|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
This page is www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/2871.html
For best results view this page in pdf which is here: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/2871.pdf
This is the brief for which the FBI arrested me in Illinois on 14 May 1999 triggering a 4 month jail term on $500,000 bail and the lost of my home. I was innocent and a jury of 12 voted me not guilty.
Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com
Back to www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
Back to Lawyerdude yahoo group at www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude
Go to lawyerdude links at www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
File: 2871 D.A. served Version 1 by mail 6 May.
Melvin Looser Court served Version 2 by mail 7 May.
4277 East Hueneme Road #9 Version 2 to Judge Covarrubias 7 May.
Oxnard CA 93033 Version #3 to D.A. by mail May 10.
In Pro Per Version #3 to Court and Judge May 10.
Municipal Court of California
Ventura County, Ventura Division, Judge Manuel Jose Covarrubias
People
versus
Melvin Looser
Case #97 m 020 823
Motion #2871. Version #3.1.
Defendant’s Motion to Strike jail time and direct work from his sentence as being violative of the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and similar clause(s) in the California Constitution and the Helsinki Accord.
Defendant’s request for appointment of Douglas Palaschak or Fred Rogers as counsel.
Defendant’s request for transcript of tape recordings of the trial and all other proceedings.
Demand for dismissal for failure to equally prosecute police traffic infractions.
Notice of Appeal.
Time: 1:30 pm
Date: Tuesday 13 May 1997
Court: 48 - or wherever Judge Covarrubias orders.
To District Attorney Michael Bradbury, please note that at the above listed venue or at such other venue as the court may
order, Defendant will seek the relief sought herein
.
Contents:
Table of Authorities Cited Herein. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Defendant’s Indigency, Disability, and Surgeries
Defendant receives Social Security and does not work. No further inquiry is required.
Defendant could not adequately read and understand the court form
Star chamber. Our purpose is to scare you
Policemen should not be advising defendants.
The video is a material misstatement of the law.
All rise. This procedure is done wrong. It’s not for the judge.
This court should not shame defendant into announcing or hiding his marginal literacy.
Defendant’s strongest case: Williams v Illinois
Defendant’s 2nd Strongest case - Tate v Short - a traffic ticket case.
The court has already indicated that the money is not important
We’re just doing our job. Besides we don’t actually take his license or vehicle.
From Visions of Liberty: Due process is the antithesis of Inquisition. Statute of 1354
[Star Chamber. Illegality of Role of prosector and Judge combined]
Table of Authorities Cited Herein
Cases cited herein:
Griffin v Illinois (1956) 100 L Ed 891, 351 US 12, 79 S Ct 585, 55 ALR2d 1055 - Indigent’s right to appointed counsel on first appeal of right.
Lilburne’s case. England. Circa 1648. He was granted the right to a lawyer. See Visions of Liberty, Ira Glasser, 1991, Little, Brown, New York, page 160.
Tate v Short (1971) 28 L Ed 2d 130. 401 US 395, 91 S Ct 668. Indigents may not be ordered to serve time if they cannot pay the fine. See Lockhart, Constitutional Law, 5th Edition, 1980, page 1474.
U.S. v Guest (1966) 383 U.S. 745 at 757, 759. The right to travel in interstate commerce is a fundamental right.
Williams v Illinois (1970) 26 L Ed 2d 586, 399 US 235, 90 S Ct 2018. Indigent cannot be ordered to “work off” a fine if the imprisonment will extend the imprisonment beyond the maximum sentence. In the instant case, the maximum sentence is zero; Defendant Looser’s ticket was for an infraction.
Wolf v Colorado (1949) 338 US 25 at 27. Definition of Due Process.
Statutes cited herein:
Penal Code §16. Amended in 1968 to classify some offenses as Infractions. The current law of infractions in California is not old enough to be tested and is likely unconstitutional due to a subsequent major California constitutional revision.
Penal code §16. Amended in 1968 to define infractions. Led the way to wholesale abandonment of constitutional rights.
U.S. code 42:1983 creates a cause of action for violation of civil rights under color of state law.
Vehicle Code §14602.6 permits unconstitutional license suspension as of 1995.
Treatises cited herein:
Constitutional Law, 5th Edition, 1980, West Publishers. Tate and William are both casebook law - quoted at page 1474 and 1475.
The Supreme Court and Individual Rights, 1979, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Williams is discussed at page 272.
Visions of Liberty, Ira Glasser (of the ACLU), 1991, Little, Brown, and Company, New York, page 159 et. seq. Available at Port Hueneme library.
Constitutional provisions and other ancient authorities:
Magna Carta. Signed in a field at Runneymede in 1215 at the point of a sword. The phrase “trial of one’s peers” comes from this
document which contains other assertions of rights of freemen which oppressive states and their courts scorn. The trend for 200
years has been increased recognition of the rights specified in the Magna Carta. Will this court reverse that trend?
Bartletts Familiar Quotations, 16th edition, page 550, #13. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” - Anatole France (1844-1924)1894.
Declaration of Independence: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
Due process statute of 1354. In 1354 Parliament passed a law forbidding the government from imprisoning anybody “Without being brought in answer by due process of law”. This is the first use of the phrase. The concept became part of our common law and demonstrates that our rights are more than the tiny shopping list specified in the bill of rights.
Lilburne’s case. Circa 1648. He was granted the right to be represented by a lawyer. Lesson: Our right was there before the 6th amendment which merely accelerated its development and clarified it. See Visions of Liberty, page 160.
U.S. Constitution. 14th amendment. Equal Protection clause: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” - Anatole France (1844-1924)1894 as quoted in Bartletts Familiar Quotations, 16th edition, page 550, #13.
Defendant is a veteran of the Korean War and Viet Nam. Defendant received a traffic ticket for allegedly crossing over the yellow line briefly.
Defendant’s Indigency, Disability, and Surgeries
Defendant is indigent. Defendant receives Social Security Disability payments. Defendant lives in an 11 x 19 foot room without heating or air conditioning.
Defendant has had 6 surgeries to repair his hiatal hernia. He is ordered to refrain from straining his abdomen. On Monday May 5th defendant had surgery on his right foot.
Defendant eats cheap food and, like most poor people, often runs out of food before the end of the month. Defendant cannot pay installment payments; he is already suffering from the slow deterioration of his truck, clothes, property, and self that is caused by poverty. Indigency is defined as “the inability to pay the ordinary costs of living” (in addition to whatever payment is proposed). Indigency by definition precludes the ability to pay!
Defendant receives Social Security and does not work. No further inquiry is required.
He would not have to pay court filing fees - even on an installment basis - and query the validity of installment payments in this context. Is this not another form of indentured servitude? Is it not peonage by another name? Peonage was specifically ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme court.
Had defendant not been denied his constitutional 6th amendment right to counsel, this court would have known of his situation.
Defendant could not adequately read and understand the court form.
The court form was self-contradictory and ambiguous.
Defendant was unconstitutionally denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at his trial Inquisition
on 2 May
1997 before Prosecutor, Judge, and Chief Inquisitor Covarrubias who unconstitutionally performed the role of prosecutor and judge
thereby depriving defendant of an unbiased fact finder.
Star chamber. Our purpose is to scare you.
The procedure in traffic court resembles that of the Star Chamber. The cowboy commissioner in Calabasas stated the point candidly in his monologue; “Our purpose is to scare you.”
Policemen should not be advising defendants.
The court session in Ventura begins with a policeman (bailiff) telling defendants that they are better off to simply pay. He then scornfully explains that you can plead not guilty.
The video is a material misstatement of the law.
In some courts there is a video; All Ventura videos materially misstate the law. Is it ignorance by the court - or intentional deception?
All rise. This procedure is done wrong. It’s not for the judge.
Defendants are then told “All Rise.” It seems that they are rising for the Judge. In fact, court rules require that the standing is supposed to honor the principles for which this state stands. The judge is supposed to face the flag. There is a specified speech.
Defendant was fined $104. Defendant stated that he could not pay the fine. Judge Covarrubias then mistakenly ordered defendant to, in effect, serve or pay. Judge Covarrubias ordered defendant to work for 8 hours to serve off the fine. Rich people, obviously can avoid the oppression of the Ventura jail industry by paying the fine. Defendant is thus denied equal protection.
Argument: The invention of the infraction is itself unconstitutional but defendant is entitled to the benefit of the bargain, to wit:
Denial of counsel (and denial of a jury) mandates a punishment less than jail and less than the jail substitute - work furlough, direct
work, work release, make work, or whatever you choose to call it. The bogus oppressive classification “infraction” was brought to
California in 1968 in Penal Code §16. This brief does not exhaustively discuss the unconstitutionality of Penal Code §16
.
This court should not shame defendant into announcing or hiding his marginal literacy.
How do you know that you are marginally literate if you don’t know how well other people can read!! Had defendant not been denied counsel, his counsel would have found a way - such as a side bar or even a motion in limine - to inform the court without embarrassing the defendant.
Defendant’s strongest case: Williams v Illinois
In Williams v Illinois (1970) 26 L Ed 2d 586, 399 US 235, 90 S Ct 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that where a defendant lacked funds to pay the fine and court costs and had to “work off” the fine at the rate of $5 per day, the effect of the sentence imposed for petty theft was to incarcerate him for 101 days beyond the maximum term fixed by statute.
“Applying the teaching of Griffin
. . .when the aggregate imprisonment exceeds the maximum period fixed
by the statute and results directly from an involuntary nonpayment of a fine or court costs, we are confronted
with an impermissible discrimination which rests on ability to pay.. . . This court will squint hard at any
legislation that deprives an individual of his liberty - his right to remain free.” - Williams v Illinois (1970)
26 L Ed 2d 586
Williams is discussed at page 272 of The Supreme Court and Individual Rights, 1979, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Tate and Williams are both casebook law - quoted at page 1474 and 1475 of Constitutional Law, 5th Edition, 1980, West Publishers.
Defendant’s 2nd Strongest case - Tate v Short - a traffic ticket case.
The U.S. Supreme court outlawed the practice of pay or serve in the situation of Defendant Looser. In Tate v Short (1971)
28 L Ed 2d 130. 401 US 395, 91 S Ct 668 the U.S. Supreme court ruled that an indigent may not be ordered to “work off” his
obligation. The Supreme Court based its decision on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
. In Tate the indigent
defendant in traffic court had accumulated $425 fines for traffic offenses. Texas law provided only for fines (as does the statute
allegedly violated by defendant Looser) but required that those unable to pay be incarcerated to satisfy their fines at the rate of
$5 per day. The Supreme Court reversed.
“[Equal protection] ‘requires that the statutory ceiling placed on imprisonment for any substantive offense be the same for all defendants irrespective of their economic status’ - Williams v Illinois. [Thus , Texas cannot] limit the punishment to payment of the fine if one is able to pay, yet convert the fine into a prison term for an [indigent]. Imprisonment in such a case is not imposed to further any penal objective of the State. It is imposed to augment the State’s revenues but obviously does not serve that purpose; the defendant can’t pay because he is indigent and his [imprisonment] saddles the State with the cost of feeding and housing him for the period of his imprisonment.” - Tate v Short (1971) 28 L Ed 2d 130
The court has already indicated that the money is not important
When the court permitted work time to substitute for money, the court thereby indicated that the money was not critical.
The U.S. Supreme Court discussed this aspect of this recurring situation in Tate v Short
saying:
“Imprisonment in such a case is not imposed to further any penal objective of the State. It is imposed to augment the State’s revenues but obviously does not serve that purpose; the defendant can’t pay because he is indigent and his [imprisonment] saddles the State with the cost of feeding and housing him for the period of his imprisonment.” - The U.S. Supreme Court in Tate v Short
This court’s practice of mailing notices to the defendant and otherwise prosecuting the case in the place of the prosecutor is unconstitutional despite any lower court decisions to the contrary.
This court’s new practice of relieving the city attorneys and the district attorney of their duty to prosecute demonstrates bias
to one party before this court. It also implicitly lends support to the often suspected, frequently articulated, and woefully obvious
assertion that the business of traffic court is generation of revenue - which revenue, more importantly, goes into the well from which
Judge Covarrubias drinks
. It’s not about justice; it’s about power and revenue; it is plunder.
The traffic ticket industry is designed to raise revenue. It is regressive taxation disguised as law enforcement.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” - Declaration of Independence, 1776.
This court will, if not checked, by virtue of new Vehicle Code §14602.6 suspend Defendant’s license unconstitutionally and thereby invidiously punish him for being poor - and thereby infringe upon defendant’s constitutional fundamental right to travel - and, as proof, this court would likely deny the very existence of that fundamental right to travel.
“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized . . . Although there have been recurring differences. . . within the Court as to the source of the Constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. All have agreed that the right exists. - The U.S. Supreme court in U.S. v Guest (1966) 383 U.S. 745 at 757, 759.
This Ventura bench is systemically flawed and disproportionately staffed by ex prosecutors (and minorities-turned-fascist) who are all antagonistic to liberty - or afraid to speak up for it.
They all make no pretext of protecting property interests over liberty interest. The grudging recognition of a few constitutional rights by this court and its incestuous staffing by fascist ex prosecutors creates an atmosphere hostile to liberty. This bench’s newest staff include a judge who didn’t even go to college and a very busy judge who was rejected by the voters. This bench is disproportionately Mormon - and secretive about it.
We’re just doing our job. Besides we don’t actually take his license or vehicle.
“This is not to say, however, that the involvement of the State need be either exclusive or direct. In a variety
of situations the Court has found state action of a nature sufficient to create rights under the Equal Protection
Clause even though the participation of the State was peripheral, or its action was only one of several co-operative [forces].” - U.S. v Guest
(1966)
We demand dismissal on equal protection grounds. This court does not prosecute citizen complaints of infractions against police officers. The Gary Barrett statement.
Only some of the laws are enforced; only some of the people are subject to tickets; Palaschak’s attempt to enforce the speeding law against a policeman in 1989 proved this. D.A. (now judge) Gary Barrett informed Palaschak of the D.A. policy: “We [the D.A. office] don’t prosecute citizen complaints of infractions.” This court by its system of processing the briefcase full of CHP tickets delivered to its offices weekly - and by closing off the process of initiation of complaint by citizens - thereby continues the D.A. policy. This constitutes denial of equal protection and alone is grounds for dismissal - and we so demand.
The present mode of prosecution is Inquisitorial (as in Star Chamber - not good) - and it violates due process also. Inquisition is the antithesis of Due Process - an ancient concept scorned by anti-liberals such as the 4 Mormons who constitute this bench, the non-college educated who constitute this bench, the slum landlord(s) who constitute this bench, and the ex-prosecutors who constitute this bench.
Are you thinking about seditious libel? Due process is a valid constitutional concept. Take a lesson:
From Visions of Liberty: Due process is the antithesis of Inquisition. Statute of 1354
The phrase “Due process” goes back to 1354 when Parliament passed a law forbidding the government from imprisoning anybody “Without being brought in answer by due process of law”. . .
The Anglo American system of procedural fairness is the result of a long struggle between an accusatory system of criminal law and an inquisitorial system. Up until the very end of the 16th century in England, for example, all criminal courts required people accused or even suspected of crime to testify against themselves. . .
[Star Chamber. Illegality of Role of prosector and Judge combined]
And the tribunal that charged him also judged him; the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury were combined into one [As Judge Covarrubias combined all roles into one for defendant herein.]
In 1637, a Puritan activist named John Lilburne imported and distributed various political tracts and was brought before the Star Chamber. Lilburne refused to be examined under oath, claiming that it violated “the law of the land” and invoking the Magna Carta. Condemning the oath as a procedure that was fundamentally unfair, Lilburne said that he would not take it even “though I be pulled to pieces by wild horses.” Lilburne was held in contempt of court, publicly whipped, fined, and jailed in solitary confinement. He wasn’t released until 1641. But his crusade for fair procedures and his willingness to absorb severe punishment rather than forsake principle inflamed the public - on both sides of the Atlantic - and Lilburne became a great symbol. He suffered, but not without effect: In 1645 Parliament set aside the judgment again Lilburne, finding that it had indeed violated “the law of the land and Magna Carta.” In 1648 he was granted damages for his unjust imprisonment.. .
Lilburne led the Levelers. He was arrested again and again and died in prison at age 43. . .
At his very last trial he won the then unprecedented right to receive a copy of the charges again
him [a right not afforded defendant herein] and to be represented by a lawyer
[another right not
afforded defendant herein]. - Visions of Liberty, Ira Glasser (of the ACLU), 1991, Little, Brown, and
Company, New York.
“Due process of law . . . conveys neither formal nor fixed nor narrow requirements. It is the compendious expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to our free society. But basic right do not become petrified as of any one time, even though, as a matter of human experience, some may not too rhetorically be called eternal verities. It is of the very nature of a free society to advance in its standard of what is deemed reasonable and right. Representing as it does a living principle, due process is not confined within a permanent catalogue of what may at a given time be deemed the limits or the essentials of fundamental rights.” - Wolf v Colorado (1949) 338 US 25 at 27. As quoted in The Supreme Court and Individual Rights, 1979, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Washington, page 10.
This court’s use of the 1968 invention of the infraction (Penal code §16) violates the U.S. Constitutional guarantees of counsel and other rights.
This brief is not exhaustive. This California municipal court routinely daily conspires with the jail industry and DMV to commit a
multitude of systemic constitutional violations. For enumeration of some §1983
violations, see Palaschak’s federal class action
complaint 96-3222 TJH, filed May 6, 1996 and other federal complaints by Palaschak.
__________________ 10 May 1997
Melvin Looser, In Pro Per