| Author | Post |
|---|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:01 am |
|
My Case has been going on for some time. I don't comment much because the DA's office has notified us that they are watching this forum and my comments.
I have been advised by my lawyer to stay off the net, but at this time I am not to inclined to follow those instructions as it seems to have not helped my case to stay silent.
I have remained out of jail and without having to pay bail or anything.
Earlier in the case we had a motion to suppress hearing. In that hearing the judge agreed that the search and seizure that netted the officers in my case the ability to identitfy me was illegally obtained. He agreed that any detainment beyond the scope of 12031(e) inspection made the search illegal. The officers also testified that none of them could remember how they got the ID, only that they got it. I have stated before that the police removed my wallet from my pocket without permission. Even though the identification was fruit of the poisonous tree it was still allowed.
On Friday the Judge allowed the motion to exclude my private property defense.
He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public.
This is an outrageous ruling by the judge, one that smacks in the face of the clear language of the law and even the California Court of Appeals ruling in the very case he used to "justify" his belief People v. Tapia which stated:
That the Legislature did not necessarily intend section 626.9 to be governed by the "public place" analysis is also suggested by the exception for places of business. It is readily apparent that a great many places of business are open to common use and enjoyment by members of the public. Nonetheless, section 626.9's exception expressly encompasses places of business. People v. Tapia (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 1153 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 158
This was a California Court of Appeals ruling that is supposed to provide case law precedence that was completely ignored by the judge. The fact that a judge at the trial level can ignore such precedence is also disturbing to me.
At this time there is little we can do but continue to put on a strong defense, but the major protection that was written into the law has now been made void by yet another activist judge here in California.
Understand that the politics are dangerous and out for blood. They will do anything and everything in their power to prevent us from protecting ourselves as evidenced here, the proposed extension of the school zone to 1500 feet and the fact that 626.9 does not have a self-defense exception.
I am trying not to go off on a rant, so I will stop here.
Carry on and be safe. Hopefully others will succeed where I seem to have failed.
Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:06 am by Theseus
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 702 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:55 am |
|
For those not common to this states forum, is there a post that relates the beginning of this long, strange trip you're being taken on?
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:57 am |
|
No. There is not.
|
AyatollahGondola
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 06:24 am |
|
I've forgotten the basics of your arrest. I thought it was that you were seen to have been carrying near or in a school zone, but didn't know of a private property defense.
I guess they are doing the usual in trying to get a conviction or plea by showing you the gateway to financial ruin. If the ruling is as you say it is, and the judge ignored it, they are risking the higher court overturning it, and hoping you don't or won't have the funds and energy to make the appeal. Their risk is minimal. What does the judge and the DA lose? nothing really. It's not their money; it doesn't come from their pockets, and any bouncing back to the lower court is hardly a reflection on them to higher ups any more. Who actually thinks of such things? Even in Sotomayor's case it has hardly been an issue.
The true victors are the ones' who see these things through. Unfortunately, many people quit or don't fight back hard and long enough
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 06:31 am |
|
I was at a laundry mat doing my laundry.
I was never arrested because the police that responded say they did not know of 626.9. I was sent a letter several months later stating that the LA county DA's office had filed charges against me for possession of a firearm near a school.
Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 06:32 am by Theseus
|
AyatollahGondola
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 07:08 am |
|
I see.
That makes it tougher.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 04:47 pm |
|
I feel bad for you I have been following your incident from the beginning and I must say shame on that judge and that prosecutor. Unfortunately this is what has been happening to our country the last hundred years. It takes money to get justice to get your "inalienable rights". Thats what our officials and government count on, sometimes I wonder are we going to continue to let them abuse us, abuse the constitution. The few of us here like yourself who are fighting in our own ways are being overwhelmed by a massive out of control government.
I am not a good letter writer but maybe, some who are here can get a letter campaign started letting this judge and all the judiciary departments in your area know how displeased they are with your rulings.
