SEAT BELT TICKET TRIAL & DISCLOSING TREASON

A citizen who is disclosing their knowledge of treason, using that fact as a defense or exemption from penalty of violation of minor vehicle code in order to protect or perpetuate the constitution; confronted with judges that ignore united states code related to evidence of the concealment of treason and mass murder conducted by other judges; is that citizen witnessing, and in this case documenting another act of concealing treason. That citizen logically cannot be fined under law, because the law does not exist if treason is successful because the disclosure protects the constitution and the only avenue to disclosing treason remaining is freedom of speech, requiring money. Technically, ideally, if the constitution is more important than the government, the citizen defending the constitution, standing before judges that have taken a state constitutional oath, "must support the constitution"; should be given the equivilant money the court would expect to learn such an investigation and disclosure would cost state law enforcement . Reasonably, the court should be open to funding public disclosure over media over all typical media it uses. Ideally, if judges actually support the constitution with official acts instead of conducting business as usual for government.

The doctrine of estoppel is another bar to penalty in this case because a citizen relied on judges to follow laws, and decide rightfully, with official discretion implied in their oaths by adherence to the intents of the constitution; when they do not; in the case of NOT allowing the disclosure of treason by citizens acting pursuant to law.  Since all judges are bound by oath to support the constitution and the citizen who intends to see the constitution defended has only one right remaining for defense; if judges will not defend the constitution by enabling an lawful or effective disclosure of treason; that of free speech, and it is all that remains to serve the purpose of the citizen in defense of the constitution, to disclosing treason against it. 

Such citizen, having proven with prima facie evidence that judges, in fact deprived them of justice or law; and those later judges who are made aware of the earlier judges actions, must acknowledge the earlier deprival, or that the law itself, the constitution, at its root, may, itself  be defeated if there is a refusal to recognize that effective utilization of free speech requires considerably adequate economic means.  Therefore the only lawful and constitutional decision is to empower free speech by the citizen who charged with a waiver of fine or penalty.

Applying a fine to a citizen in these circumstances is, by default, concealing treason.

_________________________________________________

This page is the beginning of a process of disclosing treason while using that facts to test and expose a judiciary that has another agenda beside support of the constitution.

A letter to Pauline Maxwell, state superior court judge for santa barbara county.

The letter and notion of waiving it was ignored by Maxwell. Trial was assigned to Denise DeBellfuie. I filed a motion for cause to disqualify which was granted. The trial was set before a judge brought from San Luis Obispo who normally does juvenile court,Teresa, Mulaney-Estrada.

There was a point where the judge stopped taking evidence of disclosure of treason and the counties involvement in it.

Evidence of disclosures of treason.

EXHIBIT ONE-2010 formal disclosure to US district court in Los Angeles.

EXHIBIT TWO-Clerks reciept of district courts action refiling disclosure made by citizen to criminal clerk

EXHIBIT THREE- 2012 Certified mail returns from delivery of citizens disclosure evidence to california state superior court judges.

EXHIBIT FOUR- Attempt to get records of unreturned bail, earlier act of economic deprival of citizen disclosing treason

TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS

Pages 1-14

Page 15-25


The decision of 3 appeal judges upon the appeal filed (face page)

BELOW,  TEXT OF APPEAL- as a guide to the trial

Christopher A. Brown

PO Box 61925
Santa Barbara CA93160

805 967 4055

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Case No. 41932TL

People of the State of , California Plaintiff

Christopher A. Brown, Defendant-Appellant

)APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF

)APPEAL OF FINAL JUDGEMENT

) 1/12/15 : RESENTENCING;

) U.S.C TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115

) 2382, CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION) ART. 3 SEC. 1 & ART. XX,

) CGC 18200, PROMISSORY

) ESTOPPEL, REQUEST FOR WRITTEN

) DECISION RE: U.S.C TITLE 18,) JUDICIAL DUTY

This appeal seeks a change in the sentence of the trial court which is appealable because the trial court refused to examine information relevant to the judicial oath and justice for sentencing that the defendant attempted to present to the trial court regarding treason under Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, 2382 - Misprision of treason. Since the trial court erred and neglected its official judicial duty, appellant relies on the appeals court to exercise the duty of the trial court regarding evidence separate from appeal rules and instead under judicial duty of Section 3 of article XX of the California Constitution.

