Two California Highway Patrol officers in Southern California have been caught on video trying their best to intimidate, threaten and coerce a woman to give up her rights while issuing her a traffic citation. While being issued the citation, the woman did not discuss the merits of the charge and never refused to sign the citation- she merely invoked, as is all motorist's right, what is very clearly outlined in the California Vehicle Code, Section 40502 (b).

As CA law clearly states as outlined by the State legislature and on the Department of Motor Vehicle website,

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40502.htm
V C Section 40502 Place to Appear
40502. The place specified in the notice to appear shall be any of the following:
(b) Upon demand of the person arrested, before a judge or other magistrate having jurisdiction of the offense at the county seat of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. This subdivision applies only if the person arrested resides, or the person's principal place of employment is located, closer to the county seat than to the magistrate nearest or most accessible to the place where the arrest is made.

The point of contention between the woman and the officers was simply that she has a right to demand to appear at the County Seat, but the two traffic cops didn't agree. The primary officer, L. Harris (ID No. 14858), as well as his supervisor (pictured below) insisted that it was soley up to their discretion, which State Courts have clearly stated is not the case. They threatened to arrest the woman numerous times as well as screamed at her in rage and made her get out of her vehicle and sit on the cement. They also were not familiar with CVC 40502(b). In addition, the cops did not like being filmed. In a failed attempt to intimidate the videographer, Harris snarled "you can turn the camera off too", as well as instructing the driver to "tell your friend to get that camera out of my face," when the camera was actually nowhere near his face. He attempted this despite the fact that numerous Federal Courts and even the U.S. Supreme Court, in additon to the U.S. Department of Justice have clearly and repeatedly affirmed that filming police is an inherent right in America. Harris then told the passenger, who never said one word to him, to "stay out of this, it's none of your business" before slamming the vehicle door in anger. Within literally 40 seconds of the supervisor arriving on the scene, the unhinged boy-in-blue lost complete control and began screaming at the woman in a fury.

The larger point of this video, regardless of where one lives or what their traffic laws are, is that if you know your rights and properly assert them with relentless determination, you can win. As the shortened-version video reveals, after detaining the driver for nearly 40 minutes while arguing, shouting at and threatening her, the two jackboot cops finally gave in and gave her the County Seat. That didn't have to be so difficult now, did it?

As the excellent free website helpigotaticket.com explains,

http://www.helpigotaticket.com/prevent/venue.html
Change of Venue
"In California if you live or work closer to the county seat than to the court which would normally have jurisdiction, you may demand a change of venue to the county seat per California Vehicle Code section 40502(b).
"The ideal time to make the demand is before the officer writes the ticket, but you may legally make the demand any time before signing the ticket. (When an LA County deputy refused to give Geo. McCalip a change of venue, Geo. signed the ticket, "40502(b) Under Protest Geo. McCalip." This forced the judge in Compton to reassign the case to LA Metro (downtown LA), where the case was dismissed at arraignment).
"The court has held that once you make the demand, if you meet the residency or employment qualification, the jurisdiction shifts to the court at the county seat ( Smith v. Glendale Municipal Court, 167 CalApp2d 534)."

[article continues below...]

Cop at Suspicionless Checkpoint Starts Barking Orders, But Then Flees from Camera
Creepy DHS Supervisor tries to open vehicle door when motorist asks officer's name 4-17-13 [Featured on WhatReallyHappened, Economic Policy Journal, battlefourtimes, and many others.]

DontWakeMeUp.Org Launched As Civil Rights Lawsuit Proceeds Against Texas Troopers
Trooper facing civil suit denies threatening motorist with arrest, despite being recorded 4-16-13 [Featured on WhatReallyHappened.com.]

The article CA introduces "AB 666", an evil scheme to fleece motorists and eviscerate their rights (3/25/13) was featured on WhatReallyHappened.com, Rense.com , Economic Policy Journal , and RomanCatholicReport.com. I was a guest on Dr. Kevin Barret's radio show Wednesday March 27th discussing the article and related issues. The MP3 can be heard here (2nd hour.)
Also see:

• Father Charles E. Coughlin warns of the war propagandists, their system of financial control and their evil "blood business" [Featured on WhatReallyHappened.com, RepublicBroadcasting.org , and Fourwinds10.net.]
• Oppressing the poor and defrauding a laborer of his just wages: "sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance"
  Pope St. Leo I condemns "unrighteous and shameless avarice," and explains that "usury of money is the death of the soul." Comments can be posted in the guestbook.

Case law precedent in California states even more strongly, in case there be any doubt, that officers have no discretion in the matter and that the motorist's demand for the County Seat is precisely that. It simply can't get any clearer than this, proving once again that the officers are not law enforcement agents, but rather revenue agents with disdain for the law and hatred for law-abiding people who dare to question their so-called "authority.":

Smith v. Municipal Court, 167 Cal.App.2d 534 [Civ. No. 23349. Second Dist., Div. One. Feb. 3, 1959.] states, in part:

"We are of the opinion that it was the intent of the Legislature to permit the person arrested upon a charge such as that involved here to designate the place at which he should [167 Cal.App.2d 538] appear and be tried. The section requires the officer to specify in the notice or citation the place at which the person shall appear and provides that this place shall be either before the nearest or most accessible magistrate within the county with reference to the place where the arrest is made or upon demand of the person arrested, before a magistrate in the county seat...

"...Inasmuch as paragraph (c) (2) of the section provides for a demand on the part of the person arrested, we must assume that the Legislature intended the word "demand" to have its ordinary meaning and the import which that meaning gives to the statute.

"...If he has a right to demand that as something due him, that right cannot be denied him at the discretion of the arresting officer.....

