June 20, 2000, was the day selected by the court to have a "trial" on the issue of 3 helmet tickets. For reasons explained at the hearing (having to do with the types of testimony that the court was going to be allowing into the record), I elected to enter a plea of "nolo contendre" (a "no contest" plea, virtually the same as "guilty") and attempt to preserve an appeal over the manner in which the legal issues had been addressed, and keep the confusion of what I consider irrelevant evidence away from the appellate panel -- judges, particularly predisposed judges (which we run into a lot on the helmet law issue), seem to run to anything , to deny challenges of the law.

       The supporting declaration of the issues for appeal, and the reasons for the pleas, are laid out in a required brief, and are available in pdf format by clicking here (49k).

       There is a long history between myself and Traffic Referee Mulligan -- the man who presided over the case. There is a mutual respect between us that may be hard to detect from the way I address the court throughout the hearing. I intend no disrespect to the court, but I also reserve my right to righteous indignation to the denial of rights which I sense have been taken by Mulligan's interpretation of the statutes. His respect for me is evidenced by his patience with my inexperience (I am not a lawyer) -- a good triar-of-fact is hard to find. I will have to disqualify him from hearing these matters in the future, for a myriad of reasons, none of which have to do with the quality of the man himself.

       The district attorney, on the other hand, is in my opinion, acting in bad faith -- I believe he knows that the issues I am attempting to raise have merit, and uses his experience and position in the system, to pervert justice against the law instead. The responsibility of the public prosecutor is to preserve the law and insure justice . . . but this prosecutor is dedicated, instead, to winning at all cost. A major complaint with the California Bar Association is in the process of being filed right now.

       The tape of the proceeding has been converted to a RealAudio file, and can be heard in its entirety by clicking here (it runs an hour and 8 minutes). The transcript is here.As I have explained elsewhere, a citizen is required to demand his or her rights as a "belligerent claimant," and no one but the citizen can claim those rights directly. I pushed the edge of appearing rude, in fact have listened to the audio feed and agree with the criticism that I may have come real close, if not actually crossed, the line; but preserving one's Freedom is not something to be taken lightly -- passion, in defense of individual Liberty, cannot be wrong. Even so, any disrespect is toward the system, and neither the court nor Referee Mulligan.

       If I am eventually successful in this quest to take out, or substantially injure California's helmet law, it will not be in spite of my passion, but because of it.

       The legal principles are sound, and the arguments thoroughly researched by myself and a myriad of other BOLT of California members and supporters. If you gain nothing else from the investment in time than an understanding of the legal principles involved, and you're serious about helping to take out the helmet law in your state, then there's certainly no harm can come from reviewing this material.

If you're inclined, lemme know what you think? (e-mail)

quig