not quite correct but I’ll let you figure out why your statement is not completely accurate.A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power.
not quite correct but I’ll let you figure out why your statement is not completely accurate.A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power.
A public officer also acts under color when, while not compelled by law, he acts within the range of legally authorized discretion in enforcing state and local law. (Hague v. CIO (1939) ; Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. 2015)).
@jk...I just want to say that I really appreciate how you're going about, with what I perceive to be, helping me. I learn best through actual experience, and am above average observant. Thank you.
Lack of jurisdiction, can be "exceeding his or her rightful power", but is better known as exceeding jurisdiction.
In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 101 , 29 S.Ct. 14, 20, it was stated that due process requires that "no change in ancient procedure can be made which disregards those fundamental principles, to be ascertained from time to time by judicial action, which have relation to process of law, and protect the [individual] in his private right, and guard him against the arbitrary action of government".
In Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 90 A.L.R. 575, it was said that due process prevents state action which 'offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.' The same standard was expressed in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 , 58 S.Ct. 149, 152, in terms of a 'scheme of ordered liberty.'
And, operating under the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, it should be noted: that which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial.' Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 462 , 62 S.Ct. 1252, 1256.
The encounter was factually predicated on an illegal detention under "MC § 63.0102; Overnight Camping", the only remotely applicable one of the vaguely stated "park regulations", and the officer also noted in his official statement that there was no "Camping" equipment in Plaintiff's car, thus Gant and Chimel rationale did not apply. The officers' actions lacked any relevant, countervailing interest, of any otherwise legitimate importance whatsoever, to reasonably justify themselves of initiating the encounter.
Evidence of the encounter's "pretextual" nature is additionally demonstrated by the fact that officer ****** refused to inform Plaintiff of the nature and cause of his accusation under CA-PEN § 841, upon his arrival, and is obviously the essential motive to delete the audio portion of the BWC footage, visibly apparent prior to the deletion, and prior to providing it months after it was compelled (Comp. 11/29/2017; Prov. 03/02/2018). It took the prosecution 3 months to figure out how to defeat the argument stated in the counterclaim/cross-complaint Accused filed, and served to DCA *******, in open court on 01/22/2018, wherein he discribed the statement he made to officer *********, regarding Terry requirements of articulable suspicion. They simply deleted the BWC audio portion of said statement, which served as the base rationale behind their seeking of a Protective Order, prior to production of the footage, as previously compelled, as there was no complaining party or witnesses to protect by virtue of redaction. The foregoing demonstrates knowledge of the Constitutional violation, and the motive to attempt covering it up.
Municipal Code section 63.0102(b)(12) provides: It is "unlawful" to do any of the acts enumerated. There are five specifically enumerated acts under section 63.0102(b)(12), but section 63.0102(b)(12) fails to clearly state on its face, what punishment may be imposed. The five specifically enumerated acts are "camp, lodge, sleep, tarry", and "overnight". Section 63.0102(b)(12) fails to adequately state whether to "camp", "lodge", "sleep", or "tarry", need be accomplished with or without a car, tent, cardboard box, or otherwise, or need be accomplished in individual spaces, intended for parking cars.
Since Municipal Code section 63.0102(b)(12) fails to adequately state, on its face, whether it is classified as a "misdemeanor" or an "infraction", it cannot qualify as reasonably trustworthy information sufficient enough to lead a prudent person to believe that the express enumerated acts, would constitute either a "misdemeanor" or an "infraction", thereby warranting no apparent authority for a "violation" thereof to occur, or what punishment to expect. The term "unlawful" is intentionally vague.
The framing of Municipal Code section 63.0102(b)(12) is so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, thereby no one is legally bound to obey it, and no courts are bound to enforce it. See: 16Am Jur 2d., § 256.
Since Municipal Code section 63.0102(b)(12) is, in fact, punishable by a $135 fine, a reasonably prudent individual, acting in good faith, would be deem it an infraction, consistent with CA-PEN § 19.8(b). An arrest for the commission of an infraction cannot be made between the hours of 10 o'clock p.m. of any day and 6 o'clock a.m. of the succeeding day, unless made in a public place, pursuant to CA-PEN § 840(2). Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer can make a custodial warrantless arrest for any crime, including an infraction. An officer’s violation of the state statutory requirements for misdemeanor arrests and infractions is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Probable cause, however, is still required. Municipal Code section 12.0201, cl.2 provides in pertinent part that: "any violation of the provisions relating to parking, operation of  vehicles, and use of freeways, highways and streets by  vehicles or pedestrians  shall constitute an infraction".
According to the public entity's "official" website: "Parking citations/tickets are not criminal offenses", therefore any presumed "violation" of a "parking lot regulation" is not "criminal" in nature. An infraction would elicit and constitute grounds for a non-custodial field-citation release. However, an infraction would have to first, have been committed, in reasonably articulabe fact, for the arrest to occur.
A "No Parking" between the hours of 10 o'clock p.m. of any day and 6 o'clock a.m. of the succeeding day, sign would indicate to a reasonably prudent individual, that it exists for the sole purpose of limiting or regulating the parking or standing of a vehicle. Municipal Code section 81.0102 provides: 'parking, park' or 'parked' means to stand or leave standing any unoccupied vehicle, other than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading materials". ("Definitions" added 8-5-2013 by O-20281 N.S.; effective 9-4-2013). Plaintiff was not in violation of "parking regulations", including those found under Municipal Code Ch.8 Art.1 or 6.
At the relevant time, Plaintiff had not remained in or at a campsite for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a temporary place to live; nor did he become firmly fixed or embedded in the particular place; nor was he in a resting state in which the body was not active and the mind unconscious for the duration of a night; nor had he stopped or stayed lasting one night in the particular place; nor was he lingering in expectation of anything, because he was actually engaged in loading; nor had he remained for the duration of a night, as a reasonably prudent individual should know that one "night" is from sunset to sunrise, approximately 8:01 p.m. until 5:59 a.m., therefore Plaintiff was not in the act of "Overnight Camping, Sleeping, Lodging, or Tarrying". Plaintiff was in the public parking lot "at night", but he was not in the public parking lot "Overnight", a duration of time expressed on the signage as "10:00pm to 6:00am". Plaintiff had arrived in the public parking lot at 2pm the preceding afternoon.
Defendant, officer ********* officially reported: "On O6/27/17, I was enforcing the parking lot regulations, there was a male packing up the vehicle, a white Nissan Altima (CA *******) 'in vlolation of the park regulations'". Is there a legally recognized difference between "packing up" and "loading"??? It's highly doubtful there is.
Police Department Policy Manual §§ 9.15 & 9.16 provide: "unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by, but is not limited to, a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced", and "members shall not make any arrest that they know is not in accordance with law and established Department procedures".
Police Department Policy Manual § 9.28 provides: "Reports submitted by members shall be truthful and no member shall knowingly enter, or cause to be entered, any inaccurate, false or improper information". To enter, or cause to be entered, any inaccurate, false or improper information is a violation of CA-PEN § 118.1, because "every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him regarding any investigation of any 'crime', if he knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years".
Under CA-PEN § 833.5(a) "reasonable cause to detain" requires that the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that some offense has taken place or is occurring or is about to occur and that the person he intends to detain is involved in that offense. If the officer maintains that he had witnessed a "crime" being committed in his presence, he would first be required to articulate with specificity, the circumstances known or apparent to him that led him to believe his pretextual motive was justified.
Municipal Code Ch. 6 Art.3, contains 12 separate provisions pertaining to the subject matter relevant to the pretext of the encounter, and only one thereof would have been applicable, had it factually been violated. The ambiguity proffered by officer ********* merely as "the park regulations", fails to point to specific and articulable facts relevant to the pretext of the encounter, and demonstrates his intent to dissuade attention from the minutiae of the unconstitutional ordinance, rendering his statement false.
Plaintiff was not in "violation" of "park or parking" regulations pursuant to Municipal Code sections 63.0102; 81.0102, or CA-VEH § 463, nor was his "white Nissan Altima", because he was, temporarily, for the reasonably forseeable intended purpose of, and while actually engaged in, loading his car with his personal property, i.e. "materials", e.g. tools and "toolboxes", he used to repair his "machining tools", i.e. "merchandise", and therefore neither he nor his car, were "parked" or left "standing". Officer ******** even noted in his "official" report that: "The car was filled with tool boxes and machining tools", i.e. "merchandise", not "camping" or "lodging" equipment, therefore there was no evidence relevant to the false arrest. There was no basis to search incident to the false arrest. Officers must understand that an arrest under the Fourth Amendment must be justified by the higher standard of probable cause.
