Theseus
Founder's Club Member
imported post
My Case has been going on for some time. I don't comment much because the DA's office has notified us that they are watching this forum and my comments.
I have been advised by my lawyer to stay off the net, but at this time I am not to inclined to follow those instructions as it seems to have not helped my case to stay silent.
I have remained out of jail and without having to pay bail or anything.
Earlier in the case we had a motion to suppress hearing. In that hearing the judge agreed that the search and seizure that netted the officers in my case the ability to identitfy me was illegally obtained. He agreed that any detainment beyond the scope of 12031(e) inspection made the search illegal. The officers also testified that none of them could remember how they got the ID, only that they got it. I have stated before that the police removed my wallet from my pocket without permission. Even though the identification was fruit of the poisonous tree it was still allowed.
On Friday the Judge allowed the motion to exclude my private property defense.
He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public.
This is an outrageous ruling by the judge, one that smacks in the face of the clear language of the law and even the California Court of Appeals ruling in the very case he used to "justify" his belief People v. Tapia which stated:
At this time there is little we can do but continue to put on a strong defense, but the major protection that was written into the law has now been made void by yet another activist judge here in California.
Understand that the politics are dangerous and out for blood. They will do anything and everything in their power to prevent us from protecting ourselves as evidenced here, the proposed extension of the school zone to 1500 feet and the fact that 626.9 does not have a self-defense exception.
I am trying not to go off on a rant, so I will stop here.
Carry on and be safe. Hopefully others will succeed where I seem to have failed.
My Case has been going on for some time. I don't comment much because the DA's office has notified us that they are watching this forum and my comments.
I have been advised by my lawyer to stay off the net, but at this time I am not to inclined to follow those instructions as it seems to have not helped my case to stay silent.
I have remained out of jail and without having to pay bail or anything.
Earlier in the case we had a motion to suppress hearing. In that hearing the judge agreed that the search and seizure that netted the officers in my case the ability to identitfy me was illegally obtained. He agreed that any detainment beyond the scope of 12031(e) inspection made the search illegal. The officers also testified that none of them could remember how they got the ID, only that they got it. I have stated before that the police removed my wallet from my pocket without permission. Even though the identification was fruit of the poisonous tree it was still allowed.
On Friday the Judge allowed the motion to exclude my private property defense.
He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public.
This is an outrageous ruling by the judge, one that smacks in the face of the clear language of the law and even the California Court of Appeals ruling in the very case he used to "justify" his belief People v. Tapia which stated:
This was a California Court of Appeals ruling that is supposed to provide case law precedence that was completely ignored by the judge. The fact that a judge at the trial level can ignore such precedence is also disturbing to me.That the Legislature did not necessarily intend section 626.9 to be governed by the "public place" analysis is also suggested by the exception for places of business. It is readily apparent that a great many places of business are open to common use and enjoyment by members of the public. Nonetheless, section 626.9's exception expressly encompasses places of business. People v. Tapia (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 1153 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 158
At this time there is little we can do but continue to put on a strong defense, but the major protection that was written into the law has now been made void by yet another activist judge here in California.
Understand that the politics are dangerous and out for blood. They will do anything and everything in their power to prevent us from protecting ourselves as evidenced here, the proposed extension of the school zone to 1500 feet and the fact that 626.9 does not have a self-defense exception.
I am trying not to go off on a rant, so I will stop here.
Carry on and be safe. Hopefully others will succeed where I seem to have failed.