I went to court yesterday with my ace in the place and witnessed so much of a thing that caused EVERYBODY in the traffic court to lose their case (except Brother Odis, of course).
The court commissioner was setting folks up via their own testimony. When you testify in traffic court you are telling your set of facts and because most people are not aware that they are giving up pertinent information via their testimony that helps the judicial officer form a mental picture in his/her mind of what happened on the day of the traffic stop, they are shooting themselves in the foot while singing like a bird on themselves because they are helping the commissioner to convict them.
If you are not legally astute and conscious, waive your testimony unless you can speak real brief and know what to say. This is what Odis did! However Odis saw a real judge because I told him to tell the clerk that he didn't stipulate to use a commissioner and they made him wait nearly an hour before they found a judge and sent him down to the third floor of the mausoleum (L.A. Metroplitan Court, built exclusively for traffic matters and is 8 stories high!!!!). Everybody else in the court did not know they could do this - have a judge preside over their case. In any other matter, the court would automaticaly have you fill out a green document stipulating to the use of a commissioner. People are so dumb and scared that they don't know the difference between a judge and a commissioner. They just see a person wearing a black robe and automatically assume he/she is a judge. Judges rarely hear traffic cases as they are too minor.
The commissioner ruled for the police in every case. I actually called the results as soon as I heard the defendants tell their side of the story (facts). I'm that good in deciphering. Just as Bruce Lee could know what his opponent was thinking before his opponent could act out his thought, I can do the same thing with a judge or commissioner. People just don't know what proper questions to ask. The average citizen doesn't stand a chance in court (if their officer shows up) without legal knowledge and knowing the rules and procedures of the game (System).
Odis didn't have registration and the officer (Cal. Highway Patrol) gave very good details (testimony) to the judge but because of that awesome ass paperwork Odis filed, it didn't mean anything. The judge told the officer he was operating upon assumption and suspicion and said he would find Odis "not guilty." That little CHP officer was stunned and shocked! When we left the courtroom when the case was over, the dude actually turned RED! He never witnessed anything like that before. The CHP officer even showed up in a nice suit, like that was supposed to mean something. Odis was in a yellow T-shirt and pants, tennis shoes and twists in his hair and did the impossible. Lomax and I had a good time as spectators. After all, there was no one in the judge's courtoom except the judge, the clerk, the CHP officer, Odis, myself and Lomax.
Odis asked only 2 questions to the officer which sealed the officer's fate: (1) Did you file a verified complaint? (2) Do you have any tangible evidence outside of your testimony? The officer said NO! to both questions.
You see, in traffic court, an officer's testimony serves as evidence but folks don't know that an officer's testimony is "hearsay" and that traffic is CRIMINAL in nature and California Evidence Code sec. 1200 prohibts hearsay testimony in criminal proceedings. Basically because an officer has no evidence he can show to the judge, he/she's only offering "hearsay" and then it becomes he say she say and now the judge has to choose who he/she wants to believe which in 99% of the cases it's the cop whom the judges chooses due to being credible, but how come the defendant (citizen) can't be just as credible as the cop? See, this is a violation of people's 14th Amendment right because Due Process of Law gaurantees a fair and impartial judge and plus the 14th Amendment guarantees "Equal Treatment under the Law" and a judge is clearly not treating the defendant-citizen equal to the cop because the cop wins due his/her testimony and the defendant-citizen loses due to his/her testimony and what does the judge and officer have in common over the defendant-citizen? They're both GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS! This would make a great case on appeal. What makes a cops testimony more credible than the average person's testimony? Man, people are looked upon as shit in the eyes of government! People are scum to those in authority. And what's funny is people who are treated like shit are the ones who give those in authority power to treat them like shit. Now ain't that a bitch?
Alos, never ask the court for anything, especially more time (extension). In L.A. County, extensions costs $35 and most people ask for them. The courts out here be making mad paper straight gaffling people.
And how come seatbelt convictions resulted in $35 fines but when people got to the clerk's officer to pay the fine it was $130?
? People were confused and mad as hell and you know Lomax, Odis and I were laughing! Yes, in L.A. County, they attach a 170% penalty assessment to your fine which makes the penalty assessment alone higher than your fine. Folks just couldn't understand the high penalty assessment. Because most couldn't pay the fine (due to the p.a.) they had to get an extension which cost them ANOTHER $35 and by the time they left what was a $35 fine became a $165 debt due and owed to the court. Straight PIMPING!!!!!!
I look at people in court and they are lifeless, ignorant and scared as hell. You cannot reverse this System. As rapper Eazy-E said: "The problem is too deep." And it is, people! Some of us can get out, but the majority, there's no helping them. They are too dead (unconscious), too preoccupied with surving. I look at people and I sense their energy/spirit and they are dead and this pertains to corporate people and government people as well. Those sheriffs/bailiffs are just as beat down by life as the victims behind the bar. It's a sad state of affairs, People! But We the People allow this bullshit and tyranny so we only have ourselves to blame!
Anyways, Odis denied everything the officer said. The officer said Odis wasn't wearing a seat belt and Odis said he was and then told the judge: "He said I didn't I say I was, so it's his word against mine, but the burden of proof is on the officer to prove his claim."
But then Odis did a powerful thing. He had the judge read his documents and one was a Judicial Notice that referenced PEOPLE v. EARNEST which clearly states that an officer's testimony that a violation was committed is insufficient to prove that a person actually committed a violation," which was followed by "Not guilty plea by defendant puts government to proof on all elements of an offense." I knew it was over when the judge read that because that's an appellate decision and all courts of inferior jurisdiction must adhere to the decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction, as per EQUITY AUTO SALES v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT.
That law can be awesome and powerful when you know how to use it. Poor CHP dude! For more than an hour when we were all on the 4th floor waiting for the clerk to find a judge who could hear the case, he was nervously thumbing through the Vehicle Code. The court had slipped him a copy of the legal pleadings Odis had filed. And still, he could find any defense in the Code simply because there was no defense in the Code. DEFENSELESS!!!! There's no defense against procedure, especially mandatory procedure and even if you are a cop, SORRY, but ignorance of the law is no excuse as every man is presumed to know the law and procedure has been codified as law today.
Talk about walking out of court and feeling good! The CHP officer stormed out of court with his face and neck RED!!!! I'm quite sure some Black motorists caught hell from this white CHP officer on his next shift.
But that's how things usually go!
It's best to skip your testimony (unless you know what to say without incriminating yourself) and just cross-examine the officer with LEGAL QUESTIONS, so if the judge finds you guilty, you can appeal the decision arguing questions of law as appeals cannot argue questions of facts, the only thing most people deal with in traffic court; so even if most people were aware of being able to appeal a traffic case, they'd still lose on appeal because they didn't argue the law in the lower court, but only argued the facts of the case.
Author