Support 911Blogger


Freeway blogging in Davis, October 09

What happens when citizens exercising their right of free speech come up against overzealous CHP officers who have decided to put an end to the display regardless of the Constitution and the law?

Watch our exciting video and find out.

www.freewayblogging.com

To make a long story short we were within our rights to be doing what we were doing, yet a couple of CHP guys who admittedly “don’t care what the law says” came along. We tried so many times to talk with them, to reason with them, but they were not open to it. They just repeated their assertions and ordered us to leave. Threatened with arrest and jail, we took down our banner and left. But we caught almost all of it on camera.

We filed a complaint with CHP against those 2 officers on December 4. When they complete their investigation and give us a formal response I will post it on my site.

On my website you can learn how to get started with freeway blogging, what you need to know about doing it. You can read my personal opinion about the legality of freeway blogging and the legal basis for it.

Our banner said “Investigate 9-11”. Try this. It's fun!

nice job, guys

you should put all 3 parts up here.

Freeway Blogging in Davis, California Oct. 9th, 2009

Part 2:

Part 3:

See all the videos and more at http://www.freewayblogging.com/

Our experience with CHP.

The first police officer clearly said that you did not have to leave, so you should not have left. You did the right thing to make the CHP come out and tell you themselves. What you learn is that it's mostly bark, and no bite. They intimidate people to volunteer to give up their rights. You do not have to show your driver's license or give your name without probable cause. "What is your probable cause for your search and seizure officer?" If they say 'suspicion' or 'distracting traffic' or trespassing on public property, then tell them that you are not distracting traffic and you have a right to be on public property. "You do not have probable cause officer, and I have the 4th Amendment right to not show you my i.d. or to give you any information about me. In fact, I want to see your i.d. immediately. You are required by law to give me your i.d." When you volunteer to give up your rights, then you have no rights, by law.

Demand to have his supervisor come to the scene. Ask to speak to his watch commander. Call the Sheriff's department and get them there. Show all of them the Civil Code. Keep them busy - that at least gives you more time to banner. It takes practice, but each time you are confronted, your confidence goes much higher.

"If you arrest us officer, then I will charge you with false arrest, false imprisonment, kidnapping, violation of our Constitutional rights."

"Officer you need to back up. You will be charged with assault if you do not back up."

You do not have to obey an unlawful order.

If you study basic law enough, then you can go so far as to place them under citizen's arrest if they push it. If they threaten to take you to jail, then you explain that you will leave 'under duress.' You have a case against the officers on video tape.

He is wrong about the overpass being part of the freeway. It is not, it is a separate road. Our last experience with CHP, we called the Inglewood police on them, and they tried to negotiate a compromise by having us walk the banners. We had nothing of it. In California anybody, even under color of law, who even attempts to interfere with your Constitutional rights can be fined $25,000 per person, per person. What that means is that each officer has to pay $25,000 to each person they attempt to abuse the rights of. If 10 of you are present, then each officer has to pay $250,000. Money talks. The civil code has worked every single time. In this last experience all the officers left us alone on the bridge to continue to exercise our freedom of speech.

Here is the Civil Code:
http://files.meetup.com/749288/California%20Civil%20Code%20CIV.doc
PRINT THIS OUT AND HAVE MULTIPLE COPIES ON HAND.

Show it to the officers and explain to them about the $25,000 per person, per person, even under color of law.

When you are on an overpass, especially a pedestrian overpass, then you are not on the freeway. When the CHP has told us that we are 'distracting traffic' I immediately tell them that I have a Driver's license, and when I am on the freeway, it is my responsibility to not get distracted no matter what is going on, and the same goes for all those driving on the freeway. Tell them that traffic is distracting traffic.

I suggest you go to a new bridge next time and keep doing this until you get very confident and comfortable. Thank you so much for standing up for your rights, and for sharing this experience with all of us. Please do not give up. In Los Angeles we had run-ins with the CHP until they just stopped bothering us.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Outstanding (on freeway overpass)

thanks Bruno for work you are doing and this excellent information.

Nuggets!

Words of encouragement mean even more coming from you my brother. Los Angeles misses you.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

unlawful orders and more

Hi Bruno,

Thanks for your support. Many of the arguments you make here were included in the complaint we filed with the CHP. However some of your arguments I think are incorrect.

I like the idea of calling the Sheriff's department to come out and calling the CHP supervisor or commander to come out and even calling the local police. That is something we can do next time. As you saw the Davis P.D. was there at the 2nd overpass already.

You are right we do not have to obey an unlawful order.

Did you watch all 3 parts of the video? If you did, then you saw where I told both CHP officers about the Civil Code Section 52.1.

Here is a key question regarding Civil Code Section 52.1: are you aware (or anybody reading this) of any case in California where an officer was found guilty of that Code and forced to pay $25,000? I am very interested in knowing about any such cases.

Our cameras did not catch everything, but I had copies of that Code on hand with me and I offered it to Mitchell. He refused to take it.

Did you make a videotape of your Inglewood freeway blogging? If so please post it.

The reason we left the first overpass is that my friends chose to leave. As I said on the video I did not think it was what we needed to do. They felt more scared by the cops than I did. There were 4 of us and it was a group decision.

We will be back.

During my conversation with Mitchell about distractions I told him that every driver has the responsibility to pay attention to the road despite all of the signs and other potential distractions out there. I also made this argument in our complaint.

We did ask for their names as you saw on the video, and they told us. The cop is not required to show us his or her ID, only to identify himself or herself.

About showing our ID, my friend told me there was a Supreme Court decision recently that affirmed the cop's authority to demand ID. I don't think we can refuse to show it and get away with it. I believe the cop can arrest a person and take them to the station to verify their identity. This is from a pocket guide from Copwatch in Berkeley.

http://berkeleycopwatch.org/resources/pocketguide05.pdf

The officers threatened to arrest us but not assault us. There was never any threat of assault.

I would not attempt to make a citizen's arrest of a cop. That would be an exercise in futility at best. We have much better recourse.

As to whether the overpass is or is not part of the freeway, I don't think it makes any difference. The Code which they relied on for their authority is the Vehicle Code section 2410, and it does not only apply on freeways. I am sure you are familiar with it.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=02001-03...

As our complaint says, by the California Constitution, this Vehicle Code section, and basic police procedure they totally mishandled the case and violated our right to be there and enjoy free speech.

When we go back, which will be in January, we may go to the same overpass or to another. The con of that one (Pole Line Road) is that the east bound traffic approaches it after coming around a curve, so they cannot see it for that long. But we were there in both September and October and I intend to be back there again, if nothing else just to prove that they are not going to drive us off. We are going to be tenacious.

Thanks for your support and keep it up!

MG

2410

Read 2410. It gives CHP absolutely zero authority to claim 'distracting traffic'. They have zero authority to violate your 1st amendment rights.

2410. Members of the California Highway Patrol are authorized to
direct traffic according to law, and, in the event of a fire or other
emergency, or to expedite traffic or insure safety, may direct
traffic as conditions may require notwithstanding the provisions of
this code.

2410.5. (a) The department may contract with a person or
governmental entity that is conducting a special event which will
impose extraordinary traffic control requirements at and near the
site of the special event to provide supplemental patrol services to
coordinate and direct traffic at and near the special event site. A
contract entered into pursuant to this section shall include
provisions for reimbursement to the department, and may include a
requirement for the posting of a bond, for the cost of providing the
supplemental patrol services, as determined by the commissioner.
(b) The patrol services, if any, provided under this section shall
be rendered by officers of the department.
(c) Contract patrol services authorized under this section shall
not reduce the normal and regular services of the department.
(d) Any contract fees received by the department pursuant to a
contract under this section shall be deposited in the Motor Vehicle
Account in the State Transportation Fund.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

citizens arrest

It may be an act in futility to make a citizen's arrest of a police officer and expect to take them in, but a citizens arrest is legitimate. This will take more research, but I trust my private sources on this.

we made no video tape of the inglewood encounter. i don't know of any case where someone got paid $25,000. An officer must prove that they are a legitimate officer, with proper identification; otherwise, they are impersonating an officer. I would like to see the Supreme Court decision that says we must show our papers when demanded by an 'officer.'

