Downgrading a Misdemeanor to Infraction

[sandman1983]

I was issued a citation for going 15 mph in a 5 mph zone in my friend's boat (Code 655.2(a)). On the citation is said infraction but when I called the court they said it was a misdemeanor. My court date is set for 12/5. It was my first time taking the boat out (friend's boat) and my record is totally clean. I'm a medical student living in Boston and this happened in California.

Is there anything I can do to downgrade to an infraction? Hire a lawyer? Anything? Please help...this is the last thing I need before applying for residency

 

[CdwJava]

Here is the offense from the Harbors and Navigations Code:

655.2. (a) Every owner, operator, or person in command of any
vessel propelled by machinery is guilty of a misdemeanor who uses it,
or permits it to be used, at a speed in excess of five miles per
hour in any portion of the following areas not otherwise regulated by
local rules and regulations:
(1) Within 100 feet of any person who is engaged in the act of
bathing. A person engaged in the sport of water skiing shall not be
considered as engaged in the act of bathing for the purposes of this
section.
(2) Within 200 feet of any of the following:
(A) A beach frequented by bathers.
(B) A swimming float, diving platform, or lifeline.
(C) A way or landing float to which boats are made fast or which
is being used for the embarkation or discharge of passengers.
(b) This section does not apply to vessels engaged in direct law
enforcement activities which are displaying the lights prescribed by
Section 652.5. Those vessels are also exempt from any locally imposed
speed regulation adopted pursuant to Section 660.​

Yes, it is a misdemeanor. However, this is regularly charged in traffic court as an infraction in many jurisdictions. It might mean that it was initially filed as a misdemeanor, but the odds are that the prosecutor is not going to want to waste time and money on a potential jury trial for this, so they will likely file it as an infraction anyway.

However, as this is not a guarantee you might want to consult local legal counsel immediately to see what can be done. With the right early intervention you might be able to resolve this with a fine and it could go away as an infraction.

 

[Dillon]

Here is the offense from the Harbors and Navigations Code:

655.2. (a) Every owner, operator, or person in command

(in command is a legal term; like pilot in command of a commercial airliner)

of any vessel propelled by machinery is guilty of a misdemeanor who uses it,
or permits it to be used, at a speed in excess of five miles per
hour in any portion of the following areas not otherwise regulated by
local rules and regulations:
(1) Within 100 feet of any person who is engaged in the act of
bathing. A person engaged in the sport of water skiing shall not be
considered as engaged in the act of bathing for the purposes of this
section.
(2) Within 200 feet of any of the following:
(A) A beach frequented by bathers.
(B) A swimming float, diving platform, or lifeline.
(C) A way or landing float to which boats are made fast or which
is being used for the embarkation or discharge of passengers.
(b) This section does not apply to vessels engaged in direct law
enforcement activities which are displaying the lights prescribed by
Section 652.5. Those vessels are also exempt from any locally imposed
speed regulation adopted pursuant to Section 660.​

Yes, it is a misdemeanor. However, this is regularly charged in traffic court as an infraction in many jurisdictions. It might mean that it was initially filed as a misdemeanor, but the odds are that the prosecutor is not going to want to waste time and money on a potential jury trial for this, so they will likely file it as an infraction anyway.

However, as this is not a guarantee you might want to consult local legal counsel immediately to see what can be done. With the right early intervention you might be able to resolve this with a fine and it could go away as an infraction.

all registered vessel traffic laws are under the admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, which is a civil juridiction with criminal penalities. (international contract law)


misdemeanor motor vehicle equipment traffic laws are allegedly criminal and specfically not civil, no contract with the state is required for a court to have personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this OP. - (at law jurisdiction)

-----------------

So, how is it even possible for the state to charge this OP without the proof of an international maritime contract signed by him on the record of the court?


also, are you saying all traffic laws (vessel and vehicle traffic laws) are charged under this same special maritime jurisdiction?


its my understanding, the state lacks legal standing in this matter to even bring charges against this OP in the first place....

----------------

 

[asiny]

vessels traffic is a admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, which is a civil juridiction with criminal penalities. (international contract law)


misdemeanor motor vehicle equipment traffic laws are criminal and specfically not civil, no contract with the state is required for a court to have personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the OP. - (common law/at law jurisdiction)

-----------------

So, how is it even possible for the state to charge this OP without the proof of an international maritime contract with this OP on the record of the court?


also, are you saying all traffic laws (vessel and vehicle traffic laws) are charged under this same admiralty maritime jurisdiction?


its my understanding, the state lacks legal standing in this matter to even bring charges against this OP in the first place....

OP - don't listen to Dillon. Just take a look at some of the user's posts to get an idea on the conspiracy theorist ideals that dive, right in, to the deep end of "I don't recognise the authority of the totalitarian government and, hereby, tell you I recognise my own thoughts of how the laws should be and bring up obscure references that really mean.. get yourself a lawyer and don't listen to me."

 

[Dillon]

OP - don't listen to Dillon. Just take a look at some of the user's posts to get an idea on the conspiracy theorist ideals that dive, right in, to the deep end of "I don't recognise the authority of the totalitarian government and, hereby, tell you I recognise my own thoughts of how the laws should be and bring up obscure references that really mean.. get yourself a lawyer and don't listen to me."

what conspiracy theory do you mean? - i know of no conspiracy....

our state and federal goverments are the best in the world, i know of none better, do you?

-------------------

all registered vessels are under state or federal admiralty/maritime jurisdiction and thats a fact.

Prove that this is not so, show me any case law you have on the subject.

thanks

 

[CdwJava]

Once again, Dillon, I guess all the attorneys and the courts in the state have missed your brilliant illumination of the facts and NOBODY has caught on that all of the state's Harbor and Navigation Codes are unlawful and should be stricken! Wow!

