[Victims of Court Corruption] Dispute By Authorities Whether Infractions Are a Civil or Criminal Proceeding
Their arguments run the gamete from left to right,
some splitting the difference, taking the middle road.
DMV throws up their hands in frustration.
I, Ron Branson, personally know Ed Brotherton as a Christian Brother. Thanks, Ed. - Ron
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | FW: Phone call earlier today |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:57:50 +0000 |
| From: | Ed Brotherton <edbrotherton@hotmail.com> |
| To: | undisclosed-recipients:; |
Ed
818-376-9500
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:54:49 -0700
From: Steve.Macias@dmv.ca.gov
To: edbrotherton@hotmail.com
Dear Mr. Brotherton,
This email is to inform you that I am not the proper person to contact with any of your questions or concerns. Please refrain from contacting me by email or telephone calls in the future.
You may contact the department’s Legal office at 916-657-6469, and ask to speak with the attorney of the day and discuss any questions, concerns or comments with that attorney.
Steve Macias
Management Services Tech
Legal Affairs Division
916-657-6469
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
From: Ed Brotherton [mailto:edbrotherton@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:54 AM
To: Macias, Steve@DMV
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Hi Steve,
Following up with you. I sent the below email on Friday and still need a response. Do you know what the status is regarding this matter? More and more people are starting to get wind of this problem and people are contacting me. I'm going to need to get some answers on this pretty quick. Please contact me by end of day today and let me know what's going on. I greatly appreciate it.
Ed Brotherton
818-376-9500
edbrotherton@hotmail.com
From: edbrotherton@hotmail.com
To: steve.macias@dmv.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:56:40 +0000
Hi Steve,
Just wanted to touch base with you and find out if you know when I'm supposed to be contacted by the communications department you mentioned? It appears that the issue raised needs to be cleared up more now than ever. A friend of mine was in traffic court today for an arraignment and there are now even more inconsistencies with the nature of court proceedings for infractions. This time the Judge said "it's civil".
When trying to understand the nature of court actions for traffic infractions here is what we have;
Legislative Committee on the Revision on the Penal code (the committee that made the argument to the legislature on creating the infraction classification)
- Not criminal
California Judicial Council
- Not criminal
California Supreme Court
People v. Battle
People v Oppenhiemer
- Not criminal
California Appellate Court
People v Sava
- Not criminal
Los Angele Superior Court Van Nuys (all these are the same case)
Commissioner Omens
- Criminal
Judge Jesic (same case)
- He said, "I don't know" When asked whether the action was criminal or civil.
City Attorney (same case)
- Quasi criminal
Another City Attorny (same case)
- Quasi Administrative
Los Angele Superior Court Burbank
Judge Applegate
- Criminal
Judge Oldendorff
- Criminal
And today in downtown Los Angeles Superior Court, a Judge gave us another classification of Civil.
The lack of consistency and understanding of the nature of an infraction by the judges and lawyers in the state poses a very serious due process problem that needs to be addressed immediately.
People have a right to know the "nature" and cause of an action and when the powers that be can't get it straight then how does that instill confidence in the judiciary and the proper enforcement of our vehicle laws? I hope this provides a better understanding of why I'm asking the DMV to clarify this issue.
I look forward to your timely response.
Thank you
Ed Brotherton
818-376-9500
From: edbrotherton@hotmail.com
To: steve.macias@dmv.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:38:45 +0000
Hi Steve,
It's been a little while and I went ahead and read those code sections you referred to. Unfortunately it didn't really address the questions raised. Nowhere between section 4000.1 and 40903 does it state what the nature of a court action is for infractions. There doesn't appear to be any consistency in understanding by the courts or the city attorney's or the public as to the nature of a court proceeding for an infraction. In one case alone two judges claimed that 4000(a)(1) is a criminal action. In the same case the prosecution said it's a quasi-criminal action while at trial another judge said he didn't know what kind of action it was and turned to the prosecution who said "it's quasi administrative". In another case in Burbank the Judge siad it's a criminal action while the trial court judge said it's an infraction and when asked "so it's not criminal" she reiterated that it's an infraction. The california supreme court says infractions aren't crimes, People v Battle. The California Appellate court says infractions aren't crimes, People v Sava. The Judicial council in their own annual reports say that infractions aren't crimes. The Legislative committee on the revision of the penal code say that infractions aren't crimes. From what I can tell. If you take for example section 4000(a)(1). This is the law that requires registration. it appears to have all the qualities of a civil action.
Code of Civil Procedure §24 “Action are of two kind: 1. Civil; and,
2. Criminal
Code of Civil Procedure §25 “A civil action arises out of: 1. An obligation;
2. An injury
Code of Civil Procedure §26 “An obligation is a legal duty, by which one person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing, and arises from:
One--Contract; or, Two--Operation of law”. In this particular it would appear that the requirement to register a vehicle is an obligation to not drive a motor vehicle unless the the vehicle has been registered and appropriate fees have been paid and this obligation come from an operation of law called california vehicle code section 4000(a)(1). This would certainly make this a civil action. Does the DMV have the same understanding and can you tell me if my analysis is correct? This issue really needs to get cleared up as many more people are running into similar problems with this uncertainty of the law. Thanks Ed Brotherton 818-376-9500
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 14:06:25 -0700
From: Steve.Macias@dmv.ca.gov
To: edbrotherton@hotmail.com
Hello, I talked to an attorney here and he said for me to tell you to look in vehicle code book and sections 4000.1 thru 40903 should help you.
Steve Macias
Management Services Tech
Legal Affairs Division
916-657-6469
**************************************************************************************************************************
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
From: Ed Brotherton [mailto:edbrotherton@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:05 PM
To: Macias, Steve@DMV
Subject: Phone call earlier today
Hi Steve,
Thanks for letting me email you with some questions regarding the nature of an infraction as it relates to prosecutions.
The reason this has become an issue is because there is a huge misunderstanding as to what kind of action a traffic infraction is. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 24 require actions to be of two kind Criminal and Civil.
I had a case where I had a commissioner saying the infraction I was being charged with was a criminal action. The judicial councils owns literature such as the Judicial Councils Annual Report, The Legislative Council on the Revision of the Penal Code and case law such as People v. Sava have all concluded that infractions are not crimes, which is what justifies the denial of a trial by jury and court appointed Counsel.
In that very same case a City Attorney informed me that it was Quasi-criminal but there is no law to support that, that I know of. An actual judge in the exact same case admitted to not knowing at all what kind of action it was. When he turned to the City Attorney's they said it was Quasi-administrative. Then when I brought up the fact that according to Los Angeles own city charter the city attorney is only authorized to prosecute for misdemeanors. The Judge at this point said and I quote "Well, they're not really prosecuting this case. The court will sometimes call upon the city attorney's office to assist in certain cases". How can the same case be three different kinds of actions?
The other problem myself and many others are running into is that when one gets a notice to appear there is nothing indicating who to serve any motions on. No indication who the plaintiff is and no indication who's prosecuting the case etc. So if someone wants to file a Demur or other type of motion, notice is required but how can one give notice when you you don't know who to give notice to. Can you please provide some information that can help me understand this better because it really is making no sense.
Thanks
Ed Brotherton
818-376-9500
posted by fritz at 9:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home