[BACK to My Work][Come Visit My Home Page]
Questions or comments?: 
Declarant, ___________________________________________, is a competent witness over the age of 18 years of age, has personal knowledge of the facts presented here, and does Solemnly state that:
1.a. I am a natural born, white Man, one of the people of these united States of America and one of the people of California.
1.b. I am not a trained or licensed Attorney; of necessity, I am acting at all times within my right to defend my life, liberty, and property as set out in The California Constitution (2004), Art. 1, Sec. 1 (from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./.const/.article_1 [as of May 29, 2004]):
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.2. I rely upon the same materials which are available to attorneys and to the court at, or through, the local law library. I present the results of my research concerning The Department of the California Highway Patrol here.
3. The California Legislature has explicitly recognized that the people of California are the sovereign in the Government Code, �� 100, 11120, and 54950 (emphasis added):
a. � 100. Sovereignty in people; issuance of writs and process4.a. The Vehicle Code was enacted in 1935 by, "An act to establish a Vehicle Code, thereby consolidating and revising the law relating to vehicles and vehicular traffic, and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts specified herein;" (Stats. 1935, ch. 27, p. 93).
The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof, and all writs and processes shall issue in their name.
West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2004), � 100.b. � 11120. Public policy; legislative finding and declaration; citation of article
It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation 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.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2004), � 11120.c. � 54950. Declaration, intent; sovereignty
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.
(emphasis added) West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2004), � 54950.
4.b. The current VEHICLE CODE was enacted in 1959 by, "An act to repeal and re-enact the Vehicle Code and to add Chapter 6.5 (commencing at Section 3067) to Title 14, Part 4, Division 3 of the Civil Code and to amend Section 11004.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to vehicles." (Stats. 1959, ch. 3, p. 1523 (Effective September 18, 1959)).
4.c. The California Legislature is presumed to have known the following decision of the Supreme Court of California at the time of the repeal and re-enactment of the VEHICLE CODE (note added in brackets; emphasis added):
The California Constitution declares: "No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title, but in each case the Act revised or section amended shall be re-enacted and published at length as revised or amended...." (Art. IV, sec. 24 [nt: now art. IV, sec. 9]) In the absence of such a provision, legislative bodies commonly amended an act or a section of it by directing the insertion, omission or substitution of certain words, or by adding a provision, without setting out the entire context of the section as amended. ... The objection to this method of amendment was the uncertainty and difficulty of correctly reading the original section as later changed....5.a. VEHICLE CODE, � 2100 plainly reads that the legal name of the organization formerly known as "The California Highway Patrol" is currently "The Department of the California Highway Patrol" (emphasis added):
If, therefore, the Legislature elects to change a statute by the method of section-by-section amendment, no constitutional violation occurs so long as each section is published and reenacted at length, regardless of the number of sections so changed.
People v. Western Fruit Growers (1943), 22 Cal.2d 494, 500-501, 502.
There is in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency the Department of the California Highway Patrol.5.b. VEHICLE CODE, � 2103 plainly reads (emphasis added):
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, known as the California Highway Patrol, and of the officers and employees thereof.5.c. Under The Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1995, published in West's CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE SERVICE (1995), No. 5, p. A-1 et seq. (Effective July 12, 1995), The Department of the California Highway Patrol is twice correctly identified (emphasis added):
SEC. 74. All officers and employees of the California State Police who are serving in the state civil service and engaged in a function vested in the California State Police division shall, on the effective date of this act, be transferred to the Department of the California Highway Patrol.6.a. VEHICLE CODE, � 2102 reads:SEC. 75. The Department of the California Highway Patrol shall have ownership, possession, and control of all records, papers, offices, equipment, supplies, moneys, funds, land, and other property, real or personal owned or leased, connected with the administration of, or held for the benefit or use of, the California State Police Division.
Wherever in any statute "California Highway Patrol" is used, it means the Department of the California Highway Patrol.6.b. VEHICLE CODE, � 2102 appears to be an attempt to amend sections of the VEHICLE CODE in clear violation of the mandate of the California Constitution, Article 4, Section 9, clause 4, which requires that a section of a statute may only be validly amended by re-enacting it in full as amended (emphasis added):
� 9. Statutes; single subject; title; admendment6.c. The prohibition plainly and clearly set out in West's Ann.Cal.Const. , Art. 4, � 9, cl. 4 (above), has been upheld by the California Supreme Court (People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal.2d 494, above) and by a California appellate court:
SEC. 9. A statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. If a statute embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void. A statute may not be amended by reference to its title. A section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended.
