Petition for Declatory Judgment Writ of Administrative Mandate and Injunctive Relief

I

 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is federal question jurisdiction as  this petition presents federal questions arising under the United States Constitution that are appropriate for review in federal courts under authority of 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343 and 1367: F.R.C.P.  Rule (8a).

This petition raises concerns involving crimes against the laws of the United States in that the tools used by respondents involve criminal acts defined as predicate acts for purposes of meeting the criteria necessary for application of the RICO statutes including predicate acts of domestic terrorism as that term is expressed at 18 USC §2331(5)(A) and (B)(i) and (C). Viewed in toto it is undeniable that the police power of the state, a California BAR Association cartel of attorney’s and respondents courts,  are being used for human trafficking as that term is defined at California Penal Code §236.1.

Among the three types of Domestic Terrorism listed by the Justice Department at fbi.gov the definition most descriptive of the activities complained of herein is “Anti-government” as hereinafter more fully appears.

This petition for relief does not raise a political question as the conduct complained of is proscribed by state and federal criminal statutes, the law of Nations and international treaties

Venue is proper within the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) 15 because petitioner lives in the Northern District of California within the jurisdiction of this Court and because specific events and transactions complained of took place in the Northern District of California within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is in the public interest.

RELIEF RQUESTED IS STATUTORY

Petitioner seeks declaratory judgment, and any further necessary or proper remedy based upon declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202 and FRCP 57 because there is an ongoing controversy as hereinafter more fully appears.

Petitioner also seeks Injunctive Relief pursuant to Rule 65(a), Administrative Mandate pursuant to 28 USC §1651 and FRCP 21 and any other relief the court finds necessary and proper to protect the rights and interests at prize.

Situs and Standing

          Petitioner is an American born citizen living in California, a state of the union, thus clothed in both state and federal constitutional protections.

Petitioner is similarly situated to the people of California as it regards the subject matter of this suit, the imminent threat to life, liberty and property interests and the nature of the relief sought.

Respondents are fiduciaries of the public trust occupying the offices of state and local institutions of government who are charged with the preservation of public justice. Respondents’ courts have denied Plaintiff Munson due process and subjected him to color of law acts from which he has suffered as a proximate result, substantial duress and injury prejudicial to his rights, liberty, property and business. The People of the State California have fared no better and are being reduced to a condition of peonage and slavery by the fraudulent manufacture of debt indentures.

Petitioner and the people of the state of California have a vested interest in the rule of law and defense of our constitutional form of governance and therefore Petitioner has standing to raise these issues individually and as Private Attorney Generals on behalf of the people of the state of California as this matter raises issues affecting public policy and the public interest.

The attached memorandum of points and authorities is incorporated herein by this reference as if each point and authority were fully restated throughout.

INTRODUCTION

The California Constitution at Article 1 §§15 & 16 guarantee assistance of counsel at public expense and jury trial to one accused of crime. California Constitution at Article 1 §13 like the federal Fourth Amendment, guarantees the right to be secure in one’s person and possessions against unwarranted searches and seizures.

However, every day in California, ordinary citizens are being arrested without warrant for Vehicle Code infractions and then denied both state and federal due process protections. In order to secure release from police custody the arrested person must sign the “promise to appear” portion of a “notice to appear” issued by the arresting officer[1] or be taken to jail to be placed upon the next day’s court calendar.[2] One who fails to honor such “promise” is then subject to prosecution for misdemeanor “failure to appear”.

Upon “appearing”, the arrested person is “arraigned” and required to enter a “plea” of guilty, not guilty or nolo contender. They are denied assistance of counsel at public expense and jury trial for “infraction” pursuant to statute[3] and then subjected to court trial, found guilty (convicted) and ordered to pay debt indentures called fines.

On appeal the traffic court “convict” does not get a full true record of proceedings but must submit a “proposed statement” after which the traffic court commissioner “settles” the statement. So what in effect is passed for a record on appeal is a statement that is modified (fabricated) to please the court and not a true record of the proceedings at all.

This is not consistent with criminal appeals under the California Rules of Court and leaves one to wonder if there is any “law” involved in this process at all, petitioner thinks not.

At no time will “traffic court” answer the due process questions and resolve the constitutional conflicts raised by this petition. The Superior Court Appellate Divisions rubberstamp the traffic courts acts, will not resolve or acknowledge the contradictions created and will not issue a certificate of probable cause to the California Courts of Appeal. Remedy is thus denied to the people of California by the policies of local government actors.

The Resulting Problem

The rights of the people to be secure in their person and possessions from unwarranted searches and seizures and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law have all been abolished by misapplication of the civil/regulatory scheme known as the Vehicle Code to the exercise and enjoyment of rights.

Here’s an example of the foreseeable and manifest fruit of the human trafficking activity:

On Mother’s Day 2014, just a couple of weeks before Memorial Day, Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran Tommy Yancy^[4], was pulled over for not having a front license plate. Five California Highway Patrol officers beat Tommy Yancy to death in the street while stunned onlookers filmed the horrific event on a cell phone while commenting, “too much excessive force” and “not resisting.”

This conduct is being perpetrated upon the traveling public by persons occupying positions of public trust charged with the preservation of public justice. Tommy Yancy Jr. is only one of far too many examples of the recent pandemic of irrational police violence facilitated by a policy of color of law racketeering, domestic terrorism and human trafficking as hereinafter more fully appears.

First Claim for Relief: Declaratory Judgment

Question 1: What is the substantive Nature of a vehicle code infraction?

The California Supreme Court has expressed the universal expectation that every citizen shall know the law.

We thus require citizens to apprise themselves not only of statutory language but also of legislative history, subsequent judicial construction, and underlying legislative purposes (People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal.2d 614, 620 [47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 408 P.2d 100]). (See generally Amsterdam, The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court (1960) 109 U. Pa. L.Rev. 67.) Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112.

Implicit in such an expectation is that every citizen has the right to know what the law is. Due Process itself is consumed with clarity in what the law requires.

Without notice of the nature and cause of action one can have no meaningful opportunity to be heard and yet one has been arrested without warrant for alleged infraction, denied assistance of counsel, denied jury trial, convicted and sentenced to surrender the fruits of his labor to pay a penalty or punishment called a “fine”.

Due Process Demands Answer

1. Is an infraction a Public Offense?
   1. IF an infraction is a “public offense”[5], providing the element of “crime” necessary for probable cause to arrest without warrant pursuant to §836 (a)(1) of the Penal Code[6]…
      1. THEN statutes denying assistance of counsel at public expense[7] and jury trial[8] to one accused of an infraction/crime/public offense violate California Constitution Article 1 §§15 & 16 and are therefore constitutionally void.
   2. IF an infraction is not a public offense,
      1. THEN infractions do not provide the vital element of crime necessary for probable cause to arrest without warrant pursuant to §836 (a)(1) of the Penal Code vis-à-vis §40300.5 of the Vehicle Code and…
         1. Police are violating California Constitution Article 1 §13 when they perform a “traffic stop”
         2. Any statue purported to provide authority to arrest without warrant for infraction[9] is constitutionally void.
         3. Courts are racketeering in extortion and
            1. by targeting the free exercise of liberty (holding liberty hostage to license held hostage for ransom) the Courts are engaged in domestic terrorism and
            2. by imposing debt indentures called fines for conduct not rising to the level of crime the courts are human trafficking in violation of Penal code 236.1 and §7102(8) of Title 22 of the United States Code.

Second Claim for Relief: Declaratory Judgment

Question 2: What set of books is Superior Court using?

Arrest without a warrant requires probable cause of crime. Infractions are not crimes because if they were Penal Code §19.6 denying assistance of counsel for “infraction” would violate Article I §15 of the California Constitution Guaranteeing assistance of counsel to one accused of “crime” and Penal Code §1042.5 would violate Article I section 16 of the California Constitution Guarantee of jury trial to one accused of “crime”.

We only have actions and special proceedings and there are only two forms of action.[10] Special proceedings are covered in part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there is no mention of traffic or infraction.