Municipalities are creatures of our law and are created as political subdivisions of the state as a convenient agency for the exercise of such powers as are conferred upon them by the state. They represent no sovereignty distinct from the state and possess only such powers and privileges as have been expressly or impliedly conferred upon them. All acts done by them must find authority in the law of their creation. City of Brenham v. Brenham Water Co., 67 Tex. 542, 4 S.W. 143; Southwestern Telegraph Telephone Co. v. City of Dallas, 104 Tex. 114, 134 S.W. 321; Southwestern Telegraph Telephone Co. v. City of Dallas, 174 S.W. 636, writ refused, error dismissed 248 U.S. 590, 39 Sup.Ct. 7, 63 L.Ed. 435; Walker v. City of Richmond, 173 Ky. 26, 189 S.W. 1122, Ann. Cas. 1918 E, 1084.
For governmental liability to attach, there must be some link between official policy and the ultimate commission of a legal injury.
If you don't believe me, go look in a definitive reference starting with GOVERNMENT or any similar word. I use the OED.
genitive singular of mēns
inflection of mentum:
inflection of menta:
From Proto-Indo-European *méntis (“thought”). Cognates include Sanskrit मति (matí), αὐτόματος (autómatos), μάντις (mántis), Russian мнить (mnitʹ, “to think”), and Old English ġemynd (English mind).
(Classical) IPA(key): /mens/, [mẽːs]
mēns f (genitive mentis); third declension
That’s all well and good but where do,you see that relating to the suffix: ment?
Oxford English Dictionary. The most revered reference on the English language. You're continuing to demonstrate your ignorance.
Suffix Used to form nouns from verbs, the nouns having the sense of "the action or result of what is denoted by the verb",
e.g. "rule, command, direct, control"...
and, the original root meaning of the suffix: "thought"; "mind, intellect, reasoning, judgement".
Coupled with observation of the customs, policies, and practices of our elected officials and local governments, following the line of culpability to the state and federal levels, leading to the trickling erosion of civil liberties by virtue of mala prohibita legislation under the guise of public safety and welfare, the extremely biased media, and the blind followers/non-free thinkers of the foregoing.
A body politic is a collective body of a  State regarded as politically organized or as exercising political functions.
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.BODY POLITIC: "A term applied to a corporation, which is usually designated as a “body corporate and politic.” The term is particularly appropriate to a public corporation invested with powers and duties of government. It is often used, in a rather loose way, to designate the state or nation or sovereign power, or the government of a county or municipality, without distinctly connoting any express and individual corporate character. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 124, 24 L. Ed. 77; Coyle v. Mclntire, 7 Houst. (Del.) 44, 30 Atl. 728, 40 Am. St. Itep. 109; Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 122; People v. Morris, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 334."
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.CORPORATION: "An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state"...
FICTION: 1. Literature in the form of prose [pro se...wink, wink], that describes imaginary events and people. 2. Something that is invented or untrue. 3. A belief which is false, but is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fiction).
ARTIFICIAL:1. Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural (e.g. laws of physics; particle or wave???). 2. contrived or false. 3. insincere or affected. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/artificial)
ARTIFICE: Clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/artifice)
CA-Const. Art.6, SEC. 9. The State Bar of California is a public corporation (e.g body corporate and politic).
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...om/Term+of+Art)
An incantation is a magical formula intended to trigger a magical effect on a person or objects. The formula can be spoken, sung or chanted. An incantation can also be performed during ceremonial rituals [e.g. formal proceedings] or prayers [e.g. for "relief"]. Other words synonymous with incantation is spell [e.g. "governments, or "govern-mens"; "coincidence", or "co-incidents"].
MAGI: in the Bible, the three men, thought to be kings or astrologers, who followed a star...Al Dabar An (http://www.royalhonor.com/star.htm)
STRATE: 1. stratum 2. layer
STRATUM: 1. a layer or a series of layers 2. a level or class to which people are assigned according to their social status, education, or income.
STRATUS: a low cloud form extending over a large area...at altitudes of usually 2000 to 7000 feet [e.g. a layer of altitude].
MAGI-STRATE (n.): late 14c., "a civil officer in charge of administering laws," also "office or function of a magistrate," from Old French magistrat, from Latin magistratus...(see master (n.)). From late 17c. often meaning "justice of the peace" or other minor officials having criminal jurisdiction.
Should we revisit the Inns of Court, and their headquarters at the Temple Bar??? Let's start here: http://www.knightstemplar.org/faq.html
And, in this case...here: http://www.yorkriteofcalifornia.org/...California.pdf
The Latin phrase Lux et Lex, translates in English to "Light and Law". (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/promulgate)
Lux et Lex Promulgentur...
Promulgate: the act of officially or publicly announcing a new law or system...
Knights Templar is one of several additional Masonic Orders...I should know.
THE FORMING OF THE GRAND COMMANDERY OF CALIFORNIAAUGUST 10, 1858 On Sept. 9, 1850 California became the 31st state.
“We entertain several reasons why slavery should not be introduced here. First, it is wrong for it to exist anywhere. Second, not a single instance of precedence exists at present in the shape of physical bondage of our fellow men. Third, there is no excuse whatever for its introduction into this country (by virtue of climate or physical conditions). Sixth, it would be the greatest calamity that the power of the United States could inflict upon California...The majority—four-fifths, we believe—of the inhabitants of California are opposed to slavery. They believe it to be an evil and a wrong...they deem it a high moral duty to prevent its extension and aid its extinction by every honorable means.”
Professor Fred Smith identifies two key concepts that animate the Guarantee Clause. First, Article IV, Section 4 is directed in significant part to the protection of “state integrity,” and specifically, to protecting the “existence, stability, and parity” of the states against internal and external threats. The Guarantee Clause serves this end by way of the “republican principle” that “affirmatively guarantee[s] that the ultimate power in state governments rest[s] in the hands of the people.”
CA-Const. Art. 2 Sec. 1. provides: All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.
Second, this “republican principle” has a structural focus that encompasses popular sovereignty and majority rule within a system of representative government. This is generally consistent with Professor Akhil Amar’s observation that the Guarantee Clause “reaffirms basic principles of popular sovereignty-of the right of the people to ordain and establish government, of their right to alter or abolish it, and of the centrality of popular majority rule, in these exercises of ultimate popular sovereignty.” Akhil Reed Amar, The Central Meaning of Republican Government: Popular Sovereignty, Majority Rule, and the Denominator Problem, 65 U. Colo. L. Rev. 749, 762 (1994).
In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations. The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be substantially maintained. - The Federalist No. 43, at 245 (James Madison)
Whereas the people of California have presented a constitution and asked admission into the Union, which constitution was submitted to Congress by the President of the United States, by message dated February thirteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty, and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government...
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever...
And be it further enacted, That the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinance adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that State.
APPROVED, September 9, 1850.
CONVENTION: Contracts, Civil Law. A general term which comprehends all kinds of contracts, treaties, pacts or agreements. It is defined to be the consent of two or more persons to form with each other an engagement, or to dissolve or change one which they had previously formed.
CA-GOV Sec. 845 provides: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
“A public entity is defined as follows: (A) any State or local government; (B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government"....Vartinelli v. Stapleton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88553 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2009)
MUNICIPAL: A public corporation, created by government for political purposes
...(Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary 2nd Ed.)
Legislation. This term is applied to a selecting of the delegates elected by the people for other purposes than usual legislation. It is mostly used to denote all assembly to make or amend the constitution of a state, but it sometimes indicates an assembly of the delegates of the people to nominate officers to be supported at an election.
CA-GOV Sec. 11121(e) provides: As used in this article, “state body” means  the State Bar of California, as described in Section 6001 of the Business and Professions Code. This subdivision shall become operative on April 1, 2016.
CA-GOV Sec. 11122.5(a) provides: “meeting” includes any congregation of a majority of the members of a state body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the state body to which it pertains.
CA-GOV Sec. 11123(a) provides: All meetings of a state body shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body...
CA-GOV Sec. 11120 provides ultimate clarification: [irrespective of the above] The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
I strive every day to be the kind of person my dogs think I am.
Begin thread hijack:
Welcome home, Dave, you've been missed.
End thread hijack.