These are things we all must iron out as we move forward. I am determined to become educated on all these matters so as to be in control in all future encounters.

I am glad you are doing what you are doing. Let's keep it up!

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Assault in California

When the officer walked right up into his face, he was arguably committing simple assault.

How Do Prosecutors Prove a California "Simple Assault" Under Penal Code 240?

In order to convict you of "simple" or "misdemeanor" assault in California, the prosecuting agency must prove the following three facts (otherwise known as "elements"):

1. that you "willfully" acted in a way that could likely result in physical contact with another,

2. that you were aware that your "act" could likely result in that physical contact, and

3. that when you "willfully acted" you had the ability to follow through with the act that could cause that contact.

Let's take a closer look at what these elements mean.

Definition of Terms underCalifornia
Assault Law

"Willful" means intentional, as opposed to accidental. It does not mean that you necessarily (1) intended to injure the other person, or (2) intended to break the law.

For example: Joe, upset that Betty was yelling at him in front of his friends while they were watching the big game in their Victorville home, threw the remote control in her direction. Although Joe didn't intend to hit Betty with it (he just wanted to scare her so that she'd leave), he acted "willfully" when he threw the remote.

"Physical contact" means any touch.no matter how slight.if the touch is done in an angry, harmful or even offensive manner. The contact can be through one's clothing or even indirectly through an object or another person. The physical contact doesn't have to result in any pain or injury. Simply "spitting" on another would suffice.

It is important to keep in mind that according to California assault law, there is no requirement that you actually make physical contact with the accuser. This definition is important because of the requirements (set forth above) that (1) your act would likely result in contact, and (2) that you had the ability to make physical contact.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

The Complaint's Step One

You have to stand up against this. Your next step is legal action. Hire a lawyer or go to the ACLU.

complaint has been filed 1 week ago

DCRocker,

As the message says, "We filed a complaint with CHP against those 2 officers on December 4. When they complete their investigation and give us a formal response I will post it on my site."

I called the ACLU of Northern California prior to filing the complaint and they advised me to file the complaint.

I do not have the tens of thousands of dollars that an attorney would charge me to take this to court.

Fortunately I don't need an attorney. I believe that we can get better relief from the complaint process than the courts. The reason is we will not be in the adversarial role that you must be in when you go to court. And I think CHP will cooperate better this way. At least that is my hope. If we fought them and got a court order (after months and tens of thousands of dollars) CHP would likely do only the absolute bare minimum required by court order. This way I think they will be inclined to do more in terms of corrective action.

MG

Call their bluff

I know this may sound as bravado, but I would have called their bluff. I'm not speaking from having no experience.

With the films you had, I believe you wouldn't need to hire a lawyer. There's a good chance that if you would have said you'd be willing to fight this in court, and that if indeed you were found to be not guilty, that you would than see to it that a false arrest charge were placed on all officers involved. At worst, because it was Friday, you may have to have spent the weekend in jail.

For one, police, especially traffic cops, hate going to court. They usually do it on their own time and do not get paid. I've lost count on how many tickets I've gotten out of asking for a court date, instead of just pleading guilty, which is what they want you to do. Even when you ask for a court date they try to intimidate you by saying how additional costs and fines will be implemented. I even had one City attorney try to get me to feel sorry for the officer that had to take time off to come to court. I simply told him that I didn't want to be there either, and it was the cops fault I was there to begin with, so I didn't feel sorry for him at all. Every time I've done this the cop never shows and the case is dismissed.

I simply would have calmly stated that you'd be willing to take this to trial, and that if the officers are prepared to risk a lawsuit that you'd submit to arrest peacefully, but under protest.

I would be willing to bet they'd back down, especially if you added that you were planning to leave right after rush hour anyway.

Point is we all have to start to be willing to stand up to being arrested and not be intimidated. There are worse things than arrest, not many granted, but when it comes to fighting tyranny, sacrifices have to be made. For I can promise you this, the longer we allow ourselves to be backed down, the harder its going to get in the near future.

I just can't help but believe that with cameras and with the numbers you had that you were standing on the better of this.