• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Theseus 626.9 Case...The REAL DEAL!

inbox485

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
353
Location
Riverside County, California, USA
imported post

Theseus wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
Still burns that a law which states "private property" wouldn't include private property. Are people now expected not only to memorize the volumes of gun laws but the legislative commentaries regarding them just in case the law doesn't say what the legislature may have meant it to say?
Technically, yes.

I have to look it up, it might even be in Tapia.

It is assumed in the court that all citizens familiarize themselves of all laws, legislative intent, case law, and judicial interpretations. There was a case on this and I am looking for the cite.

I am trying to find the site, but, as citizens we have to know every in and out of the law, but the police don't. I wonder though. . . a cop is a citizen. . . so why should he not have to know?

While reading on another topic I came across a quote in another case used to ignore the legislative memo on detents in folding knives.
When the language of a specific statute has "'no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.' [Citation.]" (Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 222, 227.)
According to this, since the term "private property" is not ambiguous, the legislative intent is irrelevant. If the legislature wants to include private property accessible to the public, they could / can say so.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

And the judge agreed that the wording was not ambiguous, but then looked to legislative intent anyway.

The judge is a long standing judge and is highly experienced. He is therefore, in my mind, willingly making the decisions knowing the fact that it is contrary to jurisprudence and long standing legal cannons.
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
imported post

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1697/rule-lenity.html

Google "RULE OF LENITY"

You should be able to use some of what you find.

Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY[/b]. ]It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.


One rationale behind the principle of lenity is for laws to be clearly stated. Citizens should not have to guess whether a law applies to them or not.


A second rationale behind the rule of lenity has to do with separation of powers. The rule serves to prevent the judicial system from creating laws unintended by the legislature. Because the functions of the courts is to interpret statues and not to enact them.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:
http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1697/rule-lenity.html

Google "RULE OF LENITY"

You should be able to use some of what you find.

Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY. ]It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.


One rationale behind the principle of lenity is for laws to be clearly stated. Citizens should not have to guess whether a law applies to them or not.


A second rationale behind the rule of lenity has to do with separation of powers. The rule serves to prevent the judicial system from creating laws unintended by the legislature. Because the functions of the courts is to interpret statues and not to enact them.
That is one of the legal cannons the judge ignored.
 

inbox485

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
353
Location
Riverside County, California, USA
imported post

Theseus wrote:
Edward Peruta wrote:
http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1697/rule-lenity.html

Google "RULE OF LENITY"

You should be able to use some of what you find.

Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY. ]It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.


One rationale behind the principle of lenity is for laws to be clearly stated. Citizens should not have to guess whether a law applies to them or not.


A second rationale behind the rule of lenity has to do with separation of powers. The rule serves to prevent the judicial system from creating laws unintended by the legislature. Because the functions of the courts is to interpret statues and not to enact them.
That is one of the legal cannons the judge ignored.
At least you already have a solid appeal if you loose round 1.
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
imported post

Theseus,

Damn the torpedoes FULL speed ahead.

If I was you, (and I've been where you're at), I'd stop all negotiations, and other exectations and demand a speedy jury trial.

Every prosecutor knows that a jury trial is a crap shoot.

I'm sure that the biggest reason they're playing games and delaying is to protect the members of law enforcement from any civil action.

I would trust the jury to understand the difficulty of determing the distance from or the location of schools and the definition of "PRIVATE PROPERTY".

No member of a jury is going to believe that an average citizen must know case law in addtion to what the state publishes in the California Penal Code.

Except for the jury, the courts are comprised of PIMPS and WHORES.

People who control the people who screww people for money are PIMPS (JUDGES)

And the people who do the actual screwing are the WHORES (Prosecutors).

I guess that makes courthouses WHOREHOUSES.

In the poker world it's called "ALL IN"

I wish you well.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:
Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY. ]It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.
That should really upset HankT's world view. :cool:
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

The delays are actually mostly by us for various reasons I can not get into.

It is usually benefitial for the defense to delay when they can as the DA's might already have their evidence and information before they even charge.

Edward Peruta wrote:
Theseus,

Damn the torpedoes FULL speed ahead.

If I was you, (and I've been where you're at), I'd stop all negotiations, and other exectations and demand a speedy jury trial.

Every prosecutor knows that a jury trial is a crap shoot.

I'm sure that the biggest reason they're playing games and delaying is to protect the members of law enforcement from any civil action.

I would trust the jury to understand the difficulty of determing the distance from or the location of schools and the definition of "PRIVATE PROPERTY".

No member of a jury is going to believe that an average citizen must know case law in addtion to what the state publishes in the California Penal Code.

Except for the jury, the courts are comprised of PIMPS and WHORES.

People who control the people who screww people for money are PIMPS (JUDGES)

And the people who do the actual screwing are the WHORES (Prosecutors).

I guess that makes courthouses WHOREHOUSES.

In the poker world it's called "ALL IN"

I wish you well.
 

inbox485

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
353
Location
Riverside County, California, USA
imported post

People v. Tapia (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 1153 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 158

That the Legislature did not necessarily intend section 626.9 to be governed by the "public place" analysis is also suggested by the exception for places of business. It is readily apparent that a great many places of business are open to common use and enjoyment by members of the public. Nonetheless, section 626.9's exception expressly encompasses places of business.

Thought this might be of some help.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

Been there. Done that. Judge ignored the argument.
inbox485 wrote:
People v. Tapia (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 1153 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 158

That the Legislature did not necessarily intend section 626.9 to be governed by the "public place" analysis is also suggested by the exception for places of business. It is readily apparent that a great many places of business are open to common use and enjoyment by members of the public. Nonetheless, section 626.9's exception expressly encompasses places of business.

Thought this might be of some help.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Good luck tomorrow Theseus. Still hoping for that dismissal.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

demnogis wrote:
Tell them the only "plea bargain" you'll take is for "not guilty" and an all-expenses paid trip to disneyland for the kids. :D
Please, the onyl person that could ever make me plea would be my step-mother. . . the only person in life I have ever feared!

It is only 0 of 10. . . I believe they want a continuance, but I am ready to go. We have a great case and I want to squash them with it!
 

Captain_Awesome

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Fresno, California, USA
imported post

Good luck! It's horrible that it's gone this far, but I still have a liiiiiiitle bit of faith in the "justice" system. It seems like you have the law on your side, but I guess that hasn't stopped them yet.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

Just got back.

We are starting trial on the Wednesday, October 7th, 2009.

No other information to discuss on this case.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Best of luck sir. Hopefully some of the socal ocers can come (nicely dressed) to support you.
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
imported post

Theseus,

Are you having a jury or bench trial?

And will the same Judge that's been hearing your various issues going to preside over your trial? In most cases here in CT it would be a new totally unbiased Judge.
 
Top