matters. The law says "on a roadway or
the shoulder of a highway." Presumably you were on the part of a roadway
that's painted with hashmarks and is called a crosswalk.
Now, tell me what you were doing that attracted the attention of the cop.
If the answer is nothing, here's what I would do:
When it was my turn to cross-examine the cop, I'd ask him which lane of
which roadway I was on when he ticketed me and what direction I was
moving at the time. If he tells the truth, I'd ask what direction
vehicular traffic is directed to move on the part of the roadway he said
I was on. Then I'd sit down.
The prosecution would be through when the cop leaves the stand because
there are no more witnesses. Now it's my turn. I'd ask the judge to
dismiss the charge because the prosecution had failed to show a violation
of 21650.1.
I wouldn't say anything before the cop takes the stand. Otherwise, the
ADA will simply amend the charge to something else the cop will testify
to.
But that's just me. I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice.
> --
> Rich
>
>
RichD
I find it difficult to swallow that a crosswalk - a SEPARATE
lane from the traffic - is considered a 'shoulder'. The
shoulder is only useful for emergency stops....
"shit, Helen, we've got a flat... look, there's a pedestrian zone,
we can pull in there, what luck!"
> >> The only point of contention is whether you were moving on the
> >> roadway in the same direction as cars are required to move.
>
> >> If you look at the curblines that define the roads, a car passes
> >> through a crosswalk *before* it reaches the interesection.
> >> So, if you were crossing an east-west road, you would be moving north
> >> or south, while vehicular traffic would be required to move east or
> >> west.
> >
> >> 21650.1 requires that cyclists move east or west, which you weren't
> >> doing.
> >> </below>
>
> > But that's not this situation.
> > The traffic was east-west. I was in the pedestrian
> > crossing lane, also travelling east-west, parallel to
> > the motor traffic lanes.
> > i.e. not crossing the pedestrian zone, as you suggest.
>
> OK, so you were biking on a roadway going in the same direction as the
> traffic and you had the right of way.
In a pedestrian crossing, with its own signal, where both
directions are green-lighted simultaneously, I fail to see
what 'same direction as traffic' means...
> A cop gave you a ticket.
> Did he explain what he thought you were doing wrong? Or should I guess
> some more?
He said I was riding in the wrong direction. (this pig
is a dick, he's known for harassing bicyclists)
> >> >> We can suppose without loss of generality that
> >> >> the judge will decide you
> >> >> were biking illegally. On appeal, you don't get to
> >> >> dispute that finding of fact.
>
> >> > Suppose he decides I biked illegally, despite
> >> > the acknowledged fact that I was not actually
> >> > on the road, or shoulder, referenced?
>
> >> I take it this is a different hypothetical. If the only evidence
> >> introduced fails to put you on the road or its shoulder -- say, all
> >> the witnesses agree that you were bicycling in your driveway -- but
> >> the judge finds you guilty in spite of the fact, then you may appeal
> >> on the grounds that the judge abused his discretion in (apparently)
> >> considering facts not in evidence. But this wouldn't be specific to
> >> 21650.1.
>
> > Is a crosswalk a shoulder?
>
> Of course not, but that hardly matters.
huh?
> The law says "on a roadway or the shoulder of a highway."
> Presumably you were on the part of a roadway
> that's painted with hashmarks and is called a crosswalk.
> Now, tell me what you were doing that attracted the
> attention of the cop.
Riding in the crosswalk.
Which CVC rule would that violate?
> If the answer is nothing, here's what I would do:
>
> When it was my turn to cross-examine the cop, I'd
> ask him which lane of which roadway I was on when
> he ticketed me and what direction I was
> moving at the time. If he tells the truth, I'd ask what direction
> vehicular traffic is directed to move on the part of the roadway he said
> I was on. Then I'd sit down.
>
> The prosecution would be through when the cop leaves
> the stand because there are no more witnesses. Now it's my
> turn. I'd ask the judge to dismiss the charge because
> the prosecution had failed to show a violation of 21650.1.
>
> I wouldn't say anything before the cop takes the stand.
> Otherwise, the ADA will simply amend the charge to something
> else the cop will testify to.
hmmmm..... there won't be a jury trial, and I
doubt there will be prosecutor... it will be me,
the cop, and a magistrate. We'll each tell our
version of the story... I don't think the silent
treatment will work.
> But that's just me. I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice.
Great.
--
Rich
Roy
> ...
>
> Suppose I was riding in the pedestrian crossing lane?
> (with the crossing signal, though I don't see that matters,
> given the specific charge)
>
I think the theory is that the crosswalk is part of the street that is
not the one in the direction you were going. Example. Two streets
intersect: East West and North South. If you are going East then
crosswalk that is parallel to that direction is considered part of the
North South road and not the East West road. After all, its crossing
the North South road.
Under this theory, you could be cited for riding east on the north/south
street
I am NOT saying the theory is correct but it could be an interpretation.
