Helmet trial date in Sacramento

OFF THE WIRE
B.O.L.T.of California News
By Mark Temple
Helmet trial scheduled for today also had a Motion for Continuance to be heard before the court which was filed by the D.A. (on occasion, pronounced, "duh" ).

One quick note: Asking the court a question is not an invitation to the court to bullshit you or steamroll your Rights.

I was trying to be a little stealthy, because the officer won't be available until next month, so I was not going to object to the Motion anyway. I didn't really want to send a red flag to the DA's office that they have a knowledgeable Defendant, but I wanted to see how the court positions itself on the question of whether a defendant, who does not agree to giving the authority to a Referee to hear a case, relinquishes authority for a future hearing if he agrees to the Referee on this Motion.

The clerk, of all people, leans over and whispers, "He doesn't have a Right to a Judge in an Infraction, only in a Misdemeanor or Felony." Well the clerk is not allowed to give legal advice to me, per Gov Code 24004, but she gave it, without being requested, to a Referee.

I asked if he wants the section of the California Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedures that relates to this, and he said "No, I'm familiar with that."
Which is why he didn't call the clerk on the carpet for being wrong??? He's familiar with nothing.

After an interruption, he was ready to proceed, citing my "lack of a Right to a Judge."

I then had to disqualify him using Civil Procedures 170, "for cause."
He spoke his (lack of) understanding of that into the record as I was disqualifying him "for Prejudice" but I corrected him by citing the disqualification was for incompetence, or lack of understanding of the legal issues. I got up and walked away from the table as he was saying something else, I don't know (or care) what.

As was putting my coat on, he asked me to have a seat until they found another courtroom and a different black robe.

We went to a different room, the black robe answered the question, the Continuance was granted; a date was agreed upon and we left. And a good time was had by all (except the Referee, and the intern DA who must have felt like he was back in school today).

MORE ON THE STORY
By Mac Henderson

Just a small interjection; it was a pretty bizarre debate (for lack of a better word). Mark stated “he did not stipulate to be heard by a commissioner or a referee”; the Referee then states he will take it on advisement; the clerk leans over and advises the Referee. The Ref puts Mark on hold (we all sit there until all of the other cases are heard); the Ref recalls Mark. The high school kid who is acting as a DA in training also joins us. The Ref asks the kid a question bout Marks request; the response from the “DA” something along the lines of “that is now how we do things”. Mark chimes in, “how traffic court operates and the law are two different things”; the Ref agrees with Mark but then denies Marks request for a Judge…quoting some code.

Mark then quotes his own code and disqualifies the Ref for “cause”…checkmate.

Really bizarre. Fortunately Mark has much more experience than the Ref, clerk or the Junior Grade DA. I would also like to point out, that I personally like to attend as many of this “hearings” as possible. It is really the best way to learn the “Art of OUR War”

Mark was sent to another court room, where that Commissioner was a bit more knowledgeable and cordial to Marks requests. As the paperwork is being finalized, Mark asks the Clerk, “how much training is there involved to be a court clerk”. Response about a year, with the Commissioner adding “and on the job training”. Point being; Clerks with one year of training are advising the “Judges” on the law….really sad.

The lesson today was to be prepared for the unexpected.

This is really a lot of fun