Witnessess at Trial

[ChoixDuJour]

Thank you for your reply

"stephenk" I am fully aware of all that you have stated. However, it still does not answer the main question I continue to ask.

Is the Plantiff (complainant) considered a witness against my daughter in this case for her to question?

Does she have the right to question the Plaintiff (complainant)?

That's all I want to know.

I am not asking for any advice on what she should have done to take the easy way out and pay up the nose for something she didn't do. I am just wondering why this is such a difficult question for people in the legal field to answer?

Thank you again

ChoixDuJour<><

 

[stephenk]

"The witness on behalf of the State will be the officer who gave your daughter the ticket. He will say your daughter ran the red light. Your daughter will deny she ran the light. Judge will decide who is more credible."

"The witnesses used by the prosecution can be cross-examined by your daughter at the trial. Just like witnesses in favor of your daughter can be cross-examined by the prosecutor."


What didnt you understand?

 

[ChoixDuJour]

Questions still remain...

Thank you again "stephenk" for your reply.

I didn't say that I recorded the court session. What I said was I have a digital recording of the court session. What law states that a recording cannot be done... or is that just a court rule? There were other witnesses in the courtroom for this case who know what was said. What are they going to do... put me in solitary confinement with only bread and water for 30 days because I have a recording? I'm not concerned; I've been through worst things than that. A few years ago there were 17 deputy sheriffs in the courtroom just for me to attempt to intimidate me to get me arrested because they couldn't get to me any other way. And like always, they had me wait until last with no one else but my 9 witnesses in the courtroom. I'm a little bit radical. I'm not your everyday average sheep who always follows the rules that don't always apply. If they apply, I'm OK with that. If they don't apply, then by all means stay away from me and leave me alone. This transcript by the court reporter was a complete record of the case including but not limited to the commissioner's misconduct in violation of the State Bar Act and the deputy city prosecutor's blatant admission of his own ignorance of the California Penal Code. And it's all on record. I love it.

Traffic school was offered but was not an option within our concern. I don't need to represent my daughter in the courtroom. She does very well on her own.

My problem here in this forum is that I still can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone including possible attorneys in the forum to the main questions I've asked. In a traffic case or any other case defendants are told that they have the right to see, hear and question every witness against them in the courtroom.

You stated, "The witness on behalf of the State will be the officer who gave your daughter the ticket."

I understand that and I personally have been through that more times than I would care to admit. However, as I understand it, the officer is not considered the "Complainant" who filed the charges. Also the traffic ticket filed by the officer is never verified since the officer is not the complainant. According to the California Penal Code, misdemeanors and infractions are prosecuted by "complaint" and not by 'indictment". So... according to the California Penal Code there must be some "natural person" [whatever that means... a term that has never been defined in any of the California codes] who filed the complaint. The prosecution is not the complainant; they only represent the complainant (plaintiff). Therefore the complainant is filing charges against the defendant (in this case my daughter) and is therefore witnessing against her [and not for her] that she did something wrong in a written complaint.

Questions again are...

Is there any reason or laws that exist that states that she can't call on to see, hear and question the complainant (plaintiff) to verify the truth of the charges being filed against her in this courtroom?

Doesn't the defendant (my daughter in this case) have the right to face and question their accuser and not just a representative or other witness of the accuser?

Is the complainant (plaintiff) considered to be witnessing to someone or something (possibly the prosecution and the court here) against the defendant (my daughter in this case) by filing charges in a complaint with the prosecutor who then represents the complainant?

Therefore, wouldn't the complainant (plaintiff) be considered a witness against my daughter as it is partly stated in California Penal code section 684?

Thank you again. I appreciate the participation within this thread which seems to be not so “boring” as one of the other users previously stated several times.

ChoixDuJour<><

 

[lwpat]

"Your daughter should have taken the traffic school because all of your arguments are going to have to be made by her alone. you cant represent her at the trial."

I'm not that familar with CA courts. If the daughter is a juvenile then doesn't a parent have to appear also and can represent the minor?

To ChoixDuJour

I have run across this argument before in trying to get out of a traffic ticket. It didn't work. They may be happy to just get rid of you so why don't you see if they will still allow traffic school and let everybody get on with their lives.

Traffic courts are expected to generate revenue. A traffic ticket is just another government tax. Just figure out a way to pay the least amount possible with the least amount of aggravation.

 

[stephenk]

One last time.

The State of California is prosecuting the matter on behalf of all citizens of the State of California. There is not a human being that is the victim, the victim is all of the people in this State.

The representative on behalf of all of the people of California is the police officer that witnessed your daughter run the red light. That officer will give direct testimony when the State puts on their case. your daughter will then be able to cross-examine the officer.

if the prosecution has any other fact witnesses the procedure repeats itself. Direct testimony then cross-examination.

Your daughter will testify on her own behalf and will then be cross-examined by the prosecutor.

Your daughter can also subpoena the ticketing officer as part of her own defense case, but that most likely wont be necessary since the officer will be in court anyway.


Even in criminal matters that have a human victim (robbery, assault, murder, rape, fraud, etc.), it is the State of California that prosecutes the case on behalf of all of the residents of California not just the particular victim. the prosecution can present their case even if the "victim" refuses to cooperate. This is sometimes seen in domestic violence cases. There is usually enough circumstantial evidence available to get a conviction even if the assaulted person does not testify.


So what evidence does your daughter have that overcomes the officer's testimony that he saw her run the light?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Stephen - -

ChowderDuJour had the following thread in another area. Not knowing about the current thread, I went ahead and answered her other thread, as follows. I have a feeling she's going to fill out the following forms and present them to the court in her daughter's matter.



ChoixDuJour
Junior Member

Registered: Feb 2004
Location: California
Posts: 11
Looking for default judgement form
What is the name of your state? California

I am looking for a standard form for a request for a default judgement for both civil and criminal. However, the only one I can find is for Family Law.

Is there one on the Internet that can be found or anywhere else?

Thank you

ChoixDuJour

03-29-2004 08:14 PM



I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Señor Member

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 27418


Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default)

982(a)(6)* 7/1/2003

Go here, and select a "group"

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/

Copy and paste this link into your browser without the on each side. IAAL 03-29-2004 08:36 PM I AM ALWAYS LIABLE Señor Member Registered: Jan 2000 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 27418 My response: Does your request for these form have anything to do with your daughter's red light ticket? If it does, I'd like the address of the court, the Department number, and the date and time of the hearing. I gotta see this! IAAL

 

[stephenk]

Boy, that would be a fun trial to see!

What kind of default can a defendant enter in a traffic ticket case?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

I know!

It sounds like it would be just like the "Kingfish" from "Amos & Andy" addressing the court!

"Uh, hello der, yer honor!

I'd, uh, like to stands befores ya, and give the Quid pro quo of dis here sititation, and the Pro bono of our done deeefense. By da way, yo holiness, I'd, uh, like to present deese Requests fo Dismissal at da end of my collegue's done case."

"Oh, hello der, Saphire. What's you doing here?"

Andy

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My further comment:

Stephen, I know where the court is going to be for this. ChowderBrain said, in an earlier entry on this thread:

"Fortunately, due to this request by my daughter the court change the courtroom for her case and sent her from the traffic infraction courtroom trailer to a civil courtroom inside the main court building . . ."

Now, as you know, my favorite word is "trailer" - - so, I keyed in on that word.

What courthouse do you and I BOTH KNOW has "trailers" for courtrooms?

That's right. Van Nuys!

This is also why she was asking for both the Civil and the Criminal "Request for Dismissal" forms. She's so confused.

IAAL

 

[ChoixDuJour]

Absolutely amazing...

Please excuse me for not knowing how to get to page 2 of this thread. Remember... I'm new here. I didn't know that the page numbers are hidden in the blue header of the thread. I didn't even know any of you were responding here. I just happened to wave the mouse pointer over the header next to the symbol "[1]" and I saw a red number 2.

I probably should be shocked and surprised at the responses, but I'm not... considering the possible sources. My mother always wanted me to become an attorney since I usually win all my court cases on my own without the assistance of attorneys in the courtroom. Now I know why I never became an attorney or anything close to one. Most people in any of those catagories are usually programmed by the outside world and usually presume everything without gathering any facts. The Bible says in Probverbs (my favorite scripture)... "Any enterprise is built by wise planning, becomes strong through common sense and profits wonderfully by keeping abreast of the facts." Proverbs 24:3-4 LB.

