Time: Fri Dec 12 05:12:34 1997
To: Daniel_Kelley@msn.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Manual to Affect a Citizen's Arrest." (fwd)
Cc: 
Bcc: sls
References: 

Dear Dan,

I believe you want to say "Effect", not "Affect".

To "affect" is to feign, or pretend.
To "effect" is to make something happen.

Your book explains how to make an arrest happen.

"Manual to Effect a Citizen's Arrest."

Check your English language dictionary.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com


>
><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>
>
>===========================================================================
>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
>B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
>tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
>email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
>website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
>             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
>             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
>_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
>======================================================================== 12
>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail