 |
Law Cases - June 2007 by quig |
|
People of the State of California vs. Richard Quigley On November 19, 2004, following over a year (over 30 court appearances) of extensive litigation — a case defended by me, Richard "quig" Quigley, in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County California — the Honorable Judge Michael Barton handed down his ruling on nine helmet tickets that had been issued to me — four by the Watsonville Police Department and five by the California Highway Patrol. On this day, Judge Barton ruled that I had violated the helmet law, but that the citations were for correctable equipment violations, indicating that he would dismiss them all once I had gotten the tickets signed off by the respective police agencies and presented them to the court. January 24, 2005 March 11, 2005 April 6, 2005 May 18, 2005 October 7, 2005 November 7, 2005 November 14, 2005 (Missing Transcript) January 20, 2006 (Missing Transcript) May 1, 2006 By this point, I had approached the court with the idea of allowing me to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutional as applied, as a final attempt to get the cases decided, closed and moved to the higher court on appeal by either myself or the Attorney General or the District Attorney. Briefs were filed by both sides and hearing on the motion was set for June 2, 2006 — EIGHTEEN MONTHS AFTER JUDGE BARTON MADE HIS INITIAL RULING and one month short of three years since the fist of the nine citations was issued on July 24, 2003. Here's my Motion to Dismiss: Motion to Dismiss Declaration in Support of Motion to Dismiss (You'll need to know where the evidence referenced in the motion is located. Try here. You ain't gonna believe some of the stuff we've collected.)Here's the District Attorney's Response: District Attorney's Response (Here's a little jewel I filed in an effort to correct a mistake in the original motion. I don't think it did us any harm: They call it "Erratum" (meaning, "oops")) This is the transcript of the hearing on the motion: June 2, 2006 In this transcript, the judge makes the tentative ruling that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to me, and we discuss how to make such a ruling effective in stopping any future citations, barring a change in enforcement practices: June 23, 2006 This is the transcript where the judge made his final ruling on the nine cases, dismissing ALL the citations on the basis that the helmet law statute was/is unconstitutional as applied to me: July 14, 2006 Here's the eight page order, signed by Judge Barton, explaining his reasoning in making the July 14th decision and ordering the nine citations dismissed: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order After Hearing There were two citations — one written by the CHP and one by a State Parks Ranger — trailing the other nine. This transcript is of the trial and decision (same as before) relative to those two citations: August 25, 2006 NONE OF THESE RULING WERE APPEALED BY EITHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL — they just told the media they'd appealed. Oh yeah, the District attorney did do one more thing . . . the filed a blanket motion to disqualify Judge Barton from hearing any more helmet ticket cases. (Don't it just make ya proud?) We were stuck. We had the decision we had been working for for over a decade and a half, and the impact beyond those eleven citations was NONE! Here's the litigation currently pending . . . all of which required by the failure of the prosecution to help us and the court find a solution to the problems uncovered throughout this case, and what we hope/expect to happen next: California Highway Patrol vs. Superior Court (The "Fix-It Tickets" Case) "THE BRAKES" referred to earlier, following Judge Barton's ruling that helmet tickets are correctable equipment (just like the law states), led to the filing of an action in the 6th Appellate court by the California Attorney General's office — an action that both requested a stay on the contempt proceedings regarding the CHP's refusal to sign off the five tickets they had issued, and requesting Declaratory Relief, in the form of a finding by the Appellate Court that helmet tickets are NOT correctable equipment violations. This case is entitled CHP v. Superior Court — the docket of which can be accessed by clicking here. You can check the progress of the case at any time by reading the updates on the docket. When the Attorney General started this action, and obtained a stay on the pending contempt proceedings against the CHP, I needed help. I contacted Mike Osborn and asked if he knew of any way I could get the help to deal with the AG on this matter since my health issues had pretty much taken away my ability to do these things on my own. Osborn approaced Wendy Lascher — one of California's best appellate court attorneys and a long-timefriend to bikers involved in fighting the helmet law. Lascher, as the attorney who was heavily involved in the first major decision on the helmet law, the Buhl v. Hannigan case, was more than willing to help. As you read through this, take a look at how long it is taking to get in front of the court. As it worked out, plenty of time for me to convince Judge Barton to take another angle at clearing his calendar of the tickets in front of him. Probably NOT what the AG had in mind. This is a chronological list of the pleadings filed (so far) in the matter of the CHP v. Superior Court : AG's Opening Brief filed October 8, 2005; Exhibit 1 (a copy of an Order, signed by Judge Barton, ordering the CHP to do their job and sign off the helmet tickets they wrote me); Exhibit 2 (a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the District Attorney, titled "Statement of the Case," in which the DA explains their understanding of the case — as false and otherwise deluded a brief as has ever been filed in this matter by the DA . . . the AG eventually tops them on both levels); Exhibit 3 (a transcript of the January 24, 2005. hearing on the DA's Motion for Reconsideration, where Judge Barton, after discussing their arguments, denies the DA's request to change his ruling where he found the citations issued to me correctable, "fix-it" tickets); Exhibit 4 (a copy of the transcript of the July 15, 2005, contempt hearing against the CHP where the AG asks for and is granted time to file a "Petition for Writ," not an appeal, regarding Judge Barton's finding that for refusing to sign off my tickets, the CHP should be held in contempt). I wrote a letter to the court letting them know I was looking for a lawyer: On October 10, 2005, the Appellate Court issued this Stay Order preventing Judge Barton from proceeding with his comtempt charges against the California Highway Patrol. On November 28, 2005, Wendy Lascher filed our Preliminary Opposition to the writ petition filed by the AG — the issue of whether or not helmet tickets are, as the law states, correctable equipment violations was squarely in front of a California Appellate Court. Yeah! On December 6, 2005, the Attorney General filed their Reply to our Opposition to their Petition.
We can only speculate as to their timing, but suddenly, on January 11, 2007, after 15 months of dead air since they put a stop to Judge Barton's contempt action against the California Highway Patrol, the 6th Appellate court moved — issuing an Order to Show Cause why they should not issue a Writ permanently stopping Judge Barton from holding the CHP in contempt for refusing to sign off my helmet tickets as he had ordered them to. The court also offered both sides the file additional briefs and request oral arguments. We can't help but wonder if perhaps, after all this time doing nothing, the fact that a lawsuit (to be discussed shortly) was filed against the CHP in the civil department of the Santa Cruz County Superior Court might have motivated them to move. The civil suit sure got the Attorney General to move.
While that crap was being dealt with, on February 13, 2007, Wendy filed her official Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Mandate, line by line pointing out the defects in the AG's Petition for Writ that brought about all this activity. On April 16, 2007, notice was sent out by the Appellate Court that Oral Arguments would take place on May 8, 2007.
Finally, on May 8th, at 9:30 a.m., Wendy Lascher had the opportunity to argue our position (relative to correctability of helmet law violations) in front of a three judge panel at the 6th Appellate Court, and she kicked ass! (An audio recording of that hearing is available by clicking here.) On June 17, 2007, the 6th Appellate Court made its decision, finding that helmet tickets are in fact correctable violations. However, following 10 pages of well reasoned findings explaining why Judge Barton was correct in finding helmet tickets correctable, they took off an a strange page-and-a-half of opinion explaining why, at least in the cases involving me, they are not. The Attorney General claimed a complete victory, even in the face of the fact that their clients, the CHP, had, for over 15 years, steadfastly insisted that helmet citations are NOT correctable, and the court had now found that they are. We, on the other hand, realized that we won the major issue of correctability, although the court made some strange findings toward the end that we decided to challenge. On June 1, 2007, our attorney, Wendy Lascher filed a Petition for Rehearing, addressing what the 6th Appellate court had to say. While this petition was being considered, Ray Henke sent an amicus ("friend of the court") letter to the 6th Appellate Court pointing out what he perceived as several errors in their rulings. The court's initial reaction to Lascher's Petition was to request help from the Attorney General in the form of an Opposition to our Petitionon on June 7, 2007. The Attorney General, responding to the request from the court, filed their opposition on June 14, 2007, which did nothing to help bolster the opinion of the court. In fact, if you read it real close, it doesn't take long to see that the Attorney General found more wrong with the appellate court's opinion than we did. So, on June 15, 2007, the 6th appellate court granted our Petition for Rehearing (reconsideration), vacated its previous decision and opinion and took the case back under consideration. We expect they will reach a final conclusion somewhere around the first week in July 2007. Ultimately victory in this case will result in helmet tickets being treated as correctable equipment violations, thereby creating MAJOR problems for the CHP in figuring out how to decide what a person must present to an officer to get them signed off. It is a major, major hit on the ability of the CHP to keep enforcing the helmet law as they have been (if at all). With the plain language of the statutes totally supporting our position, and in spite of the 6th Appellate court's very creative opinion, we've got every reason to be optimistic about the final outcome. Now let's talk about the case most California bikers actually know about, and are helping support. Richard Quigley, Steve Bianco, Don Blanscet, Steve Barron and Pat Holmes vs. California Highway Patrol, et. al. (BACKGROUND) This is the case most California motorcyclists are most interested in. The is the case we were forced to file as a device to get the CHP to stop enforcing the helmet law in a manner that violates our constitutional rights, if at all. As you read through this and future updates, keep in mind that it is the Attorney General that is supposed to see that "justice" is served by their department, the Justice Department. So far all they have done is work against every attempt by motorcyclists to have the law applied justly to this helmet law. This action was necessitated by the refusal of either the District Attorney or Attorney General to appeal Judge Barton's decision finding the helmet law unconstitutional as applied, which was why he followed the decision with a written order — an order specifically designed to elicit an appeal so that these matters could be settled for all time in California (what judges are actually paid to do). Because Judge Barton was acting under the limited jurisdiction given to a court when dealing with a traffic infraction, his ruling could not go beyond the cases in front of him. Otherwise, no doubt, he would have issued the injunction we were required to file a separate action to obtain. After considerable discussion, it was decided that the plaintiffs in the case seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the CHP, forcing them to follow the law as written and interpreted by the California and Federal Courts, it was decided that five plaintiffs would be named (mostly because I am slated to die before the case will be finished, and to preserve the case after my passing). The other plaintiffs were chosen for very good reasons. Steve Bianco, because it was his perspective of the law that I have applied to the citations that have been issued. Bianco (to my knowledge) was the guy who figured out the vagueness arguments against helmet law statutes — the father of the "No List? No Law!" argument(s). Don Blanscet, because Don has received scores of helmet tickets, beat them all, and who is still faced with further prosecutions over his choice of helmet styles by the various police agencies including the CHP. Steve "Red" Barron for much the same reason as Blanscet. Red has been cited close to a hundred times, and has held in his hand several court decisions finding the enforcement practices applied to him to violate not only the law, but his constitutional rights, yet the threat continues. And last, but FAR from least, Pat Holmes who had taken the fight to the streets in the Fresno area for years, with much the same results as the rest of us. Between us, hundreds of citations, dismissed on the basis that the statute was not being correctly applied, yet the threat of future citations continues. Any one of these plaintiffs has as much standing as I to pursue the case, assuring that with my passing, the case will not die. Michael Osborn is basically coordinating communications between the various plaintiffs and our Attorney Wendy Lascher (who he initially recruited to take these cases) and otherwise adding his perspective to our overall strategies, not to mention coordinating the fund raising to pay for all this. Although not a named plaintiff in the lawsuit, Mike is an invaluable member of the team. (THE PLEADINGS) On November 8, 2006, the Opening Brief was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Cruz County. A read of the brief will show you the basis of our arguments against continued enforcement of the statute, and otherwise support my promise to Judge Barton that if he were to make the right decision on my helmet tickets, that we would defend his ruling all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary. Wendy is an incredible attorney with a complete understanding of the issues involved. She is uniquely qualified to win this case against any and everything the Attorney General can throw at us. In my opinion, the best evidence of the effect of having a first rate attorney on the case is evident in the response we got from the AG to the complaint. Rather than answer (because they have no adequate answer), on January 12, 2007, they filed an objection to the complaint — commonly known as a Demurrer — a challenge of the face of the complaint, stating that we have failed to show just cause to sue the CHP. This tactic is a very transparent attempt to drag their feet and otherwise stall this action much like they have the issue of helmet tickets being a correctable violation, which they have dragged out almost a year and a half in the 6th Appellate Court. It's a way to avoid having to take their punishment for allowing the CHP to enforce the statute in an unconstitutional manner and otherwise in complete disregard of the law. So on January 31, 2007, Wendy filed her Opposition to the Demurrer in preparation for a court hearing scheduled for February 13, 2007. At that hearing, the court overruled the Demurrer (demurrers can only be sustained or overruled, not granted or denied). Click here to read the transcript. On March 27, 2007, Judge Atack signed and filed an Order Overruling Demurrer, ordering the Attorney General to file their response to the complaint within 10 days. On April 30, 2007, the AG has filed their responses to the complaint on behalf of the CHP, Commissioner Brown and Captain Manriquez. If you actually download and read these responses, you'll notice that they are still in the box. They have done nothing to show that we do not have a valid complaint about their conduct, and therefore no was to show why we should not get an injunction against continued enforcement of the helmet law.
On Wednesday, May 9, 2007, because of my ailing health (which pretty much guarantees that I will not be around to testify at the trial), in order to obtain and preserve my personal testimony, a deposition was taken in my home in Aptos, CA. A video recording was made of that deposition. A rough draft, unofficial copy, of the 1 hour and 41 minute audio of that deposition is available by clicking here.) While we continue to gather discovery, the next hearing on the case is a Case Management Conference scheduled to take place in Judge Atack's court on June 12, 2007. Soon, someone other than I will be doing the next major update to this ongoing story. Until the time comes that such an update is necessary, you are welcome to visit the BOLT Forum and inquire there. The plaintiffs in this litigation will monitor the forum and provide accurate answers to your questions. Use of the forum will also provide you with a way to get to know these guys and better understand what makes us Bikers of Lesser Tolerance. thanks, quig |
Back to Home Page
Last updated by Quig in June 2007
© Copyright 2007 BOLT of California. All Rights Reserved.
Webmaster: quig