Any way thought I would let you know I am on your side, might not count for nothing in the long run, especially since all I can do is offer moral support. Keep up the fine fight.
|
ConsideringOC
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:35 pm |
|
"He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public. "
This ruling means that the parking lots of local malls and Walmarts could be in violation. Like I had earlier stated about the mall in El Cajon. Parts of it are well within 1000 feet.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:05 pm |
|
It means that California is under the feeling that we only have the right to defend ourselves in our homes and in our businesses. It believes that if we are to be made victims it is best in public places.
It says that unless everyone puts a secured fence around their properties that you didn't do enough to protect yourself and can't be allowed to use a gun.
It says that even though we think the legislature is bad, the judicial is worst because they don't have to answer to anyone.
|
demnogis
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 01:32 am |
|
It sounds to me like the judge (working in cooperation with the city/state attorney) is trying their best to articulate the law into a fashion that you are either guilty, or guilty, despite what the law really says.
If I were on your jury, I would move to nullify both the law and the judge's whacked out interpretation of the law.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 01:39 am |
|
Best wishes for a successful case.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 01:41 am |
|
| Juries should be able to place judges in contempt of the law, or something. Because if I was only the jury, I wouldn't be satisfied with mere nullification.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 01:42 am |
|
marshaul wrote: Juries should be able to place judges in contempt of the law, or something. Because if I was only the jury, I wouldn't be satisfied with mere nullification.
"Gimme that gavel! C'mere judge!"
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 04:00 am |
|
| So, looks like you have 2 defenses left: (1) no knowledge of school zone and (2) statute violates Second Amendment.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 02:01 am |
|
Both arguments that are likely to fall on deaf ears to a California jury.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:12 am |
|
Theseus wrote: Both arguments that are likely to fall on deaf ears to a California jury.
well, they have to prove element 1 right? And the 2d issue is a matter of law for the judge, right?
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:29 am |
|
The judge has already ruled my ID was obtained by an illegal search and still allowed it. The judge has ruled contrary to the actual wording of the law AND the appeals court case law 626.9 that private property is not private property if it is open to the public. You think the judge is going to accept a 2nd Amendment argument? He will argue it is only valid in the home. He has already shown a desire to see only what he wants and no amount of logic has worked thus far and I doubt it will in the future.
They could simply argue against open carry and likely win in California. They won't have to prove anything but make some ridiculous emotional plea for the children. "He knew what he was doing and did it to scare the children!"
Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:31 am by Theseus
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:45 am |
|
Theseus wrote: SNIP The judge has already ruled my ID was obtained by an illegal search and still allowed it. The judge has ruled contrary to the actual wording of the law AND the appeals court case law...
Like Tomahawk says, its no wonder they have laws against contempt of court. They need them.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:32 am |
|
Mike wrote: Theseus wrote: Both arguments that are likely to fall on deaf ears to a California jury.
well, they have to prove element 1 right? And the 2d issue is a matter of law for the judge, right?
I hate to say this but sometimes juries don't help when it comes to intricate matters of the law.
My freind was convicted of obstructing an investigation when the cops showed up at his door and demanded his I.D. All because he slowed down to look at who the officer had pulled over on his way home.
The judge knew it was a bogus unlawful charge , but the prosecutor had the jury riled up (happened not long after 9-11, when cops could do no wrong) and they convicted him. The judge was not pleased with the verdict and ordered him to pay a fine under $100.00. I told him to appeal I knew he would win, but he was too discouraged and it costs money to appeal. Well now he isn't allowed in Canada where the company he was working for headquarters are.
|
camsoup
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 05:47 am |
|
Theseus wrote: "He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public."
So now business owners are not even allowed the right to protect their lives in their place of business unless its closed? If its open to the public it isn't considered private? That is hog wash.
If you own a convenience store within 1000' of a school, I guess you need to keep the handgun locked up under the counter. When the armed robber comes in, you would have to call a time out and ask him nicely to wait while you unlock the pistol case.
|
Current time is 09:06 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
