California Court Transcripts ARE NOT Public Records?

[GoldySJSU]

Justalayman

If you don't pay any attention to my posts, you do not have a problem.

YOU volunteer to reply to my messages.

YOU do not have to post anything.

YOU do not have to read my posts, it is not pushed into your face or brought inside your home without CHOOSING to do so. This is like a television, you can always change the channel or like junk mail, you see the cover of the envelope and throw it away.

YOU have the right to simply never respond at all.

I have the right to post information, even if it is wrong, due to the fact that YOUR choice is not removed. be PRO-CHOICE and just ignore me.

 

[justalayman]

I have the right to post information, even if it is wrong, due to the fact that YOUR choice is not removed. be PRO-CHOICE and just ignore me.

this is where you are 100% wrong. You have absolutely no rights to post anything. You are allowed to post at the discretion of the owner/moderator/administrators of this forum. If they do not want to let you post, you don't post. It really is that simple.



but that has nothing to do with what you asked and I responded to. You said you had not broken any rules and I said you have with explanation. I can assure you that many others believe you have as well.

 

[GoldySJSU]

Justalayman, well I guess your compelled to pay attention to me.

I feel sorry for you having such a terrible case of obsessive compulsive disorder. Especially since my comments are so unimportant and insignificant.

I can only imagine how difficult it is to be burderned by so many pathetic situations. My issues are so petty and all. If only police officers wouldn't make such a mountain out of an anthill, this conversation would never had taken place.

But we are all victims of our own issues aren't we.

 

[justalayman]

. Especially since my comments are so unimportant and insignificant.

.

very well said goldy, very well said. Your statements, therefore you, are unimportant and insignificant. Remember, you are the one who believed you had established precedent setting law. Let's see, what do they call that?

Oh ya, visions of grandeur.

glad to see you finally realized where you stand in life:

unimportant and insignificant

 

[GoldySJSU]

Justalayman

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah

 

[GoldySJSU]

Justalayman,

My case does establish that officers cannot cite CVC 25950 without justification, isn't that true?

The court record states:


THE COURT: However, I don't mean to cut you off, but I did have a question for the People, if I may. Could you point to what testimony or evidence by Lieutenant McCluskey that supports the conviction of the Vehicle Code section 25950?

MS. AIZPURU-SUTTON: Your Honor, the brief is written by my predecessor. I believe he cites only to the officer saying the light was bright. That's the extent of my answer, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And would you agree or disagree that that appears to be insufficient in light of the language of the statute?

MS. AIZPURU-SUTTON: I would just say, Your Honor, that brightness -- brightness was the word that was used, and that doesn't seem to be the language of the statute and that's probably as far as I'll go.

THE COURT: Thank you very much. And I apologize for interrupting. Do you have additional comments?

The attorney has conceded the fact that an officer cannot withstand an allegation of CVC 25950, by just saying they are bright, when not supported with any evidence. This by definition is insufficient evidence by consent of the attorney

So the Santa Clara County Court Ruled:

Appellant's argument that there is not substantial evidence that Appellant's lights were bright enough to violate the statute is well taken. Vehicle Code section 25950, subdivision (a) applies to the color of lamps exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination. This section further provides that all emitted light from lamps visible from the front of the vehicle shall be white or yellow unless provided otherwise. Vehicle Code section 25400, subdivision (a) provides that any vehicle may be equipped with a lamp or device on the exterior of the vehicle that emits a diffused non-glaring light of not more than 0.05 candela per square inch of area. Vehicle Code section 25400, subdivision (b) provides that any diffused non-glaring light shall not display red to the front but may display other colors.

Here, the settled statement does not indicate that Lt. McCloskey ever testified that Appellant's lights were bright enough to satisfy the threshold of the 0.05 per candela requirement set forth in Vehicle Code section 25950, subdivision (a). Therefore, there is not substantial evidence to support Appellant's conviction.

As far as Santa Clara County is concerned, yes a precendent has been established.

And this decision totally discredits the decision by Commissioner James Madden in the Palo Alto Court.

This case does set a standard of evidence for future cases, a police officer better do more work to support a allegation.

 

[tranquility]

While I don't want to harsh the love affair between justalayman and goldie (really you two, you should get a room), I just want to say there is NOTHING precedential in the decision. Even if it were a US Supreme Court decision. Nothing.

It is well established that the state has the burden of proof of its case. Well established. Party on!

 

[GoldySJSU]

Tranquility, KUDOS

This is definitly a situation wher I say clearly, I AM WRONG, I AM SORRY, I EAT THE HUMBLE PIE, I EAT THE CROW, I AM THE IDIOT THE VILLAGE IS MISSING heehheeehheeeee.

Ed Mcmann would say "YOU ARE CORRECT" and you are right

I would add my little 2 cents, the police officers made unsubstantiated allegations though and the court tells them so.

It may just be a reminder of what they forgot or ignored while writing the citations.

But again I want the RECORD to show, I WAS WRONG.

Some people claim I do not admit making errors.

I am soo happy to admit it though, thank you thank you thank you

 

[justalayman]

=GoldySJSU;2351302]My case does establish that officers cannot cite CVC 25950 without justification, isn't that true?

No it isn't. The only thing your case ruled was they could not convict you for a cited offense if nobody proves the states case. That was settled many years ago in hundreds of other courts.



.

This case does set a standard of evidence for future cases, a police officer better do more work to support a allegation.

this case sets nothing. Your case is very simple; the state did not prove the allegation of the violation cited. That is how it is supposed to be in every situation. It just took you to appeal your initial conviction to win. Most cases of the sort result in a not-guilty verdict to start with. That really says something about how you presented your original case.

 

[justalayman]

This is definitly a situation wher I say clearly, I AM WRONG, I AM SORRY, I EAT THE HUMBLE PIE, I EAT THE CROW, I AM THE IDIOT THE VILLAGE IS MISSING heehheeehheeeee.

Ed Mcmann would say "YOU ARE CORRECT" and you are right

I would add my little 2 cents, the police officers made unsubstantiated allegations though and the court tells them so.

It may just be a reminder of what they forgot or ignored while writing the citations.

But again I want the RECORD to show, I WAS WRONG.

Some people claim I do not admit making errors.

I am soo happy to admit it though, thank you thank you thank you

I just want to memorialize this so it cannot edited.


btw; I told you this same thing long ago. You simply wanted to argue the point for some reason.