Christopher Brown, the appellant in this legal action, under the provisions of;California Evidence Code section 452.Matters which may be judicially noticed.Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters..........

California Evidence Code section 452.(d) Records of (1) any court of this State...........

And the provisions of;California Evidence Code section 453.

Compulsory judicial notice upon request, trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in section 452 if a party requests it and:

(a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and

(b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.

Judicial notice of the following documents pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452 (d) is requested and justified by the confusion of the trial court beginning on page 17, line 25 of trial transcripts. The trial court refused to examine these documents which are pivotal to judicial duty apprehending and disclosing mass murder and treason.

EXHIBIT ONE: Face page of CM 10-00040 re filed as CA10-01634

EXHIBIT TWO: Letter from US District court clerk A. Gragera 3/5/2010

EXHIBIT THREE: Certified returns of efforts to disclose treason under USC Title 18 to state and federal judges

EXHIBIT FOUR- Attempt to get records of unreturned bail, earlier act of economic deprival of citizen disclosing treason

Under such provisions of California law, defendant attempted to present to the trial court evidence of concealment of treason, creating estoppel relating to collection of fines and disclosure of treason or effective utilization of First Amendment rights pursuant to united states code, title 18, part I, chapter 115, 2382. At page 17, lines 19 to 23 of transcripts this can be seen. At lines 24 and 25 the trial court mocks the defendants efforts to disclose concealment of treason and the methods of mass murder of 3,000 people by pretending defendant had somehow implied the court had conducted treason.

MOTION AT TRIAL QUESTIONING JURISDICTION

?No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty?. Penal Code 689. The California Constitution requires that the right to a jury trial is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, not some, but all. Pen Code 19.6 denies this right, but must give way in favor of the constitution as it is the supreme law of the state. ?A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 286. Fortunately the California Supreme Court and the appeals court have already addressed the denial of right to a jury trial in infraction cases. Their reasoning was that infractions ARE NOT CRIMES.In the case of People v Sava the court was dealing with successive prosecutions which included both misdemeanors and infractions and there was a question as to whether or not the defendant was entitled to a jury trial for the infraction and the court reasoned:?The limitation on an accused right to a jury trial of infractions has withstood constitutional attack upon the rationale the Legislature did not intend to classify infractions as crimes.? (emphasis mine) People v Sava, 190 Cal App. 3rd 935The case of People v Sava also referenced the California Supreme court case People v Battle 50 Cal. App. 3rd Supp. 1, which also reiterated that infractions are not crimes. It?s also mentioned in the Judicial Councils Annual Report in the ?milestones? section.Defendant pointed out at trial that California Code of Civil Procedure 24 tells us that actions are of two kinds, criminal and civil. There is no mention of an action classified as an infraction.

Code of Civil Procedure 24

?Action are of two kind:1. Civil; and, 2. CriminalCode of Civil Procedure

25? A civil action arises out of:

1. An obligation;

2. An injuryCode of Civil Procedure

26?An obligation is a legal duty, by which one person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing, and arises from:

One--Contract; or,

Two--Operation of law?.

This motion was denied.

TESTIMONY AT TRIAL

As testimony the defendant presented that he had entered the roadway from the Calle Real center with his seatbelt on and turned east onto Calle Real, only then did he realize he had forgotten a needed stop at OSH, a westward turn, but also had limited time to make a meeting. With an empty roadway in front of him, under completely safe conditions, he disconnected his seatbelt to remove his phone from his right front pocket to read the clock, requiring both hands in the seated position, and saw there was time, made a left turn, then worked to replacing his seat belt. At this point he was red lighted and pulled over.Defendant pointed out that driving is a consciously devoted process attentive to the road, and that the motion of the vehicle is not the act of driving. Defendant had stopped driving, while the vehicle was in motion, with fully safe conditions to do so, in order to check the clock then replaced the seat belt to drive.