Actions are either public (criminal) or private (Civil).[11] Elements of one are not merged in the other[12]. It’s a fortiori. Remedies for wrongs are either public (criminal) or private (Civil) and if it’s not one then it’s necessarily the other because it cannot be neither and it cannot be both.

CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

§22.  An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by

which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement,

or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or

the punishment of a public offense.

We only have two forms of action because rights are only of two kinds and wrongs are of only two kinds. Rights are person and property while wrongs are divided into public and private[13].

Is “infraction” Civil or Criminal?

WHERE ARE THE BOOKS ON QUASI-CRIMINAL, QUASI-CIVIL, QUASI-LAW PROCEDURE?

We do get to use the same set of books don’t we? The nature and cause of an action are generally determined by the type of right violated and the remedy sought.

1.       In infraction proceedings the remedy sought is a fine. A fine is penal not compensatory.

2.       One is arrested without a warrant. That’s criminal procedure not civil

3.       One is compelled to sign a promise to appear in order to secure release from police custody or be taken to jail and placed on the next court calendar. That’s criminal procedure not civil

4.       The defendant’s attendance is compelled. No civil court has the power to compel attendance

5.       One is referred to as defendant not respondent. That’s criminal procedure not civil

6.       The defendant is “arraigned” and required to enter one of the Penal Code pleas such as guilty, not guilty or no contest. One is referred to as defendant not respondent. That’s criminal procedure not civil. One is not arraigned and does not enter a plea in civil actions

7. One is convicted. One is referred to as defendant not respondent. That’s criminal procedure not civil. In civil actions one is held to be liable or not liable.

8. In infraction proceedings one is found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine. That’s criminal not civil.

9. One cannot be forced to labor except for crime under Article 1 section 6 of the California Constitution yet one arrested without warrant and convicted without counsel or jury trial for “infraction” is sentence to labor and surrender the fruits of that labor under the label of paying a “fine” and all without any resemblance to due process.

What right is violated when the public uses the rights of way belonging to the traveling public for egress by automobile in the ordinary way without permission from government?

You don’t get arrested without a warrant in civil actions.

Your attendance cannot be compelled in civil actions

You don’t get “Arraigned” in civil proceedings

You are not compelled to enter one of the six penal code pleas in civil actions.

You don’t get convicted in civil actions.

You don’t get sentenced in civil actions

The remedy in a civil action is not penal

What part of this process proceeds in the course of the civil law?

If infractions are not public offenses then they can only be private.

If civil, does it sound in Contract or Tort?

If it’s civil why are all the procedures criminal except the right to constitutional due process?

What is the nature of the injury suffered?

Is the injury to person or property rights of plaintiff?

How are defendant’s actions the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries?

Conclusion

Notice of the nature and cause of action is fundamental. Notice is a cornerstone of due process because without notice there can be no meaningful opportunity to be heard.

These questions must be answered before the government can proceed against an accused and there is no legitimate reason why one cannot get a consistent answer in state courts.  

This stuff is taught in the first year of law school. Is it possible to forget the foundational structure of our American Jurisprudence by the time one passes the bar or is there something law school does to create this result?

1. Can the exercise of a right be held hostage to license?
2. What is the substantive Nature of “infraction”?
3. What set of books is traffic court using for infraction proceedings?
4. What is the substantive nature of the California Vehicle Code?
   1. What is the conduct being regulated under the California Vehicle Code?
5. Is the driver’s license a contract or a franchise?
6. If one is required to obtain license to use a consumer goods automobile upon the rights of way belonging to the traveling public for ingress and egress in the affairs of daily life then how does one exercise the right of “enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy”?
   1. How does one travel from home to work or to school or to church or to the grocery store without permission or dependence upon the permissions held by third parties?
   2. What are the alternatives for exercising liberty without permission? (Like how am I supposed to appear in defendants courts or even get to and from this one without permission and without dependence on the permissions held by third parties?)
      1. Get a ride from a Benevolent friend with license (permission)?
      2. Get a ride from a Benevolent stranger with license (permission)?
      3. Purchase transportation services in commerce from a public or private carrier?