Dillon, if you were even remotely correct, don't you think that all of those wonderful attorneys and judges that actually went to law school would have figured this out by now? I mean, what better trump card would an attorney have but to show the state lacks jurisdiction because of a lack of some contract?

Dillon, you're understanding of the issue is just plain wrong. You need to knock off this line of irrational and unrealistic claptrap. It is simply not true, not helpful, and should the OP - or any of the previous OP's - follow your line of advice, they might very well end up in custody for contempt. They would certainly lose their case, but it could go even worse on them if they start spouting off about contract law, admiralty law, etc.

Ugh.

 

[cyjeff]

Dillon,

I say this in all seriousness and without a single bit of snark or sarcasm.

I am not a medical professional, but I urge you to seek one out. For anyone to believe that no other lawyer or defendant in the history of this country has thought to present the defense you are so wont to propose is delusional.

I applaud your want to help. I even applaud your research. My concern is that you stop when you think you find the answer you want and then demand the rest of the world bask in your brilliance.

Please seek help.

Cyjeff

 

[Dillon]

Once again, Dillon, I guess all the attorneys and the courts in the state have missed your brilliant illumination of the facts and NOBODY has caught on that all of the state's Harbor and Navigation Codes are unlawful and should be stricken! Wow!

Dillon, if you were even remotely correct, don't you think that all of those wonderful attorneys and judges that actually went to law school would have figured this out by now? I mean, what better trump card would an attorney have but to show the state lacks jurisdiction because of a lack of some contract?

Dillon, you're understanding of the issue is just plain wrong. You need to knock off this line of irrational and unrealistic claptrap. It is simply not true, not helpful, and should the OP - or any of the previous OP's - follow your line of advice, they might very well end up in custody for contempt. They would certainly lose their case, but it could go even worse on them if they start spouting off about contract law, admiralty law, etc.

Ugh.

dont change the subject, are registered vessels under state or federal maritime jurisdiction or not? answer the question !!!
prove it is not so, or beleive it.

i am waiting for the court case law to be posted by you, and not your opinion


what other jurisdiction could registered vessels be under if not under special maritime jurisdictioin?

you tell, me i am waiting for your help .....


once you see truth you cant unsee it.


---------------

we have an adversarial legal system in the US, its about winning you case

Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince the judge or jury that his or her perspective on the case is the correct one. (not the right one)

----------------

 

[Dillon]

Dillon,

I say this in all seriousness and without a single bit of snark or sarcasm.

I am not a medical professional, but I urge you to seek one out. For anyone to believe that no other lawyer or defendant in the history of this country has thought to present the defense you are so wont to propose is delusional.

I applaud your want to help. I even applaud your research. My concern is that you stop when you think you find the answer you want and then demand the rest of the world bask in your brilliance.

Please seek help.
Cyjeff

----------------

I HAVE ALREADY BEEN HELPED, ABOUT TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO ON A BLOODLY WOODEN CROSS ON MT. CALVARY.

how about you?

thanks

 

[Dillon]

vessel or vehicle you tell me

Definition of VESSEL

1 : a container (as a cask, bottle, kettle, cup, car, boat or bowl) for holding something. (maybe like people)



Definition of VEHICLE

1 : any device or contrivance for carrying or conveying persons or objects, esp. as an automobile, bicycle, ship, sled, or spacecraft.

---------

IS A VESSEL A VEHICLE CARRYING PEOPLE OR HOLDING OBJECTS?

IS A VEHICLE A VESSEL HOLDING PEOPLE OR CARRYING OBJECTS?

IS A MOTORED VEHICLE A VESSEL HAVING A MOTOR?

IS A MOTORED VESSEL A VEHICLE HAVING A MOTOR?

---------

WOW - ATTORN MEANS TO TWIST

 

[asiny]

Definition of VESSEL

1 : a container (as a cask, bottle, kettle, cup, car, boat or bowl) for holding something. (maybe like people)



Definition of VEHICLE

1 : any device or contrivance for carrying or conveying persons or objects, esp. as an automobile, bicycle, ship, sled, or spacecraft.

---------

IS A VESSEL A VEHICLE CARRYING PEOPLE OR HOLDING OBJECTS?

IS A VEHICLE A VESSEL HOLDING PEOPLE OR CARRYING OBJECTS?

IS A MOTORED VEHICLE A VESSEL HOLDING A MOTOR?

IS A MOTORED VESSEL A VEHICLE HOLDING A MOTOR?

---------

WOW

So by your own research you have proven that BOTH Maritime and Traffic laws can apply to the same vehicle (when being a vehicle that can travel across water). It would seem the citation was issued correctly and, regardless that it may fall under traffic jurisdiction, applies to the correct court... again, based on your own research.

 

[Dillon]

So by your own research you have proven that BOTH Maritime and Traffic laws can apply to the same vehicle (when being a vehicle that can travel across water). It would seem the citation was issued correctly and, regardless that it may fall under traffic jurisdiction, applies to the correct court... again, based on your own research.

No, the OP does not have a international maritime agreement signed by him with the state or federal gov. (that means no personal or SMJ over him.)

The vessel was not registered in his name, it was not his boat.

The vehicle was not being used (used is a commercial term) by him, but being enjoyed by Right. Moving with private property on the public waters is a Right and not a previlege. He was not the pilot in command (a commercial term, also.)

The citation did not state any damages or other facts but only conclusions of law. Nobody's legal rights were violate by the OP.

So how was the citation issued correctly? The citation has more holes in it than swiss cheese. LOL

The Plaintiff lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this citation can be vacated as being void ab initio, (from the day issued)

------------------

This should help you and this OP