BAIL FOR 2004 CITATION NEVER RETURNED

Appellant also presented to the trial court evidence which it refused to review. A Declaration and documentation from the court records clerk indicating an effort to get a record of a return of $100 bail for a citation in 2004 which had never been returned after the case was dismissed. The court improperly disregarded the legal declaration, (see EXHIBIT FOUR) the only evidence before the court, because the court could not confirm the return of bail paid but still applied the full sentence and fine.

JUSTIFICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCING: CONTINUING DISCLOSURE OF TREASON

The trial court made an error of law in not accepting information vital to official discretion in sentencing. The transcripts from audio recording beginning at page 17 where defendant states that proof of disclosure of treason will be provided. Later statements, page 18 line 12 has an error and should read ?Rudolph Guiliani?, and at line the trial court 19 denies need for examination of the evidence of the federal court refusing to allow disclosure of treason under united states code, title 18, part I, chapter 115, 2382 adding language obscuring of defendants intended meanings and communication, making the defendants message confusing willfully intending to make the defendants statement have ambiguity. This is not clarified until page 20, lines 19 to 24. These facts show the trial court refusing to examine evidence presented by the defendant substantiating the concealment of treason by the federal court, not a federal matter, simply information showing the continued need for effective disclose or preventing disclosure of treason under law, which lawfully prohibit any monetary fine of the defendant impairing the capacity to use free speech for such and judicial duty supportive of the constitution requires the appeals court to modify defendants sentence to assure justice and compliance with law. At page 23 on lines 22 and 23 the confusion of the trial court due to a refusal to examine documented vital to justice in sentencing, is shown.

TRIAL COURT CONFUSED BY ITS NOT REVIEWING EVIDENCE

The trial court actually thought that defendant was alleging treason and that a simple disclosure to the federal court was a ?federal case? when the defendant was proving the concealment of treason by district court judges with documents the superior judge refused to examine. The appellant now presents that evidence from the trial court to the appeals court, separate from appeal issues superseding the practice of appeals not allowing evidence not submitted in writing at trial. The appellants seeks performance pursuant to judicial duty, seeking justice in support of the united states Constitution in review of evidence proving federal court judges have concealed treason and violated united states code, title 18, part I, chapter 115, 2382. On page 23, lines 19 through 21 the trial court makes an error of law regarding the duty of prosecution of treason under California State law, which the defendant has not asked for.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 SEC. 18 Treason against the State consists only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort. A person may not be convicted of treason except on the evidence of two witnesses to the same overt act or by confession in open court.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 18200- A person shall not be knowingly employed by any state agency or court who either directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets a program of sabotage, force and violence, sedition, or treason against the Government of the United States or of this state.

The trial court ?gives aid and comfort?, it knowingly justifies and abets a program of concealing treason against the United States.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ART. 3 SEC. 1 & ART. XX, AND CGC 18200, Pursuant to the State Constitution, Article 3, I and Article XX and California government code, the appellant requires under law; correcting the trials court error under California Evidence Code section 453; the appeals court examination of evidence EXHIBIT ONE: Face page of CM 10-00040 re filed as CA10-01634, filed 2/18/10, EXHIBIT TWO: Letter from US District court clerk A. Gragera 3/5/2010, EXHIBIT THREE is certified returns of efforts to disclose treason under USC Title 18 to state and federal court judges. EXHIBIT ONE & TWO prove the defendants disclosure of treason would be dismissed, discarded after 30 days rather than remaining in the civil clerks miscellaneous file lawfully in regard to treason, as defendant intended compliant to Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, 2382 - Misprision of treason. Defendant instead encountered unlawful action from the US district court in 2010, and sought on 1/12/15 to present the proof of this, EXHIBIT ONE & TWO to the trial court, in the case appealed. If the Appeals court cares to examine the 38 page stand alone disclosure of defendants knowledge of treason, it can be found online here http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html. It consists of a proven structural deception invalidating the cause of death upon 2,970 death certificates. To facilitate the current disclosure to State Judges pursuant to Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, 2382, this pleading is also online and hyperlinked to the disclosure of appellants actual knowledge of treason under U.S.C. title 18 http://algoxy.com/law/treasonresist/disc.seatbeltappeal.html.

