Time: Fri Dec 12 04:40:58 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "Manual to Affect a Citizen's Arrest." (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:58:03 -0800 >From: Richard Aaron <amadeus@adnc.com> >Subject: Re: Second Inquiry To Senator Steve Peace >Cc: Senator.Peace@sen.ca.gov > >Dan, > >This commentary is a fine piece of work, and I'm taking liberty to send it >to some friends on my e-mail list who would like to know more about >"Citizens Arrest". Your book is well worth reading and using the procedures >in it to pursue a citizens arrest when nothing else works or won't work due >to conflicts in the "system". > >- Richard > >>Daniel Van Kelley >>1920 Beta Street >>National City, California 91950 >> >>619 262-8375 E-mail: Daniel_Kelley@msn.com >>Fax: 619 262-8581 >> >>December 11, 1997 >> >>Senator Steve Peace >>7877 Parkway Drive, Suite 1B, >>La Mesa, California 91942 >>(619) 463-0243 >>Senator.Peace@sen.ca.gov >> >> Subjects: Penal Code ß817; Manual to Affect Citizen's Arrest. >> >>Dear Senator Peace, >> >>This is my second communication in these matters. I made an inquiry, >>November >>8, 1997, via E-mail, concerning Penal Code ß817. Your staff acknowledged >>receipt of my E-mail the following day. I have yet to receive a response to >>that inquiry from you or your staff. I have proceeded in this matter and >>desire to apprise you of my findings, concerns and intent. >> >>It is my desire to work with you in the future, should you be willing to do >>so. It is my goal to stop the constant escalation of violence in our >>communities. To facilitate that goal, I have written a book of my private >>opinions called "Manual to Affect a Citizen's Arrest." The main focus of >>this >>book is the Penal Code and the benefits to the Citizen to be derived from its >>lawful exercise. The book does not offer "Legal" advise, nor is it intended >>to be a substitute for "Legal" advise. We have already produced the first >>limited, but, very successful seminar. We are presently setting up a second >>seminar that will be open to the public at large. Hard cover copies of the >>book should be available at the next seminar. >> >>It is our intention to give seminars to teach Citizen's about their civil >>powers of Citizen's Arrest to enforce and protect the Citizen's Private >>Interest. We intend to make the Citizens aware of the distinction between >>Federal, State and Municipal Corporation's mandate to protect the public >>interest at large and the Citizen's obligation to protect his or her own >>Private interest through exercise of Citizen civil powers of Citizen's >>arrest. >> >> >>It is our contention that it is time for the Citizens to reassert their civil >>powers by reclaiming and exercising the laws of this state, starting with the >>Penal Code. Citizens have sat back for to long and allowed arrest and >>initiation of criminal prosecutions to become the exclusively domain of the >>Federal, State and Municipal Corporations. History again repeating itself, >>public servants have become non-responsive and a financial and emotional >>burden upon the Citizens. >> >>Intimidation breeds fear; and fear breeds hatred; and hatred breeds anger; >>and >>anger breeds violence. Public servants have been allowed to police themselves >>for too long. Delinquent public servants are responsible in great part for >>the intimidation, fear, hatred and violence in our culture. The American >>form >>of government is the greatest form of government there is. It is time for >>the >>citizenry to bring the law and accountability down upon the heads of our >>public servants. >> >>We, as Citizens of the United States of America, do not need, nor want, these >>paramilitaries police forces roaming our streets in police cars and assault >>vehicles. Likewise, street criminals will no longer be tolerated by fully >>informed and prepared Citizens. The law and modern defensive technologies >>provide, for the fully informed Citizen, little need to turn to handguns and >>assault rifles to maim and kill to protect themselves. >> >>It is time to put "Peace Officers" back into our neighborhoods to keep the >>peace, not to police and violate it. It is also time to get law enforcement, >>the judiciary, and the public school system out of the social engineering, >>and, revenue oriented collection "business." It is time for the law to be >>enforced equally upon all Citizens by Citizens. It is time for public >>servants to know chapter and verse of law that governs their authority, and >>the pains and penalties for violating it. It is time for public servants to >>know that criminal prosecution may be initiated and imposed at any time by >>any >>Citizen under authority of law, without initial consent or assistance of any >>public agency or servant (PC ß837, ß839, ß847). It is time for the >>Citizen to >>impose accountability upon all public servants and common criminals. >> >>It is my hope that you and your staff will be able to support this statewide >>networked effort. >> >>Penal Code 817 >> >>Upon reviewing the Internet version of SB 33, SB 1379 and SB 123, I found >>that >>you introduced these senate bills. I would appreciate your providing the >>names of those Senators who voted for and against these bills. I am not >>quite >>sure what your motivation was for this legislation, but I view it as being in >>the right direction for the most part. >> >>I understand PC ß817 to be the generalized codification of the People's civil >>powers of Citizen's arrest, that is convoluted with official authority and >>relegated to a peace officer. Please refer to PC ß15, ß19.4,ß834, ß837, ß841, >>ß835, ß839, ß847, ß142 (a), ß740, ß813, ß701-714, and etc. >> >>The first exception I take to this code is it designates "Peace Officers" >>when >>it should read "Any Person." As Citizens, police officers may be said to >>already possess said powers and