[Victims of Court Corruption] Dispute By Authorities Whether Infractions Are a Civil or Criminal Proceeding
Phil Freeman wrote:
Dear Ron, in regards to this email chain and the latest attempt to gather what is purposefully hidden, I would like to state that these persons Ed Brotherton is dealing with are not "Public Officials" we the People have not had "Public Officials" to seek our remedy and recourse form for many generations.What I do know is in the instant matter of traffic citations/infractions is that these persons guard the remedy and refuse to present the lawful nature of traffic citations/infractions so as to continue to fleece the People of the fruits of their labor.
I have been personally served with a court summons which is a judicial instrument only able to be issued by an Article lll judicial officer/judge who has an oath of fidelity and an oath of office on file with the office of the Secretary of State for the respective State. I was served by a member of the executive branch a State Highway Police officer an a member of the executive branch. It stated that I was being charged with a felony of the 3rd degree.The lawful designation of citations/infractions are neither civil, nor criminal in their presentation to the People. They are administrative penalties at best, or should I say a penal value has been attached to the commercial presentation by the revenue agent also known as the municipal police/State Police, yet there is no contract between the People and the officer issuing the presentation.
I never argue with police because they haven't the foggiest clue about the law. I know I was a Deputy Sheriff. However, I sent the presiding administrative/commercial judge a writ demanding a prejudicial determination as to the validity of the summons, considering its issuance was derived from one not authorized to issue a judicial instrument and in doing so, the Trooper acted Ultra Vires, that is beyond the authorized power of his office and branch. This is treason as it is a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Well, the judge cancelled the case, yet he transferred the case to a county court and the county court's can only hear misdemeanors, while the felony was no longer the charge the charge was the same yet magically it was transformed into a guess what?............A misdemeanor of the first degree.
I was now sent a Notice to Appear by a State Attorney. I noticed the whole lot, both, the Pirate Ship Captain of the vessel Okaloosa County, the merchant stockholder agent, AKA the Clerk of Courts, and the Broker agent, AKA the State Attorney that I was not interested in doing business with them thanks but no thanks. It has been since March 17th since I have heard a peep from the terrorist band of incompetent nincompoops. I can only guess that my refusal to APPEAR, which is an impossibility, would result in the traditional response, that of the issuance of a capias/warrant for my arrest.
I have been domiciled on the same "Close Land" for 18 years and have not attempted to evade anyone. My contention is that those who are the "principles" and financial investors who have unleashed these rolling privateer vessels called police cars with pirates possessing letters of marque and reprisal acting under their authority to stop, seize, board, and salvage/steal any other rolling vessel, and its contents upon the sea, now land called the common way, have done, and are doing so because of our ignorance!. We have allowed what was only allowed at sea under the conditions of active warfare among waring countries to encroach onto the land and it is due to the "Word Art" that the practitioners of sophistry and word art known as attorneys and lawyers are able to continue to act as enemies of the People!!
Traffic citations are viewed as essential revenue that the local CORPORATIONS annually projects into the yearly budget. Have a look at the CAFR. We are truly viewed as a source of annual revenue for the sub-corporations called counties/municipalities to ultimately benefit the parent corporation known as The UNITED STATES INC.! I for one am through with it and have personally thrown off the oppressive terroristic and despotic corporation that is presented as some government entity. The list of crimes they have committed upon me alone would be more than could fit on several pages.
I would be happy to provide the documents for public inspection without asking for any commission on them if you so desire. I would like to file suit upon the agency that has provided the authority for the pirates/police to pillage and rob and kidnap one of The People of the Preamble.
I have contacted The Rutherford Institute and await their position. As defined by the 1947 BUCK ACT which created a federal enclave laminated over the individual states creating 10 federal zones with which to extend the jurisdiction beyond the allotted ten miles square,without the knowledge of the People!!! The BUCK ACT is KEY to their ability to commit these acts of terrorism and treason!!! I am not domiciled in a federal zone!!! I look forward to hearing from you, Ron, or Ed, concerning this matter, and thank you and Ed for the email. Citations/infractions are merely corporate policy violations used to PENALize the EMPLOYEES of the company/corporation. They refuse to produce the contract that is allegedly breached into evidence, nor will they produce a living complaining party alledging injury or pecuniary loss. Their claim is in want of standing and therefore is a nullity at best.
Respectfully in truth and liberty,Phillip Sandy 850-910-0501
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org> wrote:
Dispute By Authorities Whether Infractions Are a Civil or Criminal Proceeding
(They honestly just do not know)
Their arguments run the gamete from left to right,
some splitting the difference, taking the middle road.
DMV throws up their hands in frustration.
Best read in reverse order from the bottom up.
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:;
Hahahahaha I guess he no longer wants to talk to me. Follow this email chain .........The number he gave below is the number I've been using to call Steve. I did what he said and asked to speak to the Attorney of the day and was told they don't take outside calls from public. I explained that Steve Machias told me to call and speak to the attorney of the day. She put me on hold and when she came back on the line , she said "I stand corrected" and put me through to his line and of course a voice mail message came on and I left a message. Lets see what happens now. To be continued.
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
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
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 todayHi 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.comFrom: edbrotherton@hotmail.com
To: steve.macias@dmv.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Phone call earlier today
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:56:40 +0000Hi 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 +0000Hi 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. CriminalCode of Civil Procedure §25“A civil action arises out of:1. An obligation;2. An injuryCode 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.comHello, 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
**************************************************************************************************************************
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 todayHi 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
--
Respectfully in truth and liberty,Phillip Sandy
posted by fritz at 3:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home