| Author | Post |
|---|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 09:44 pm |
|
Theseus wrote:
inbox485 wrote:Still burns that a law which states "private property" wouldn't include private property. Are people now expected not only to memorize the volumes of gun laws but the legislative commentaries regarding them just in case the law doesn't say what the legislature may have meant it to say?
Technically, yes.
I have to look it up, it might even be in Tapia.
It is assumed in the court that all citizens familiarize themselves of all laws, legislative intent, case law, and judicial interpretations. There was a case on this and I am looking for the cite.
I am trying to find the site, but, as citizens we have to know every in and out of the law, but the police don't. I wonder though. . . a cop is a citizen. . . so why should he not have to know?
While reading on another topic I came across a quote in another case used to ignore the legislative memo on detents in folding knives.
When the language of a specific statute has "'no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.' [Citation.]" (Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 222, 227.)
According to this, since the term "private property" is not ambiguous, the legislative intent is irrelevant. If the legislature wants to include private property accessible to the public, they could / can say so.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 09:45 pm |
|
And the judge agreed that the wording was not ambiguous, but then looked to legislative intent anyway.
The judge is a long standing judge and is highly experienced. He is therefore, in my mind, willingly making the decisions knowing the fact that it is contrary to jurisprudence and long standing legal cannons.
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 10:50 pm |
|
http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1697/rule-lenity.html
Google "RULE OF LENITY"
You should be able to use some of what you find.
Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY. ]It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.
One rationale behind the principle of lenity is for laws to be clearly stated. Citizens should not have to guess whether a law applies to them or not.
A second rationale behind the rule of lenity has to do with separation of powers. The rule serves to prevent the judicial system from creating laws unintended by the legislature. Because the functions of the courts is to interpret statues and not to enact them.
Last edited on Fri Sep 25th, 2009 10:56 pm by Edward Peruta
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 06:04 am |
|
Edward Peruta wrote: http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1697/rule-lenity.html
Google "RULE OF LENITY"
You should be able to use some of what you find.
Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY. ]It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.
One rationale behind the principle of lenity is for laws to be clearly stated. Citizens should not have to guess whether a law applies to them or not.
A second rationale behind the rule of lenity has to do with separation of powers. The rule serves to prevent the judicial system from creating laws unintended by the legislature. Because the functions of the courts is to interpret statues and not to enact them.
That is one of the legal cannons the judge ignored.
|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 06:40 pm |
|
Theseus wrote: Edward Peruta wrote: http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1697/rule-lenity.html
Google "RULE OF LENITY"
You should be able to use some of what you find.
Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY. ]It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.
One rationale behind the principle of lenity is for laws to be clearly stated. Citizens should not have to guess whether a law applies to them or not.
A second rationale behind the rule of lenity has to do with separation of powers. The rule serves to prevent the judicial system from creating laws unintended by the legislature. Because the functions of the courts is to interpret statues and not to enact them.
That is one of the legal cannons the judge ignored.
At least you already have a solid appeal if you loose round 1.
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
Theseus,
Damn the torpedoes FULL speed ahead.
If I was you, (and I've been where you're at), I'd stop all negotiations, and other exectations and demand a speedy jury trial.
Every prosecutor knows that a jury trial is a crap shoot.
I'm sure that the biggest reason they're playing games and delaying is to protect the members of law enforcement from any civil action.
I would trust the jury to understand the difficulty of determing the distance from or the location of schools and the definition of "PRIVATE PROPERTY".
No member of a jury is going to believe that an average citizen must know case law in addtion to what the state publishes in the California Penal Code.
Except for the jury, the courts are comprised of PIMPS and WHORES.
People who control the people who screww people for money are PIMPS (JUDGES)
And the people who do the actual screwing are the WHORES (Prosecutors).
I guess that makes courthouses WHOREHOUSES.
In the poker world it's called "ALL IN"
I wish you well.
Last edited on Sat Sep 26th, 2009 09:08 pm by Edward Peruta
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 02:49 am |
|
Edward Peruta wrote: Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY. ]It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.
That should really upset HankT's world view. 
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 10:27 pm |
|
The delays are actually mostly by us for various reasons I can not get into.
It is usually benefitial for the defense to delay when they can as the DA's might already have their evidence and information before they even charge.
Edward Peruta wrote: Theseus,
Damn the torpedoes FULL speed ahead.
If I was you, (and I've been where you're at), I'd stop all negotiations, and other exectations and demand a speedy jury trial.
Every prosecutor knows that a jury trial is a crap shoot.
I'm sure that the biggest reason they're playing games and delaying is to protect the members of law enforcement from any civil action.
I would trust the jury to understand the difficulty of determing the distance from or the location of schools and the definition of "PRIVATE PROPERTY".
No member of a jury is going to believe that an average citizen must know case law in addtion to what the state publishes in the California Penal Code.
Except for the jury, the courts are comprised of PIMPS and WHORES.
People who control the people who screww people for money are PIMPS (JUDGES)
And the people who do the actual screwing are the WHORES (Prosecutors).
I guess that makes courthouses WHOREHOUSES.
In the poker world it's called "ALL IN"
I wish you well.
Last edited on Mon Sep 28th, 2009 10:30 pm by Theseus
|
inbox485
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
People v. Tapia (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 1153 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 158
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.
Thought this might be of some help.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 1st, 2009 01:46 am |
|
Been there. Done that. Judge ignored the argument.
inbox485 wrote: People v. Tapia (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 1153 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 158
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.
Thought this might be of some help.
|
bigtoe416
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 05:13 am |
|
Good luck tomorrow Theseus. Still hoping for that dismissal.
|
Sons of Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 05:18 am |
|
| Yes. We're all hoping for a favorable outcome!
|
demnogis
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 06:07 am |
|
Tell them the only "plea bargain" you'll take is for "not guilty" and an all-expenses paid trip to disneyland for the kids. 
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 07:29 am |
|
demnogis wrote: Tell them the only "plea bargain" you'll take is for "not guilty" and an all-expenses paid trip to disneyland for the kids.
Please, the onyl person that could ever make me plea would be my step-mother. . . the only person in life I have ever feared!
It is only 0 of 10. . . I believe they want a continuance, but I am ready to go. We have a great case and I want to squash them with it!
|
Captain_Awesome
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 06:03 pm |
|
Good luck! It's horrible that it's gone this far, but I still have a liiiiiiitle bit of faith in the "justice" system. It seems like you have the law on your side, but I guess that hasn't stopped them yet.
|
nomidlname
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | Reno, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 06:35 pm |
|
| Good Luck today! Let us know what happened. Hopefully you crush them completely.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 07:44 pm |
|
Just got back.
We are starting trial on the Wednesday, October 7th, 2009.
No other information to discuss on this case.
|
bigtoe416
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 12:16 am |
|
Best of luck sir. Hopefully some of the socal ocers can come (nicely dressed) to support you.
Last edited on Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 12:17 am by bigtoe416
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 12:21 am |
|
Theseus,
Are you having a jury or bench trial?
And will the same Judge that's been hearing your various issues going to preside over your trial? In most cases here in CT it would be a new totally unbiased Judge.
Last edited on Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 12:21 am by Edward Peruta
|
demnogis
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 12:22 am |
|
What courthouse? I can have a couple thousand copies of "The Juror's Handbook" blanketed over the jurist parking lot that week.
|
Current time is 12:24 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