West's Ann.Cal.Const. (2004), Art. 4, � 9
In Glendale Unified School Dist. v. Vista Del Rossmoyne Co. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 493, 498 [42 Cal.Rptr. 899], the court said, with reference to the predecessor of section 9 (art. IV, sec. 24 of the pre-1966 Constitution): "The clear purpose of . . . provisions is to avoid the confusion which almost always results when amendments are attempted by way of directing the insertion, omission or substitution of certain words, or by adding a provision, without setting out the entire context of the section to be amended. . . ." The cases at bench illustrate the situation thus envisaged. Had the constitutional provision been followed, there would have been no question as to legislative intent. The disobedience of that provision gives rise to the problem herein submitted to us.6.d.1.a. For an example, when I attempt to apply the "read-in amendment" provision of VEHICLE CODE, � 2102 to VEHICLE CODE, � 2250 (attempted read-in amendment in square brackets):
Scott A. v. Superior Court (1972), 27 Cal.App.3d 292, 295, 103 Cal.Rptr. 683.
[The Department of the California Highway Patrol] in the Department of [The Department of the California Highway Patrol] consists of the following members: the commissioner, the deputy commissioner, assistant commissioners, deputy chiefs, assistant chiefs, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and officers.6.d.1.b. VEHICLE CODE, � 2250, as attempted to be amended is, on its face, invalid as being in clear violation of the prohibition set out in Art. 4, � 9, cl. 4, of the California Constitution.
6.d.2.a. For a second example, when I attempt to apply the "read-in amendment" provision of VEHICLE CODE, � 2102 to VEHICLE CODE, � 2257 (attempted read-in amendment in square brackets):
The commissioner shall issue to each member of [The Department of the California Highway Patrol] a badge of authority with the seal of the State of California in the center thereof, the words [The Department of the California Highway Patrol] encircling the seal and below the designation of the position held by each member to whom issued.6.d.2.b. VEHICLE CODE, � 2257, as attempted to be amended is, on its face, invalid as being in clear violation of the prohibition set out in Art. 4, � 9, cl. 4, of the California Constitution.
6.e.1 My first reasonable inference from the foregoing information is that VEHICLE CODE, � 2102 and each and every other section of the VEHICLE CODE and of any other California Code which section 2102 purports to amend are in violation of the prohibition set out in Art. 4, � 9, cl. 4, of the California Constitution.
6.e.2. My second reasonable inference from the foregoing information is that each and every such section has been in violation of the prohibition set out in Art. 4, � 9, cl. 4, of the California Constitution since the time it was suppossedly amended.
6.e.3. My third reasonable inference from the foregoing information is that each and every such section is void and invalid without any further court action or decision.
6.f. However, until such time as the statutes in question are submitted to a court of competent jurisdiction and finally adjudicated to be unconstitutional, the statutes in question are presumed to be constitutional.
7. The Supreme Court of California has held (emphasis added):
[a.] The de facto doctrine in sustaining official acts is well established. Present a de jure office, "Persons claiming to be public officers while in possession of an office, ostensibly exercising their functions lawfully and with the acquiescence of the public, are de facto officers. . . . The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, are, if done within the scope and by the apparent authority of an office, as valid and binding as if he were the officer legally elected and qualified for the office and in full possession of it." (Town of Susanville v. Long (1904) 144 Cal. 362, 365 [77 P. 987]); see also Oakland Paving Co. v. Donovan (1912) 18 Cal.App. 488, 494-496 [126 P. 388]; Clark v. City of Manhattan Beach (1917) 175 Cal. 637, 639 [166 P. 806, 1 A.L.R. 1532].)...7.c. I reasonable infer from the foregoing information that, absent a de jure office (the no-longer-existent "Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol"), there can be no person who can lawfully, legally, or de facto occupy it and there can be no de facto "Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol" to hire or appoint de facto officers of "the California Highway Patrol".
In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. Goldman (1964), 61 Cal. 21, 42-43, 37 Cal.Rptr. 74, cert. den. 379 U.S. 28, 13 L.Ed.2d 173, 85 S.Ct. 190.[b.] There must be a de jure office to be filled before there can be a de facto officer.