liabilities. Notwithstanding the second >>exception hereafter, if PC ß817 had been directed toward empowering the >>Citizen, it would have been an excellent piece of legislation in my opinion. >>It is time that the Citizen has real access to the judicial system, >>instead of >>lip service through municipal corporations and their agents. >> >>The second exception is to the entire paragraph, PC ß817 (a) (2). The >>"California Penal Code" has never been defined to have any other purpose than >>to provide method, procedures, and definitions of crimes in law for the >>arrest >>and prosecution of crimes and public offences. Never before, after having >>issued an arrest warrant, has the question of judicial review and >>determination to proceed to prosecution of a crime been placed at the >>discretion of the police officer who obtained the warrant. >> >>Penal Code ß817 (a) (2), as written, serves to encourage law enforcement >>abuses, among them, unlawful arrests and seizures for purposes of >>investigation, harassment, or political motives. It is absurd to think that >>the authors of our Constitution(s) intended that arrests would be made for >>crimes with no intent or mandated purpose of prosecution. >> >>This new class of arrests, and it will become that in practice, gives any >>peace officer the power to state any allegation necessary to obtain an arrest >>warrant without fear of any further judicial review. The peace officer may >>then exercise the powers, under that warrant, he would otherwise not have. >>The officer's allegations supporting the warrant may never be considered by a >>magistrate again. Meanwhile, the police officer, for whatever purposes, may >>search and seize unrestrained and unaccountable. I remind you that the law >>enforcement's wall of silence does not exist because they make mistakes and >>are human, but, because some of them are deliberately abusive and commit >>crimes against the Citizens. >> >>SB 33, Section 4, indicates in part the following: >> >>"SEC. 4. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to do >>all of the following: >>(1) By enacting Section 817 of the Penal Code, to codify that portion of >>People v. Bittaker, 48 Cal. 3d 1046, that upholds, under the doctrine set >>forth in People v. Ramey, 16 Cal. 3d 263, the legality of issuing an arrest >>warrant upon a complaint without that complaint instituting a criminal >>action." >> >>The cases cited, Bittaker and Ramey, are not being viewed as they should be. >>In both of these cases you find the conduct of the police officers to be >>wrongful. >> >>In the Ramey case you have an admitted practice by the police officer of >>failing to obtain proper warrants for search and seizure of a person and >>home, >>for such crimes as receiving stolen goods. Apparently, what occurred here is >>you have a police officer failing, as a matter of practice, to obtain a >>warrant as required by law. The admission of a this police department >>practice of committing these criminal acts is ignored. The political fix, >>for >>the officer's lack of even attempting to get a warrant and admitted crime, >>was >>to administratively produce new forms dubbed "Ramey" arrest warrant. If we >>are to have any expectation that our peace officers can be trusted to obey >>only lawful orders and procedures, the police officers involved should have >>been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. >> >>In the Bittaker case you have an example of a warrant being issued to enter a >>motel room to arrest a criminal that was based upon a detailed affidavit of a >>police officer that in fact was false. Apparently, this is an example of the >>means being justified by the ends. Bittaker was a criminal and should have >>been lawfully apprehended for the crimes he committed, not for those he did >>not commit. >> >>It is absurd to cite two cases of police abuse of existing law and turn >>around >>and enact law granting even greater discretion and opportunity to police >>officers for this delinquent behavior. >> >>I have read People v. Ramey, 16 C.3d 263-281, and I find no mentioned >>"Doctrine," nor anything remotely resembling one in this case. Please >>provide >>your documentation of said doctrine. In Bittaker, 48 Cal.3d 1046-1111, I >>find >>at page 1070, footnote 6, it states as follows: >> >>"Ramey' arrest warrant and affidavit forms resulted from our decision in >>People v. Ramey (1976) 16 C.3d 263 [127 Cal.Rptr. 629, 545 P.2d 1333], which >>held that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and >>seizures applies to persons as well as to property." >> >>So, instead of a judicial determination setting in place a "Doctrine," we >>have >>an administrative process of creation of forms and procedures dictating the >>enactment of law. In the so called "Ramey" (Form) arrest warrant it >>states at >>the bottom as follows: >> >>"The complaint underlying this warrant of arrest does not initiate a criminal >>proceeding." >> >>We have had the word "complaint" notoriously understood throughout the Penal >>Code to be for both demonstration of probable cause for arrest; and >>prosecution of crimes and public offenses. Now we also have the vary same >>word, "complaint," that absolutely "does not initiate a criminal proceeding," >>and no requirement of any specific judicial review upon the return of these >>special warrants. The word "Ramey" does not appear anywhere in the Penal >>Code. Penal Code 817 does not follow Bittaker in its attempt to define the >>two purposes of a complaint. Penal Code 817 creates a new class of complaint >>that is ripe for abuse upon the citizenry. >> >>The Bittaker case did not establish a new type or class of complaint that >>might be used to search and seize without intent, nor necessity, to initiate >>arrests and prosecution of alleged crimes. The Bittaker case merely pointed >>out that a complaint filed to demonstrate probable cause