Time: Fri Dec 12 04:40:21 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 817; 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 817.  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 837, 839, 847).  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 817 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 15, 19.4,834, 837, 841,
>>835, 839, 847, 142 (a), 740, 813, 701-714, 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 817 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 817 (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 817 (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 817 (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 15, 19.4, 834, 837, 839, 847.
>>
>>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 837, 847, 701-714.
>>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 817.  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