|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member 
|
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
|
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
|
No. There is not. |
|||||||||
|
AyatollahGondola Regular Member 
|
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
|
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
|
I see. That makes it tougher. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member 
|
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
|
"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
|
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 
|
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
|
Best wishes for a successful case. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
Both arguments that are likely to fall on deaf ears to a California jury. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
Mike wrote: Theseus wrote:Both arguments that are likely to fall on deaf ears to a California jury. 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
|
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.  |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member
|
camsoup wrote: 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." No, the judge made pretty clear that "inside a business or residence is too clear" to be overridden. But since private property is not defined he took the initiative and defined it. The problem is like the people coming out of Turners Pasadena. They are protected inside, but in the parking lot, which I am sure is within 1000 feet of a school is not protected. You can not leave Turners Pasadena without a handgun locked in a fully enclosed secure locked container under this new definition if it gets made case law. |
|||||||||
|
gravedigger Regular Member
|
Gosh, we need to get rid of this STUPID F'ing LAW! |
|||||||||
|
KylaGWolf Regular Member
|
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. No I think the judge is saying in that case bend over kiss your arse goodbye because the badguy KNOWS you can't have your gun unlocked and by the time you can get to it your toast. Although your take on it puts this vision in my head of it happening. I so got to learn not to drink coffee as I read the threads spewing it on the laptop is bad.  |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member 
|
KylaGWolf wrote: 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." What? Like this guy? His wasnt locked up. More than likely in a 1000 ft school zone. Clearly not unloaded. On private property that is open to the public. The difference here is that they are not looking to make this man an example by putting his head on a pike near the city walls for all to see. |
|||||||||
|
camsoup Regular Member
|
Theseus wrote: camsoup wrote: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." Maybe we should all take a trip down south and set up lawn chairs in the judges front yard and have a BBQ, Under his definition of "not private property" private property seems like we would be OK to do so.Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:59 am by camsoup |
|||||||||
|
demnogis Regular Member
|
This is sounding like a great idea! And if this judge doesn't live within a school zone we could UOC all day and night... I believe something to this effect happened when one of the judges in FL ruled that private property could be seized from citizens for "municipal use" then subsequently sold to another private party (Pfizer). One of the judges' homes was seized and given to a private business... camsoup wrote: Maybe we should all take a trip down south and set up lawn chairs in the judges front yard and have a BBQ, |
|||||||||
|
KylaGWolf Regular Member
|
demnogis wrote: This is sounding like a great idea! And if this judge doesn't live within a school zone we could UOC all day and night...LOL amazing how fast that judge changed opinions on the whole eminent domain thing. Although I think I will pass on that BBQ since I hate LA traffic with a passion. LOL |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher 
|
I'm sorry to hear that things appear to be getting tougher. I wish there was more I could do... but you'll have to settle for my moral support. Hang in there buddy. Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but is it possible the judge is giving us a silver-lined cloud? It seems to me like the judge is saying, "what the police and DA did is wrong, but I want this case to go to appeal." If/when this case goes to the CA Court of Appeals, I believe we could get some excellent case law out of this. We already know that LE can't legally seize your ID as part of a 12031(e) check, but wouldn't it be nice to have case law specifically stating that? How about case law specifically stating that 626.9 does NOT apply on private property? Either that, or the judge is really a tyrant, and is hoping the CA App court will take the opportunity to reverse existing case law... (On an unrelated note, regarding loaded carry on public streets in unincorporated areas: This is how I imagine People v Knight would be overturned. The trial judge would simply ignore case law, and hope the higher courts want to reverse case law.) |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: (On an unrelated note, regarding loaded carry on public streets in unincorporated areas: This is how I imagine People v Knight would be overturned. The trial judge would simply ignore case law, and hope the higher courts want to reverse case law.) Well, as prior panel decisions bind future panels, the only way your scenario would work is for Knight to be reversed by the Appeals Court en banc or the Ca. S. Ct. There are like 3-5 cases where subsequent appeals court panels have followed and frankly extended Knight, by. i.e., explicitly shooting down the prosecutor argument that state law shooting bans over e.g., roads, create prohiobited areas - no, only local law can do that, as Goc, Schw. said in his veto message, the statute creates a local option. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: We already know that LE can't legally seize your ID as part of a 12031(e) check I have been thinking this over - I'm not sure I see suppression arising in this case becasue the info obtained is not being used to convict him, it just aided them in finding him again, which likley would have been done inevitably anyway; contrast this to what if the Defendant was a prohibited person and that offense was discovered by running PII (pers. identifiable info) taken from the ID - then he would have a case for suppression i think. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member 
|
Thesis right behind ya brotha .... Still waiting to hear if my 6 will be actually taken to court I still have to show up on the 17th yet i havent been able to find my name on the courts online schedule for that date Who knows |
|||||||||