I appreciate all of you for contributing in this thread. However, all of you seem to be from the same mold. I have asked the same questions over and over again and no one has answered them as of yet. Instead of just giving me an answer to my questions, everyone is attempting to tell me what they think I am asking. The problem I have seen with people in the legal profession is that they PRESUME TOO MUCH. I don't presume... I do exactly what the above scripture says and then I "Think Outside The Box" regarding the situation. It then shocks the crap out of the officers in the court and I usually win. They don't expect a normal everyday nobody like me to know the laws that they must obey and then make sure that they obey them. But I do know their laws that they must obey and usually better than they know them. I just don't know much about standard courtroom procedure. And that's why I am asking the questions here.

"stephenk"... You keep presuming that I don't know about cross-examination of witnesses. I have already stated and will again... I do know about that, but that is not my question. Also in your post of 03-30-2004 10:45 PM, you have made more presumptions than I could ever imagine. There is nowhere in the California codes where it states that "The State of California is prosecuting the matter on behalf of all citizens of the State of California." The term "citizens" is never mentioned. And as for the terms "human being" or "people", the California codes don't even apply to real people. That was changed years ago. Haven't you read the California Government Code? It tells you right there. I know... I beat a traffic ticket just because of that. And the "police officer" is only a policy enforcement officer and not a representative as you stated. That's why the officer is only a witness in the court trials and not a representative. You have too many presumptions without documentation.

"I AM ALWAYS LIABLE"... I see why you are always liable. You are actually proving it by slandering my name here in my thread within this forum. Liable is when the slander is in a written format. Don't you read Black's Law Dictionary? I really had the presumption that you were willing to participate in an intelligent conversation in this forum. There I go presuming. Well, I suppose I can be wrong sometimes.

First of all, it is Choix and not "Chowder" or "ChowderBrain". It's French... or maybe that's too difficult for your brain to comprehend. I won't apologize for your definite display of your lack of intelligence.

Next you presume that I am a woman. If I AM a woman, then you are right. If I am NOT a woman... another ding-a-ling presumption on your part.

I don't know what's your profession, but you presume things like attorneys always do. That's a @?!# shame... Why? I really thought you were sincere. Since you asked me, I was actually going to give you the information for the court session. But since you have made it such a delectable enjoyment of slandering my name and proceeded attempts of ridicule upon me within my thread of this forum, I'm not going to tell you now. "Open Mouth Insert Foot". So... if you really believe in your heart that the court session is in Van Nuys... then maybe I'll see you there in Van Nuys. Your loss!

Please understand, "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE", you are hereby noticed. I don't have time to put up with your lamebrain comments. I'm on a time schedule to get this completed. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then just read. This thread has become the most viewed thread so far in it's category. I don't mind a little bit of jesting every now and then, but I don't need to hear anything from the peanut gallery. Should you continue with your lamebrain comments that in no way contribute to my thread, then by all means stay out! Otherwise, I will just report you and have you fined. You are welcome to stay in my thread and contribute constructively as the others are now doing, but be sure to keep your lamebrain comments to yourself.

I'm an alternative legal researcher... gang. I have done this for many years. I had a judge in a traffic courtroom literally run out of the courtroom for 40 minutes because of a few simple words I said to him. Why? Because he knew that he would have to pay the $50,000 he was attempting to put on me for such an exorbitant bail in his fraudulent attempt to arrest me for a 6 year old traffic ticket. Two sessions later, all the charges were dismissed against me with no pleas ever entered from either side. Why didn't he enter a plea for me? I took his authority away from him to ever enter a plea in my case, since they don't have the authority to do that anyway.

I don't need anyone’s help with anything else except courtroom procedure of the questions I have asked. If you don't know how to answer the questions, then I just need to go somewhere else to get my answers or do the best I can with what I already know. God always helps me. He never lets me down.

Good night

ChoixDuJour<><

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

"You are actually proving it by slandering my name here in my thread within this forum. Liable is when the slander is in a written format. Don't you read Black's Law Dictionary?"

"Otherwise, I will just report you and have you fined."


My comment:

Hey, I LOVE those comments! But, you're a Chowderhead dufus. You wouldn't know the necessary elements of actionable libel or slander if they smacked you in the face. Oh, and as for "reporting" me, go right ahead. Do you think you're the first person I've ever had complete disdain for on these forums? Lady, I've been on these forums for over 4 years. Better people than you have tried, and have always failed. There are no fines, by the way.

Hey, but I'm glad you read my posts. I had fun writing them!

IAAL

 

[Ramoth]

The screen name means "choice of the day". But "chowder" ws an accurate translation, too.