"...for if the arresting officer may disregard the demand of the arrestee the right to make the demand becomes meaningless.

"We hold therefore, that the arresting officer was upon the demand of petitioner required to specify the municipal court at the county seat as the place where petitioner should appear

"...We find no merit in this [the prosecution's] contention, for to uphold it would permit the arresting officer to violate his duty to respect the demand of the person arrested as to the place of appearance and by his violation defeat the rights of the arrestee under the section. The arrested person, unless he resists arrest, has no means of asserting his rights under said section 739 except to do as petitioner [167 Cal.App.2d 541] did here, immediately demand that the hearing on the charge against him be transferred to the county seat in accordance with his demand to the arresting officer."
[A more thorough summary excerpt of the ruling can be found at the bottom of this page.]
* This article was featured at WhatReallyHappened.com, Economic Policy Journal , and From the Trenches World Report.

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, Whittier Daily News, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Veterans Today, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, Jonathan Turley blog, National Motorists Association, RomanCatholicReport.com, Republic Broadcasting Network, WorldNetDaily, Dr. Kevin Barret's Truth Jihad radio show, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Redlands Daily Facts, BlackBoxVoting, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com.

This article was featured on WhatReallyHappened.com , Economic Policy Journal, From the Trenches World Report , The Daily Paul (most popular of the day), Fourwinds10.net, and TheLibertyCaucus.com. The companion article and video Obnoxious CHP cop tries to make people stop filming him was Headlined on OpEdNews.com and made it to the most viewed list within moments. :-)]

Watch what happens when a kook cop tries to make my wife & I turn off our videocamera in late 2008 [almost to one million views!]:

Smith v. Municipal Court, 167 Cal.App.2d 534 [Civ. No. 23349. Second Dist., Div. One. Feb. 3, 1959.] "On June 23, 1957, petitioner was placed under arrest in the city of Glendale by a police officer of that city. At the time of the arrest the officer prepared a citation charging petitioner with the violation of section 476, subd. (c) 1 of the Vehicle Code for allegedly having made a right turn against a red light in violation of that section. Petitioner then demanded that the arresting officer specify in the citation as the place for him to appear the municipal court at the county seat, namely, Los Angeles. This the arresting officer refused to do and specified in the citation the respondent court as the place at which petitioner would, by signing the citation, promise to appear. Petitioner refused to sign this citation and was thereupon taken into custody by the arresting officer and removed to the Glendale police station where he was booked, fingerprinted, photographed and released on bail. "On June 24, 1957, petitioner appeared in the respondent court, objected to the jurisdiction of that court and demanded that the cause be transferred to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District. His motion was denied and he was thereupon arraigned upon a criminal complaint... "...It is petitioner's contention that under section 739 of the Vehicle Code he had the right to select the court before which he would be obligated to appear and having made his demand that he be cited to appear at the county seat, the municipal court there was the proper court for the trial of the action and that the respondent court therefore acted in excess of its jurisdiction in proceeding to try him and abused its discretion in refusing to transfer the action to the municipal court at the county seat.... "[1a] We are of the opinion that it was the intent of the Legislature to permit the person arrested upon a charge such as that involved here to designate the place at which he should [167 Cal.App.2d 538] appear and be tried. The section requires the officer to specify in the notice or citation the place at which the person shall appear and provides that this place shall be either before the nearest or most accessible magistrate within the county with reference to the place where the arrest is made or upon demand of the person arrested, before a magistrate in the county seat or a magistrate in the judicial district in which the offense was alleged to have been committed. It is respondent's contention that by the use of the word "either" in paragraph (c) of section 739 of the Vehicle Code the Legislature evidenced its intent to give the arresting officer the right to specify in the citation the place at which the arrestee should appear. We do not so read the statute. It is apparent that while the statute requires the officer to specify in the notice one or the other of the two places for the appearance of the arrestee, it does not leave to his discretion which of the two places shall be named. If no demand is made by the arrestee the officer must specify the place of appearance as before a magistrate within the county which has jurisdiction of the offense and who is nearest and most accessible with reference to the place where the arrest is made. But if a demand therefor is made by the arrestee the officer must specify as the place of appearance a municipal court within the judicial district at the county seat or at the demand of the arrestee, before a magistrate in the judicial district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. "Inasmuch as paragraph (c) (2) of the section provides for a demand on the part of the person arrested, we must assume that the Legislature intended the word "demand" to have its ordinary meaning and the import which that meaning gives to the statute. "Demand" is defined as: "An asking with authority, claiming or challenging as due." The clear import of the statute is therefore to give the right to the arrested person to specify the place of his appearance and trial. If he has a right to demand that as something due him, that right cannot be denied him at the discretion of the arresting officer. "...for if the arresting officer may disregard the demand of the arrestee the right to make the demand becomes meaningless. Had the Legislature intended that the officer might at his discretion fix the place at which the arrestee should appear, it would have been a simple matter to eliminate paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph (c) and change paragraph (c)..." "...We hold therefore, that the arresting officer was upon the demand of petitioner required to specify the municipal court at the county seat as the place where petitioner should appear..." "...In arriving at this conclusion we have not overlooked the contention of the respondent that inasmuch as petitioner was taken into custody and did not sign a promise to appear that the provisions of section 739 cannot be applied. We find no merit in this contention, for to uphold it would permit the arresting officer to violate his duty to respect the demand of the person arrested as to the place of appearance and by his violation defeat the rights of the arrestee under the section. The arrested person, unless he resists arrest, has no means of asserting his rights under said section 739 except to do as petitioner [167 Cal.App.2d 541] did here, immediately demand that the hearing on the charge against him be transferred to the county seat in accordance with his demand to the arresting officer."