If the former exists, and the latter holds it under and pursuant to a regular commission purporting to empower him to act, his acts in such office, until his right thereto is judicially determined, the law holds upon principles of policy and justice to be valid so far as they involve the public and third parties, notwithstanding the personal liability of the incumbent for intruding into such office.
People v. Hecht (1895), 105 Cal. 621, 629-630.
8.a. After the effective date of the 1959 enactment of the VEHICLE CODE, whenever a purported employee of The Department of the California Highway Patrol interacts with me while wearing a badge, patch, and/or uniform which reads "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL" and I know "the California Highway Patrol" no longer legally exists, I have Probable Cause to believe that person is prima facie in violation of VEHICLE CODE, � 27, which reads (emphasis added):
� 27. Any person who without authority impersonates, or wears the badge of, a member of the California Highway Patrol with intention to deceive anyone is guilty of a misdemeanor.8.b. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code, � 538d reads (in part):
(a) Any person other than one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses the authorized uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing, of a peace officer, with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor.9. The foregoing information effectively rebuts the presumption(s) that a person wearing a badge reading "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL" has any Official Authority or Good Faith as a member of The Department of the California HIghway Patrol and creates Probable Cause that I am now dealing with an unidentified person who is knowingly and illegally impersonating a member of the no-longer-legally-existent California Highway Patrol while in my presence.(b)(1) Any person, other than the one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses the badge of a peace officer with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(2) Any person who willfully wears or uses any badge that falsely purports to be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, or which so resembles the authorized badge of a peace officer as would deceive any ordinary reasonable person into believing that it is authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, for the purpose of fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code (2004), � 538d.
This Court repeatedly has explained that "probable cause" to justify an arrest means facts and circumstances within ... knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.10. The foregoing information gives me certain legal rights and obligations:
Michigan v. DeFillipo (1979), 443 U.S. 31, 61 L.Ed.2d 343, 349, 99 S.Ct. 2627.
a. I may legally demand that each and every person wearing a badge reading "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL" in my presence immediately produce competent identification in the form of his/her currently valid photographic identification card from "The Department of the California Highway Patrol", his/her "The Department of the California Highway Patrol" business card, and his/her currently valid CALIFORNIA DRIVER LICENSE.
b. Should said person wearing a badge reading "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL" fail, or refuse, to produce said identification, I may legally, within my God-given right of self-defense as set out in West's Ann.Cal.Const. (2004), Art. 1, Sec. 1. (set out above):
(1) Presume that he/she is not an valid officer of The Department of the California Highway Patrol and has no legal authority whatsoever; and
(2) immediately remove myself and my property from a potentially hazardous situation created by him/her without permission from, nor hindrance by, him/her; or
(3) make a Citizen's Arrest of him/her for a prima facie violation of VEHICLE CODE, � 27 and of West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code, � 538d committed in my presence:
� 837. Private persons; authority to arrest11.a. Realistically, I am not prepared to physically restrain (arrest) a person carrying a firearm under color of authority in a public place, but I reserve the right to file a cross-complaint based upon the foregoing information against both The Department of the California Highway Patrol and any supposed "officer" thereof should it or any supposed "officer" thereof initiate any legal proceeding(s) against me.
ARRESTS BY PRIVATE PERSONS. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code (2004), � 837.
11.b. I also do not wish to be placed in the position of having to meet force with force in defending myself, so I must rely upon whatever sense of professionalism the purported CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL officer may possess in choosing a reasonable option as set out below.
12. The foregoing information gives each and every person wearing a uniform and a badge reading "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL" certain rights and obligations:
a. He/she may choose to immediately remove himself/herself from my presence, without Retaliation, Reprisal, Recourse, or Remedy against me, for prima facie lack of any evidence of legal authority; or
b. He/she may choose to immediately identify himself/herself to my satisfaction by presenting his/her currently valid photographic identification card from "The Department of the California Highway Patrol", his/her "The Department of the California Highway Patrol" business card, and his/her currently valid CALIFORNIA DRIVER LICENSE; and then remove himself/herself from my presence.
13. In either case, in reasonable reliance upon the foregoing information, I am legally justified in saying to each and every person wearing a uniform and a badge reading "CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL":
I certify within the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true, accurate, and complete."Go away.
"You have no lawful or legal business with me.
"I do not wish to speak with you.
"Leave me alone.
"Have a nice day ... somewhere else."
Dated: __________________________________________
At: ______________________________________________
Signature: _________________________________________
[BACK to My Work][Come Visit My Home Page]
Questions or comments?: