What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
I received a citation No: T410493 written by Lt XX falsely states that I committed a traffic infraction. There was no violation that was defined in Division 11 Rules of the Road of the 2009 California Vehicle Code. My speed as documented on his ticket was legal; there was no mention of any driving practice as defined by CVC Division 11 Rules of the Road.
In fact I was given a similar CVC equipment violation for violating CVC 26708(a) which was valid, and I corrected the problem. The ticket was issued by Officer XX of the CHP Ticket No: 95622KS. The officer made it clear that the ticket was NOT a TRAFFIC INFRACTION and made no notation at the top of the citation. This is proof that my analysis is sound and correct. The CVC 25950(a) issue is NOT A TRAFFIC INFRACTION.
Thus the entry of a traffic violation was a false document, written by the Lieutenant XX. This act can be defined as fraud under the following definition:
“FRAUD intentional deception resulting in injury to another. Elements of fraud are: a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is falsity or is ignorant of its truth; the maker's Intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated; the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation; the person's rightful or justified reliance; and proximate injury to the person. See 310 F. 2d 262, 267.
It "usually consists of a misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure of a material fact, or at least misleading conduct, devices, or contrivance." 234 F. Supp. 201, 203. It embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise to get an advantage over another. It includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and unfair ways by which another is cheated. At law, fraud must be proved, in equity it suffices to show facts and circumstances from which it may be presumed. 425 P. 2d 974, 978. See generally Model Penal Code §224. See also deceit.
FRAUD IN LAW fraud that is presumed from circumstances, where the one who commits it need not have any evil intent to commit a fraud;
Steven H Gifis, Barrons Law Dictionary 3rd Edition, Page199
DECEIT the tort of fraudulent representation. "The elements of actionable deceit are: a false representation of a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity, or recklessly, or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth, and with intent to induce reliance there-on , on which plaintiff justifiably relies on his injury." 300 P. 2d 14, 16.
Steven H Gifis, Barrons Law Dictionary 3rd Edition, Page120
Lt. XX , has extensive trainig and experience was clearly knowledgeable of the action he was taking.
Please read the following information prior to your answer. This information might be very informative:
Notes to clarify nature of citations:
3 Kinds of Citations
There are 3 kinds of citations where the police can give you a ticket:
Infraction traffic tickets
If the police stop you for driving too fast or running a red light, they can charge you with an infraction and give you a "Notice to Appear" ticket. If you don't have proof of your car insurance, you'll be charged with an infraction for driving without proof of insurance.
(California Courts: Self-Help Center: Traffic: Traffic Information)
Traffic Infractions are defined by the California Vehicle Code in Divisions
The scope of division 11 Rules of the Road is defined as:
Scope of Division
21001. The provisions of this division refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon the highways, unless a different place is specifically referred to.
Traffic Infractions are defined in Division 11 of the California Vehicle Code Division 11 Rules of the Road
(2009 Vehicle Code General Provisions and Divisions 1 - 18 Table of Contents)
Please view the above link inside Division 11, It is titled Rules of the Road, I cannot post the table it is too long and it would surpass the character limit of the post.
Equipment Infractions are the following:
Division 12 Equipment of Vehicles
Chapter 1 § § 24000-24018 General Provisions (Equipment of Vehicles)
Article 15 § § 25950-25952 Light Restrictions and Mounting
Chapter 4 § § 26700-26712 Windshields and Mirrors
A police officer is only authorized to act on equipment violations based on the following information:
Unlawful Operation After Notice by Officer
24004. No person shall operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles after notice by a peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1 or subdivision (a) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, that the vehicle is in an unsafe condition or is not equipped as required by this code, except as may be necessary to return the vehicle or combination of vehicles to the residence or place of business of the owner or driver or to a garage, until the vehicle and its equipment have been made to conform with the requirements of this code.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to an employee who does not know that such notice has been issued, and in such event the provisions of Section 40001 shall be applicable.
Amended Ch. 171, Stats. 1979. Effective January 1, 1980.
(V.C. Section 21070 - Public Offense: Unsafe Operation of Motor Vehicle)
Cal Penal Code 830.1 does not apply to equipment violations alone based on the following:
Typically police officers are authorized to pull a vehicle over based on CVC 25950 because of the following Cal Penal Code 830.1:
(1) As to any public offense committed or which there is probable cause to believe has been committed within the political subdivision that employs the peace officer or in which the peace officer serves.
(CA Codes (pen:830-832.17))
However there is a major flaw in this code. The term public offense cannot apply in this situation. This is because traffic infractions like CVC 25950 cannot be public offenses based on the Cal Penal Code 689.
If you look at Cal Penal Code 689 it states:
“689. No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty.”
Thus the use of traffic infractions on CVC 25950 does not apply and cannot warrant a police officer to pull you over except in the following ruling that I will concede:
Under the People v. Tennessee case 84 Cal. Rptr 697, the unsafe driving of a vehicle was decided to be allowed as “public offense”. This is because in this case decision that there was a clear danger to both persons’ and property. The decision states:
“Finally, once the officers, even though not in uniform or in a designated patrol car, observed the speeding vehicle in a residential area it was a proper exercise of their authority as peace officers to stop the driver, for they had reasonable cause to believe that the driver of the station wagon had committed a public offense in their presence (§ 836, subd. 1, Pen. Code) "Public offense" includes misdemeanors and traffic infractions as well as felonies.” (People v. Tennessee, 4 Cal.App.3d 788, 791 [84 Cal.Rptr. 697].)
However, citation No: T410493 falsely states that I committed a traffic infraction. There was no violation that was defined in Division 11 Rules of the Road of the 2009 California Vehicle Code. Other Officers confirm that this was not a Traffic Infraction but an Equipment Infraction. My speed as documented on his ticket was legal; there was no mention of any driving practice as defined by CVC Division 11. Thus the entry of a traffic infraction was a false document, written by the Lt. George McCloskey, who had extensive trainig and experience was clearly knowledgeable of the action he was taking, was not within Cal Penal Code 830.1. If I had violated any of Division 11, I would not be in a position to argue this matter.
I would never argue that if a person was driving a vehicle in a manner that threatens public safety would fall under my situation. Also any other observable criminal behavior obviously does not apply in my argument. However, only when it is demonstrated that CVC 25950 violations take place at the same time as poses the same kind of threat as Driving Under any Intoxicant, or disregard to the “driving” rules as stated in the Tennessee case, then Cal Penal Code 830.1 would definitely apply. This is based on the Tennessee case is on page 279 section 10 of West’s Annotated California Code 830.1.
There is some serious work that needs to be done to clarify the California Codes in general because there is too much inconsistancy or conflicting language.
I received a citation No: T410493 written by Lt XX falsely states that I committed a traffic infraction. There was no violation that was defined in Division 11 Rules of the Road of the 2009 California Vehicle Code. My speed as documented on his ticket was legal; there was no mention of any driving practice as defined by CVC Division 11 Rules of the Road. In fact I was given a similar CVC equipment violation for violating CVC 26708(a) which was valid, and I corrected the problem. The ticket was issued by Officer XX of the CHP Ticket No: 95622KS. The officer made it clear that the ticket was NOT a TRAFFIC INFRACTION and made no notation at the top of the citation. This is proof that my analysis is sound and correct. The CVC 25950(a) issue is NOT A TRAFFIC INFRACTION.
Thus the entry of a traffic violation was a false document, written by the Lieutenant XX. This act can be defined as fraud under the following definition:
“FRAUD intentional deception resulting in injury to another. Elements of fraud are: a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is falsity or is ignorant of its truth; the maker's Intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated; the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation; the person's rightful or justified reliance; and proximate injury to the person. See 310 F. 2d 262, 267.
It "usually consists of a misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure of a material fact, or at least misleading conduct, devices, or contrivance." 234 F. Supp. 201, 203. It embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise to get an advantage over another. It includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and unfair ways by which another is cheated. At law, fraud must be proved, in equity it suffices to show facts and circumstances from which it may be presumed. 425 P. 2d 974, 978. See generally Model Penal Code §224. See also deceit.
FRAUD IN LAW fraud that is presumed from circumstances, where the one who commits it need not have any evil intent to commit a fraud;
Steven H Gifis, Barrons Law Dictionary 3rd Edition, Page199
DECEIT the tort of fraudulent representation. "The elements of actionable deceit are: a false representation of a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity, or recklessly, or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth, and with intent to induce reliance there-on , on which plaintiff justifiably relies on his injury." 300 P. 2d 14, 16.
Steven H Gifis, Barrons Law Dictionary 3rd Edition, Page120
Lt. XX , has extensive trainig and experience was clearly knowledgeable of the action he was taking.
Please read the following information prior to your answer. This information might be very informative:
Notes to clarify nature of citations:
3 Kinds of Citations
There are 3 kinds of citations where the police can give you a ticket:
Infraction traffic tickets
If the police stop you for driving too fast or running a red light, they can charge you with an infraction and give you a "Notice to Appear" ticket. If you don't have proof of your car insurance, you'll be charged with an infraction for driving without proof of insurance.
(California Courts: Self-Help Center: Traffic: Traffic Information)
Traffic Infractions are defined by the California Vehicle Code in Divisions
The scope of division 11 Rules of the Road is defined as:
Scope of Division
21001. The provisions of this division refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon the highways, unless a different place is specifically referred to.
Traffic Infractions are defined in Division 11 of the California Vehicle Code Division 11 Rules of the Road
(2009 Vehicle Code General Provisions and Divisions 1 - 18 Table of Contents)
Please view the above link inside Division 11, It is titled Rules of the Road, I cannot post the table it is too long and it would surpass the character limit of the post.
Equipment Infractions are the following:
Division 12 Equipment of Vehicles
Chapter 1 § § 24000-24018 General Provisions (Equipment of Vehicles)
Article 15 § § 25950-25952 Light Restrictions and Mounting
Chapter 4 § § 26700-26712 Windshields and Mirrors
A police officer is only authorized to act on equipment violations based on the following information:
Unlawful Operation After Notice by Officer
24004. No person shall operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles after notice by a peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1 or subdivision (a) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, that the vehicle is in an unsafe condition or is not equipped as required by this code, except as may be necessary to return the vehicle or combination of vehicles to the residence or place of business of the owner or driver or to a garage, until the vehicle and its equipment have been made to conform with the requirements of this code.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to an employee who does not know that such notice has been issued, and in such event the provisions of Section 40001 shall be applicable.
Amended Ch. 171, Stats. 1979. Effective January 1, 1980.
(V.C. Section 21070 - Public Offense: Unsafe Operation of Motor Vehicle)
Cal Penal Code 830.1 does not apply to equipment violations alone based on the following:
Typically police officers are authorized to pull a vehicle over based on CVC 25950 because of the following Cal Penal Code 830.1:
(1) As to any public offense committed or which there is probable cause to believe has been committed within the political subdivision that employs the peace officer or in which the peace officer serves.
(CA Codes (pen:830-832.17))
However there is a major flaw in this code. The term public offense cannot apply in this situation. This is because traffic infractions like CVC 25950 cannot be public offenses based on the Cal Penal Code 689.
If you look at Cal Penal Code 689 it states:
“689. No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty.”
Thus the use of traffic infractions on CVC 25950 does not apply and cannot warrant a police officer to pull you over except in the following ruling that I will concede:
Under the People v. Tennessee case 84 Cal. Rptr 697, the unsafe driving of a vehicle was decided to be allowed as “public offense”. This is because in this case decision that there was a clear danger to both persons’ and property. The decision states:
“Finally, once the officers, even though not in uniform or in a designated patrol car, observed the speeding vehicle in a residential area it was a proper exercise of their authority as peace officers to stop the driver, for they had reasonable cause to believe that the driver of the station wagon had committed a public offense in their presence (§ 836, subd. 1, Pen. Code) "Public offense" includes misdemeanors and traffic infractions as well as felonies.” (People v. Tennessee, 4 Cal.App.3d 788, 791 [84 Cal.Rptr. 697].)
However, citation No: T410493 falsely states that I committed a traffic infraction. There was no violation that was defined in Division 11 Rules of the Road of the 2009 California Vehicle Code. Other Officers confirm that this was not a Traffic Infraction but an Equipment Infraction. My speed as documented on his ticket was legal; there was no mention of any driving practice as defined by CVC Division 11. Thus the entry of a traffic infraction was a false document, written by the Lt. George McCloskey, who had extensive trainig and experience was clearly knowledgeable of the action he was taking, was not within Cal Penal Code 830.1. If I had violated any of Division 11, I would not be in a position to argue this matter.
I would never argue that if a person was driving a vehicle in a manner that threatens public safety would fall under my situation. Also any other observable criminal behavior obviously does not apply in my argument. However, only when it is demonstrated that CVC 25950 violations take place at the same time as poses the same kind of threat as Driving Under any Intoxicant, or disregard to the “driving” rules as stated in the Tennessee case, then Cal Penal Code 830.1 would definitely apply. This is based on the Tennessee case is on page 279 section 10 of West’s Annotated California Code 830.1.
There is some serious work that needs to be done to clarify the California Codes in general because there is too much inconsistancy or conflicting language.
Last edited by a moderator:
