A Letter to the DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL questioning its interference with my travel.

[This is copy of a letter [edited to remove my private information] which I sent to D.C.H.P. in February, 1999.
[I present it here, for informational and educational purposes only, to encourage you to explore the questions involved.
[This is essentially a very sloppy first attempt at a NOTICE OF DEFENSE, as required under the California Administrative Procedures Act.
[The principles are sound; it is based on the California Administrative Procedures Act (California Government Code, Sections 11500 et seq.) and you MUST send your letter within 15 DAYS from the time you receive the NOTICE TO APPEAR/NOTICE TO CORRECT/Citation/ticket to the local office which issued the ticket, etc., NOT to any "court" and NOT to the Commissioner [your Appeal lies to the Commissioner].

[Obviously, since your fact circumstances will be different from mine, you need to tailor your letter appropriately.
[Parts of this letter are redundant, but it is sometimes important to repeat things for bureaucrats who are intentionally hard-of-understanding. It was the best I could do at the time.
[Unless or until you understand EVERY point I made, you may HURT yourself.
[DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SIMPLY COPY AND SEND THIS LETTER!

From: [my name in upper-and-lower case type]
c/o Box [omitted] U.S.P.S.
{somewhere], California u.S.A.
[date]

To: Commander/Officer-in-Charge
[local] Office
Department of California Highway Patrol (a California Corporation)
[Street address]
[Somewhere], CA 959XX

Dear Sir:

My personal policy is to interact with others as openly and honestly as possible. It makes my life much simpler when I simply tell the truth.
I do NOT intend any unlawful or illegal harm or injury to the State of California, The Department of the California Highway Patrol (hereafter D.C.H.P.), (a California Corporation), your particular office of D.C.H.P., and/or any member/employee thereof. At the same time I do not, cannot, and will not, excuse, condone, or tolerate any unlawful, illegal, or extra-legal interference with myself, my property, or my affairs by the State of California, D.C.H.P. (a California Corporation), and/or its employees.

According to the California Legislature:
California Government Code (1999), Section 54950:

In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

If you know of any facts which disprove this position, please present them at the hearing.

My complaint is NOT with D.C.H.P.; my complaint was and is with the Department of Motor Vehicles (a California Corporation) (hereafter D.M.V.), as least until your fellow employee decided to interject himself into the business transaction between myself and D.M.V.
I suppose I now have to deal with an additional annoyance, but it is not my problem and I did not initiate it.

This is a timely and legitimate request for an informal Administrative Hearing on an incident which occurred with one of your fellow employees last week.

I am in possession of a Document:

,which I received and specifically endorsed "without recourse", from your purported fellow employee, one [name omitted], Badge (Traffic Control) No. [omitted], on February 19, 1999.

I believe there are certain irregularities with said Document and its issuance, so I request an informal Administrative Hearing at your office to resolve said irregularitites.
Please set a time during your normal business hours and advise me by mail at the address above. I do not maintain telephone service.

A. California Vehicle Code (1999), section 2100:
"There is in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency the Department of the California Highway Patrol (Stats. 1959, c. 3, p. 1545, sec. 2100 ... Stats. 1984, c. 144, sec. 202)."

California Vehicle Code (1999), section 2102:
"Wherever in any statute "California Highway Patrol" is used, it means the Department of the California Highway Patrol. (Stats. 1959, c.3, p. 1546, sec. 2102."

California Vehicle Code (1999), section 2103:
"The department is the successor to and is vested with the duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of the former Division of Enforcement of the Department of Motor Vehicles, know as the California Highway Patrol, and of the officers and employees thereof. (Stats, 1959, c. 3, p. 1546, sec. 2103.

These three statutes necessarily imply that a document bearing the caption CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL is legally invalid as not being fair-on-its-face.
One would think that in almost forty (40) years the Department of the California Highway Patrol could have managed to update its paperwork to reflect its true status, unless there is facially manifested an intent to mislead and confuse the People of California as to that status.

B. "5204(A) V.C." "California Vehicle Code (1999), section 625:
"A "traffic officer" is any member of the California Highway Patrol [read as "Department of the California Highway Patrol"], or any peace officer who is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000) or 11 (commencing with Section 21000). (Stats. 1959, c. 3, p. 1539, sec. 625 ... Stats. 1983, c. 142, sec. 159.)"

Since the "California Highway Patrol" no longer legally exists, it would seem to be difficult for someone to legally purport to be a member of it.
If someone is, or purports to be, a peace officer exclusively or mainly enforcing Divisions 10 and 11, it would seem obvious that Vehicle Code Section 5404 does NOT fall within the Divisions that one is legally authorized to "enforce".

C. "FORM APPROVED BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA (S) 6-13-94 40610(d) VC, 40618 VC"
My diligent search of West's California Judical Council Forms Pamphlet (1999) and Continuing Education of The Bar, Judicial Council Forms Manual (1996) reveals no evidence that this form is currently Approved or has ever been Approved.

Again one must question why this document is not fraudulent upon its face.

D. California RULES OF COURT (1999), Section 982(f):
"A party or attorney who files a Judicial Council legal form certifies by filing the form that it is a true and correct copy of the adopted or approved form."

I must request that you or your fellow employee explain to me for what purpose the Department of the California Highway Patrol intends to use this Document.
RULES OF COURT, Section 982 implies that should someone wish to employ the Document referred to above in an action in any court in California, that someone would land him/herself in serious trouble with the court for having submitted an invalid Document to the court.

Friday morning about 9:15-9:20 A.M., I was travelling south-bound on Hwy 20/49 through Grass Valley, California, exited at the [omitted] off-ramp and continued on West-bound Hwy 20 to the [omitted] Street off-ramp, where I exited.
About 6-10 car lengths from the intersection of the off-ramp with [omitted] Street, I noticed a vehicle behind me with a red light showing. I was committed to the left turn lane and I determined that it would be unsafe to pull to the right to get out of his way (yielding Right-of-Way), so I signalled left, came to a full stop at the STOP sign at [omitted] Street, and then turned left. The vehicle followed me.
I determined that it was not safe to pull to the right into the property of [omitted] or of the [omitted] next door, so I signalled and turned left into the restaurant's private parking lot on the west side of [omitted] Street ([omitted] and [omitted] Streets), the closest safe place to get out of the vehicle's way. The vehicle followed me, so I stopped to find out what its driver wanted.
The driver approached my vehicle, did not identify himself verbally, but asked to see my vehicle documents. Since he was wearing a uniform I have come to assume is that of the [former] California Highway Patrol, I showed him the appropriate documents and I told him (in essence), "I need to see your driver's license."
He protested (in essence) that, "That is not the way we do this." So I asked, "You are driving, aren't you?"
He still refused and failed to produce his license, so I have to presume that he was, in fact, driving without a license in his possession.
[I reserve the right of a complaint on that matter.]
He asked why there was not a 99 "tab" on the vehicle license plate and I told him because I was having a problem with D.M.V. concerning irregularities with their paperwork, and that I was working with D.M.V to resolve the problem. I offered to show him my copy of the letter that I had sent to D.M.V. the previous day, asked if he wanted to read it, and specifically warned him that it would probably adversly affect his ability to do his job. I asked if he wished to read it and he said yes, so I loaned it to him. He read to about the middle of the third page before he found whatever information it was that he did not want to know.
[He is now charged with personal knowledge of that information should any similar matter ever come up.]
Then he stopped reading, returned the copy of the letter to me, saying (in essence) that he, "Did not have all day to spend discussing the law with you."
He apparently determined that it was part of his job to issue a "NOTICE TO CORRECT VIOLATION", so I accepted it, specifically endorsing it "without recourse" above my signature.
He told [warned? threatened?] me that I should not try to "buck The System", and I went on my way.

1. I just cannot convince myself that the difference in color between orange and blue on a license plate tab justifies an emergency investigation, when I have probable cause to believe that both "license plate" and "tab" are facially illegal.

I must request that you have your fellow employee explain to you and to me, and to prove, what facts constituted such an emergency.

I need you to show me the law which grants a "Traffic Control" employee the authority to interfere with my travel under the pretext or presumption, absent said proven facts, that an Emergency, i.e., an immediate threat or danger to public health or safety did in fact exist.

17 Ops. Atty. Gen. 121 (1951) (Opinion No. 51-32):

The provisions of the Vehicle Code applicable to drivers of vehicles upon the highways are applicable generally to public officers and employers engaged in driving vehicles in the course of their employment (Vehicle Code sec. 453). There is an exemption, however, in favor of drivers of authorized emergency vehicles under the conditions specified in section 454 of the Vehicle Code.
Section 454 provides that the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle shall be exempt under certain conditions from those provisions of the Vehicle Code relating to speed and from other so-called "rules of the road."...

The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code. (Stats. 1959, c. 3, p. 1665, sec. 21052.)

There is a rumor that there is a standard Claim Form for circumstances when D.C.H.P. employees stop people without authority.
Is this rumor true?
If it is true, send me a copy of said Claim Form.
I reserve the right to file said claim.

2. Realizing that you and your fellow employees have been both deliberately mis-educated during your training and possibly traumatized by your field experience, I still do not find it acceptable behavior for my servants to refuse to produce identification when I ask for it.
I did NOT invite your fellow employee to bother me, he volunteered.
There must be some Department of the California Highway Patrol guidelines for your fellow employee's courtesy to the people one supposedly serves.
So I need you to show me said guidelines.

I must request that you remind your fellow employee that such behavior is not acceptable in Nevada county.
[I do not need to remind you that should you or any of your fellow employees or any affiliated agencies view this complaint as a "threat to their authority" or a reason/excuse for a vendetta or harrassment aimed at me and/or my property, that such behavior would be not only totally unacceptable, but criminal as well.]
I specifically reserve all lawful and legal Rights and Remedies.

I Declare and Affirm, under the penalties provided for Perjury in the Law of the united States of America and of California, that the foregoing is True and Accurate.

Verified by my hand, this Day, the ________________of____________ of the year of Our Lord, one thousand, nine hundred and ninty-nine, in ____________________________city, ____________________________county, _______________________state, united States of America.

Signature: ___________________________________________________