Police Not required To Know The Law They Are Paid To Enforce?

My partner in law, Roger Rey, called me yesterday and told me of his escapades in a traffic case in the criminally notorious Superior Court system of the corporate state of California.

Roger did something very risky - he stood in for a friend. I don't advise this! Roger is lucky the cop didn't remember the day the ticket was issued and the face of the real person who got the ticket. Roger told me he did this because he said the judge was vicious abd vile and just ruling "guilty" against everybody and Roger felt his friend would not have stood a chance.

Well, Roger went up in place of his friend and challenged the cop. Roger read from the Q&A sheet we created which asked about 10 legal questions. Roger said the cop stood there and didn't have a clue as to what Roger was asking him. Roger was basically asking the cop was he aware that all elements of the charges against him must be proved, that the cop would have to have evidence, that California law does not allow hearsay testimony in criminal trials, etc. Roger said the cop was a straight dummy and didn't know any of that.

To help the cop out, Roger said the Judge asked him why he was asking the cop all those questions when he's just a police officer. Roger kind of got stuck in his response to the judge, but had I been there in court, I would have blasted the judge's ass.

I would have said to the judge: This officer is a LAW enforcement officer which means he gets paid to enforce the law. Do you mean to tell me that this cop who is being paid to enforce the law does not have to know the law he is being paid to enforce? How can you enforce the law when you are ignorant of the law?

I also would have said: Ignorance of the law is no excuse for every man is presumed to know the law. A cop cannot be excused from knowing the law just as the ordinary man or civilian is not excused from knowing the law. A law enforcement officer must know the law in order to enforce it.

Roger said the judge said the officer was just a witness. That's bullshit! A cop is no ordinary witness. A cop is an agent of the state, a government official with a nexus to the plaintiff (State). It is the officer who issues the traffic ticket and who alleges an offense or crime. An ordinary witness does not do these things.

Basically, the judge was telling Roger that the cop was not the prosecutor and was not required to know law. But hey, where was the prosecutor at in the first place? In traffic cases here in California, they are not required to be present in traffic infraction cases. But by law a prosecutor is supposed to be there if the case is criminal and traffic is always criminal. If you tell this to a judge he/she will tell you that the court or judge is the prosecutor at which time you should object to this statement and follow it up with a recusal of the judge on the spot for being partial in violation of your constitutional right to due process of law which requires an impartial judge or decision-maker:

"Due process requires a fair trial before a fair and impartial judge." Cross v. State of Ga., C.A.Ga. (1978) 581 F.2d 102

"The hearing required must be a fair one, that is, one before a tribunal which meets at least currently prevailing standards of impartiality." Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, N.Y. (1953) 73 S.Ct. 472, 344 U.S. 590

"Due process contemplates opportunity to be fully and fairly heard before impartial decision maker." Catchpole v. Brannon (App. 1 Dist. 1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 237; 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 440

In addition to the above, it is also a violation of state constitutional Separation of Powers Clause:

"?¨Separation of Powers.?Æ The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. California Constitution, Article 3 ?ü 3

The State Constitution does not permit a judge serving as judge and prosecutor. This is a conflict of interest because the judge gets paid by the State (treasury) and the State is also the plaintiff in a traffic case.

Roger didn't know all of the above, at least up until yesterday. However, people need to know and argue this, at least for purposes of an appeal.

Like with EVERY other person before him, the judge (commissioner) ruled against Roger finding him guilty. Roger asked the judge "On what grounds do you find me guilty?" The judge simply said it was his choice to do so. So you see, it was not about the law, but upon discretion predicated upon hearing the facts of the case. Remember, traffic court is a nisi prius court, which is a court that only hears facts, not law. However, the Vehicle Code stipulations like the requirement of a verified complaint being filed must be argued during the nisi prius court trial so as to create a record to argue the matter in a court of law which is really an appellate court.

It's a game people and you must learn how to play it. It's really fun, especially when you know the game better than those who created it. And you know, when you don't have a driver's license (due to revoking it) and you are summoned to court, then you will really have some fun.

The judge will be like NWA: "100 miles and runnin'!"

Fight the (false) powers that be!!!