Deadrat
aeb82e...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
I find I'm not making myself clear. Highways have shoulders; roadways do
not. Hightways don't have crosswalks; roadways do. You were in a
crosswalk. Therefore you were on a roadway. No?
>> >> The only point of contention is whether you were moving on the
>> >> roadway in the same direction as cars are required to move.
>>
>> >> If you look at the curblines that define the roads, a car passes
>> >> through a crosswalk *before* it reaches the interesection.
>> >> So, if you were crossing an east-west road, you would be moving
>> >> north or south, while vehicular traffic would be required to move
>> >> east or west.
>> >
>> >> 21650.1 requires that cyclists move east or west, which you weren't
>> >> doing.
>> >> </below>
>>
>> > But that's not this situation.
>> > The traffic was east-west. I was in the pedestrian
>> > crossing lane, also travelling east-west, parallel to
>> > the motor traffic lanes.
>> > i.e. not crossing the pedestrian zone, as you suggest.
>>
>> OK, so you were biking on a roadway going in the same direction as the
>> traffic and you had the right of way.
>
> In a pedestrian crossing, with its own signal, where both
> directions are green-lighted simultaneously, I fail to see
> what 'same direction as traffic' means...
My understanding is that you were crossing the crosswalk perpendicular to
the direction that pedestrians in the crosswalk would take. No?
>
>> A cop gave you a ticket.
>> Did he explain what he thought you were doing wrong? Or should I
>> guess some more?
>
> He said I was riding in the wrong direction. (this pig
> is a dick, he's known for harassing bicyclists)
OK, but he's wrong. You were travelling in the direction designated for
vehicular traffic in the part of the roadway you were on. No?
>> >> >> We can suppose without loss of generality that
>> >> >> the judge will decide you
>> >> >> were biking illegally. On appeal, you don't get to
>> >> >> dispute that finding of fact.
>>
>> >> > Suppose he decides I biked illegally, despite
>> >> > the acknowledged fact that I was not actually
>> >> > on the road, or shoulder, referenced?
>>
>> >> I take it this is a different hypothetical. If the only evidence
>> >> introduced fails to put you on the road or its shoulder -- say, all
>> >> the witnesses agree that you were bicycling in your driveway -- but
>> >> the judge finds you guilty in spite of the fact, then you may
>> >> appeal on the grounds that the judge abused his discretion in
>> >> (apparently) considering facts not in evidence. But this wouldn't
>> >> be specific to 21650.1.
>>
>> > Is a crosswalk a shoulder?
>>
>> Of course not, but that hardly matters.
>
> huh?
I think crosswalks and shoulders aren't found together. The former
appear on roadways; the latter, on highways. Am I wrong?
>> The law says "on a roadway or the shoulder of a highway."
>> Presumably you were on the part of a roadway
>> that's painted with hashmarks and is called a crosswalk.
>> Now, tell me what you were doing that attracted the
>> attention of the cop.
>
> Riding in the crosswalk. Which CVC rule would that violate?
21650.1 would seem to prohibit crossing a roadway in its crosswalk if
your're not a pedestrian. That is, if you're on a bike and you want to
cross a roadway, you have to dismount and walk your bike in the
crosswalk. But that's not what you were doing. You were travelling at
right angles to the crosswalk. No?
>> If the answer is nothing, here's what I would do:
>>
>> When it was my turn to cross-examine the cop, I'd
>> ask him which lane of which roadway I was on when
>> he ticketed me and what direction I was
>> moving at the time. If he tells the truth, I'd ask what direction
>> vehicular traffic is directed to move on the part of the roadway he
>> said I was on. Then I'd sit down.
>>
>> The prosecution would be through when the cop leaves
>> the stand because there are no more witnesses. Now it's my
>> turn. I'd ask the judge to dismiss the charge because
>> the prosecution had failed to show a violation of 21650.1.
>>
>> I wouldn't say anything before the cop takes the stand.
>> Otherwise, the ADA will simply amend the charge to something
>> else the cop will testify to.
>
> hmmmm..... there won't be a jury trial,
None of what I told you depends on there being a jury. There won't be a
jury.
> and I doubt there will be prosecutor...
Unless things have changed since I was in LA traffic court, there'll be a
prosecutor. No one else would have authority to exercise the executive
power necessary.
> it will be me,
> the cop, and a magistrate. We'll each tell our
> version of the story... I don't think the silent
> treatment will work.
I'm not saying that I'd be silent. I'd get the cop to testify as what
happened. Isn't that what I said above? But I'd be careful not to
mention that I'd been cited under the wrong section of the CVC.
>> But that's just me. I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice.
>
> Great.
But you'll have to admit you're getting your money's worth.
Or not. You keep talking about shoulders. I have no idea why. I think
I know what direction you were biking, but I'm not sure. You bring up
juries, but I didn't mention a jury. You think I'm advising remaining
silent in court. I'm not.
<shrug>
Maybe it's just me.
</shrug>
> --
> Rich
>