REQUEST FOR WRITTEN DECISION REGARDING U.S.C TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, 2382 AND THIS APPEAL

Appellant requests written legal authority exempting appeals court judges from lawful consideration with responsiveness and or judicial duty relating to united states code, title 18, part I, chapter 115, 2382

LAWFUL JUDICIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CONSTITUTIONS OF FEDERAL AND STATE DENIED: RE: TREASON-BASIS OF ESTOPPEL

The California State Superior court denied review of the evidence of concealment of treason which invokes judicial duty pursuant to federal law supporting the constitution pursuant to the California Constitution Article. XX, of defendant?s disclosures of treason, which was dealt with unlawfully by the federal court. In all cases defendant/appellant relied upon all judges to support the US Constitution as their oaths describe.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 3 SEC. 1. the United States Constitution is the

supreme law of the land.

Within California, a federal judge, by his action, declared Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, 2382 - Misprision of treason, unenforceable, a violation of the California Constitution; ARTICLE 3, SEC. 1. (a), when removing appellants disclosure of treason filed February 18, 2010, case # CM10-00040, from the criminal clerks miscellaneous file and re filing it without appellants permission as a civil action, case# CV-10--01634, March 5 with the Civil Clerk of the Central District of California, Los Angeles. By doing so, when appellant did not pay filing fees within 30 days, appellant?s disclosure of treason was discarded.This action concealed the treason disclosed, was signed by two citizens which is required by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 SEC. 18. This violates California PENAL CODE SECTION 38- Misprision of treason is the knowledge and concealment of treason, without otherwise assenting to or participating in the crime.

These judicial actions are a violation of a promise or oath and establishes jurisdiction in this court to the extent granted to it by the California state Constitution on behalf of which it functions. To impair the appellant economically with a fine for an infraction when appellant has proven that a US district court judge has in essence concealed treason, invokes promissory estoppel pertaining to the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 3 SEC. 1. and conflicts with the judicial oath of office invoking GOVERNMENT CODE 18200 by aiding and abetting the concealment of treason, California PENAL CODE SECTION 38- Misprision of treason as well as aiding and abetting the concealment conducted in 2010 by a judge of the US District court.

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

Elements of promissory estoppel:In general, the elements of promissory estoppel are:1) a promise reasonably expected by the promissor to induce action or forbearance,2) action or forbearance by the promisee in justifiable reliance on the promise (i.e. ?detrimental reliance?), and3) injustice can be avoided only through enforcement of the promise.RE: 1) Both the federal judge and state court judge have taken an oath, made a promise, to uphold law or defend the United States Constitution.RE:2) The appellant relied upon the judges to act pursuant to their oaths. When they did not, appellant is forced to utilize his right to freedom of speech, which the trial court was informed of, seen on page 21, lines 15 through 19, then interrupted; in order to continue to disclose treason to the public in defense of the constitution and rule of law. It is common knowledge that considerable economic means are required to effectively use free speech.RE:3) Injustice can only be avoided by the court resentencing defendant/appellant removing the fine imposed by the trial court, empowering appellant to use his right to free speech effectively in support of the constitution continuing disclosure of treason against it.Materially, the court cannot fine the appellant because the only method of disclosure of treason remaining to the judiciary, if they will take no action, is to assure the appellant has all the economic capacity due by law to disclose treason by his uses of freedom speech.

AUTHORITIES

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 18200- A person shall not be knowingly employed by any state agency or court who either directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets a program of sabotage, force and violence, sedition, or treason against the Government of the United States or of this state.

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 18&Mac221; PART I&Mac221; CHAPTER 115&Mac221; 2382, MISPRISION OF TREASON

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor orto some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

Section 3 of article XX of the California Constitution provides:

Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I,_________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this Obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. ??And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking or this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: _____ (If no affiliations, write in the words No Exceptions?) and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________ I will not (name of office) advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.? ?And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as the qualification for any public office or employment.

PRAYER

Appellant prays for justice and judicial official discretion supporting the United States Constitution by judicial preservation of his economic capacity to use his First Amendment Rights effectively.Respectfully submitted,
Date;__________________________ ______________________________Appellant, Christopher A. Brown

Back to Treason Resist