for an arrest >>warrant >>did not necessarily need to be used as the complaint filed before the >>magistrate after the person is arrested. The relevant language of Bittaker, >>at 1071, reads as follows: >> >>"It is apparent that the "complaint" as the term is used in the Penal Code., >>serves two different purposes. One is to initiate criminal proceedings; the >>other to demonstrate probable cause for an arrest warrant. A complaint >>can be >>used to institute criminal proceedings without serving as a basis for an >>arrest warrant, and we see no reason why the converse may not also serve-that >>a complaint can furnish probable cause for arrest even though a different >>document is used to institute proceedings. The important point, and one >>defendant concedes, is that probable cause was shown to support the issuance >>of the arrest warrant; it is immaterial whether that same document initiated >>criminal proceedings against him." >> >>It has always been clear that a complaint may serve two purposes, or it may >>serve either purpose, where there is lawful process and lawful intent to >>prosecute crimes and public offences. Under the language of PC ß817 (a)(2), >>every time an arrest warrant is falsely obtained from a magistrate by law >>enforcement for unlawful purposes it will remain concealed. There is no >>serious further review necessary by the magistrate to disclose this abuse, >>harassment or crime. The offending police officers will have absolute >>discretion to routinely return the warrant and drop the matter, after having >>made the unlawful search and seizure. >> >>There is no legal remedy for the Citizen by criminal or civil action, because >>the offending officers are shrouded in their immunity and previously sworn >>information and beliefs, under the warrant issued by the magistrate. >> >>Sworn Declarations of Police Officers. >> >>Knowing that attorneys and police officers have a built in plausible denial >>mechanism for giving testimony, declarations and making reports, I have a >>great deal of concern about this. Anyone familiar with statements made under >>oath or penalty of perjury, where the person testifying states that the >>testimony is based upon information and belief, knows you can not hold a >>person liable for what he believes. Not even, when the person founds that >>belief upon hearsay information. So this type of declaration by a police >>officer in support of a warrant of probable cause is not worth anything. >> >>Personal Perspectives: >> >>As to my attitude towards Police Officers, it should be understood that as a >>teenager it was common place for members of the National City Police >>Department to come and go at my home, whether they were on or off duty. They >>were viewed by my family, non of whom had anything to do with the police >>department, as neighbors and friends. I developed a great respect for them >>and what they did. They, above all else, could be trusted because they were >>honest and had moral character. Today, the only way you get to know the name >>of a police officer is by his direct acts against you, or by the officer's >>reputation of abuses against the Citizens in the community. This is very >>wrong and must be changed. >> >>Likewise, the metal detectors placed in our court houses are to me monuments >>to the lost respect and corruption of the integrity of our judicial system. >>This must be changed. "Justice is best done when it can be seen to have been >>done." There is no great mystery here. A judicial system that engages in >>criminal prosecutions of fictional, quasi, or victimless crimes, before a >>magistrate who is not require to be tested or to demonstrate his >>competence in >>the Constitution(s), or the laws of this State, is doomed. Passing a Bar >>Exam >>is very poor security for what is at stake here. >> >>The underlying problem, whether it be a police department, the judiciary, the >>State Bar Association, or the District Attorney, they are all self policing. >>The only solution is for the Citizens to exercise their civil powers of >>Citizen's arrest every time they find a public servant violating a statute or >>code, under authority of PC ß15, ß19.4, ß834, ß837, ß839, ß847. >> >>Requests: >> >>I would appreciate your providing the names of those Senators who voted for >>and against these bills: SB 33, SB 1379 and SB 123. >> >>In People v. Ramey, 16 C.3d 263-281, as previously stated, I find no mention >>of any "Doctrine," nor anything remotely resembling one in that case cite. >>Please provide your documentation of said doctrine. >> >>I know this is not necessarily within the scope of your office, but, I would >>appreciate any information as to where I might find the Criminal Practices >>and >>Procedures; and the Rules of the Court for PC ß837, ß847, ß701-ß714. >>Apparently, since these codes deal with the Citizen's civil powers of >>Citizen's arrest; Security to Keep the Peace; and Citizen Access to a >>Magistrate, as required under the Penal Code, they have been left out of the >>process for rules, practices, procedures and codification of laws. At >>least I >>have been unable to find any reference to them in the many versions of >>practice, procedures and rules I have examined. >> >>In Closing. >> >>I can not impress upon you enough my concerns about the abuses that will >>occur >>under PC ß817. I shall look forward to your response to these concerns. >>Should, as before, I not hear from you or your staff by the end of this >>month, >>I shall consider your lack of a response, as your intentional desire to >>remain >>silent upon the opinions, statements and concerns expressed herein. >> >>May God Bless You, Your Family, and Your Staff, during this Christmas Season >>and throughout the coming New Year. >> >>Respectfully Submitted >> >>Daniel Van Kelley >>UCC 1-103, 207; 3-501, et seq. > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail