This is Part 5 of my story, about suing the California Highway Patrol.
If you missed any of the previous posts, you can read them here: Winning a lawsuit against the CHP feels a lot like losing
Now that you have the background, this is where things get really interesting. I say that because, this is where you start to see how the State has legal advantages that feel morally wrong. It’s where you start seeing things that make you wonder “How Can That Possibly Be Legal?” or “How Can They Get Away with that?” It’s where it becomes obvious that the same laws that govern us, do not apply to the State. Agencies like the CHP really are Above the Law. They do things that should be illegal, with the full support and backing of the State and the Courts.
I never had any idea things worked the way they do, until I stepped in it. I really think most people don’t know. If you have been gangstalked, like us, you probably already take a dim view of your Government because they not only refused to protect you from criminals, they even refused to acknowledge the crimes against you. Such a simple thing: Acknowledging the crimes we know they are aware of, crimes which we have all reported to authorities, most of us on multiple occasions. If they didn’t want to help, or didn’t know how to help, simple acknowledgment would still benefit us a great deal. Simple acknowledgement would make the crimes harder to commit. Simple acknowledgement would make it easier for us to get help and support outside of Government.
When you put it in context, denying the existence of the crimes that have been reported to them over and over, only makes sense if the crimes they are denying, are their own. Nothing else makes sense. That the FBI is unaware of gangstalking, is not even a possibility. We reported our situation to them 3 times. And we sure aren’t the only ones. They presumably wouldn’t cover up organized crime unless they had a very good (or bad) reason to do so. Sometimes the things left unsaid speak volumes.
Seeing how things really work and how petty, vengeful and morally corrupt the CHP behaved towards us, with the full support of the State and the Courts makes it clear:
Our Government puts itself before its citizens.
The reason I decided to take the CHP to court had a lot to do with the nature of INTERAGENCY INTERCEPTIONS. It feels like legal theft.
When the CHP sends you a bill, they tell you to notify them in writing if you dispute the charges. I did that. It’s silly, because it doesn’t change anything. Sure, they acknowledge that you dispute the charges. Then they send you another bill. They don’t actually reconsider the debt OR your reasons for disputing it.
When we didn’t pay the bill, the CHP swooped in and took our tax return in what is called an INTERAGENCY INTERCEPTION. I was beyond irritated. They took the entire tax return and continued to send letters for the balance of 197.00. Basically we were expected to foot the bill for, among other things, the report the CHP falsified, and tried to hang my husband with.
The ability to Intercept a disputed amount, while legal, is pretty shady. I definitely don’t think it should be legal. It’s like some grey area of the law where my rights can be infringed upon by the State, in a way that would never be allowed in the private sector. Any State Agency can make up an invoice, send you a bill and if you don’t pay it, they can take your tax return. They don’t need any proof or court order or paper. They are above all that. Once they have your money… your options are extremely limited.
So You Want to Sue the State of California?.. First, Jump Through These Hoops!
You have probably felt ripped off at some time in your life. Maybe you’ve even taken a business or an individual to Small Claims Court to try to get what you felt you were owed. If you decided not to do it, it could be that you didn’t think the amount of money was worth the hassle of going through Small Claims Court. The operative word here, is HASSLE.
If you think suing a private business or individual is a hassle (and it is), you should try suing the Government in Small Claims Court. It’s good for an education and probably little else. There are very different rules.
First of all, you can’t even sue the Federal Government, unless they agree to it. That of course is done in Federal Court. It sounds absolutely ludicrous. If no one could sue you unless you agreed to it, would you ever? I imagine the Feds feel the same.
When you sue a State Agency in California, you are basically suing the State, itself. In order to sue the State, you must first File a Claim with the State of California within 1 year of any incident you are referencing in the claim. To file the claim you fill out a manageable form, to which you attach evidence supporting your claim, and a check or money order for $25.00.
The State will look it over. If they think it may have merit, they then kick it to the Agency you are making the claim against. That Agency looks it over, and make the decision to deny or affirm your claim. (Somehow, I don’t think this is a difficult decision for them.) You are notified of their decision 6 to 8 weeks later.
If your claim is denied, you have exactly six months from the date you are notified of the denial, to bring a suit against that agency in Civil Court, for the amount of the claim. If you wait more than one year to file the original claim, or more than six months, after the claim is denied, you are past the statue of limitations. Hassle… right? That’s a
lot of hoops and rolls of red tape to go through, BEFORE you even begin the Small Claims process.
SO… the first time I file the claim, I send in my evidence with the claim form and a check for $25.00. You can then look on line (supposedly to see the status of your claim and follow it’s progress). I made the mistake of sending the claim in via regular mail the first time around. It then disappeared into the vapor, never received and never returned. The check was likewise, never cashed. (Putting a stop payment on a $25 check is pointless, since it costs $25 to do so. ) That check is still floating out there somewhere, valid and cashable.
Smarter and wiser the second time around, I sent the claim, the evidence, and the new check for 25.00 via USPS with Delivery Confirmation/Signature Required. This time it was processed. About 2 months later I get the expected denial from the CHP saying they were entitled to Intercept my tax return, because I had not paid the invoice… blah blah blah. No, acknowledgement of my supporting evidence, which included this little gem, I found on line.
This is an excerpt from a 2006 report from the State Controllers Office discussing the findings of their California Highway Patrol audit :
The evidence supporting my claim is the same as the what we planned to argue in Small Claims Court:
My husband should NOT have to pay DUI ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION RECOVERY COSTS, because he had not been drinking prior to, or during the accident, and he was not riding the motorcycle at the time. The DMV returned his drivers license, after hearing the evidence in a Civil Hearing and he had was not convicted of a DUI or any alcohol related offense in Criminal Court.
In a recent case (after our court case), which referenced the validity of charging people who are never convicted of DUI, the courts rendered a Judicial Opinion on the matter.
Below, is my own summary of some of the points made in the OPINION, followed by a few choice comments from me:
The charge for DUI Recovery costs is not a a fine or punitive in nature.
(REALLY? Cause it sure feels exactly like you are being punished when you get a bill for several hundred dollars or when they snatch your tax return with no court order.)
Because it is not punitive, a conviction is not necessary for them to be entitled to your money. It is more like a contractual obligation
(I sure didn’t agree to this in writing, nor did I ever enter into a verbal contract with the CHP, agreeing to pay these costs.)
Parties can dispute the bill, and then they have all the (plentiful) protections and civil remedies afforded to them under the law
This is a Joke, right?
Below is the actual Text of the Opinion. (An Opinion is not LAW, even a Judicial Opinion. It is more like a Guide to help Interpret the Law.) Read it carefully. By the time I’ve finished this story. You will think as I do…. The people who wrote this opinion are, at best completely out of touch with reality. And… they may very well be……complete MORONS!
The first part explains the problem the plaintiff has with The DUI Recovery Charges (The objection is the same as my own,)
Allende also claims that collecting law enforcement costs from persons not convicted of a crime raises constitutional issues and violates the general principle that counties should bear the costs of law enforcement absent a contrary legislative directive. The purported constitutional infirmity is that DUI defendants are singled out to pay law enforcement costs without criminal procedural protections.
Here is the Legal Opinion, which assumes that the world works differently than the one we actually live in:
We do not agree that imposing response costs on DUI offenders violates constitutional principles. The case on which Allende relies, People v. Thomas (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 798, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 856, involved the imposition of a criminal fine without finding a violation of the statute on which the fine was based (see id. at p. 804, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 856). The expenses subject to reimbursement under section 53150 are in the nature of a civil debt collectible by a public agency in the same manner as a contract debt. (§ 53154.) The debt is not a criminal fine and does not require criminal procedural protections. (Cf. United States v. Ward (1980) 448 U.S. 242, 248, 100 S.Ct. 2636, 65 L.Ed.2d 742 [distinguishing constitutional protections associated with civil and criminal penalties].) If a person invoiced for the expense of an emergency response disputes the invoice, the public agency must commence an action to collect the invoice amount as if the debt were a contractual obligation. (See Ops. Cal. Legis. Counsel, No. 23833 (Nov. 4, 1985) Emergency Response: Recovery of Costs, p. 1.) In such a civil proceeding, the public agency as plaintiff bears the burden of proving its entitlement to relief, and a person disputing an invoice is afforded adequate due process protections. – See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1099451.html#sthash.F3bHBJeh.dpuf
NONSENSE! The State, which is the only entity getting reimbursement here, does not have to prove anything. Unlike those of us that are at the mercy of the State (us tax paying citizens) they can snap up your tax return, without any court order or legal document proving you owe. The money can be taken, based only on the word of the State Agency. There is no written contract. There is no verbal contract… if it was something you knowingly and willingly agreed to, it wouldn’t be such a BIG surprise, when you get the bill. There is no Contractual agreement that involves you. The only Contractual Agreement appears to exist between the CHP and the California State Franchise Tax Board, which has agreed to steal from you on behalf of The CHP and other California State entities that can claim you owe then money, for any reason.
There are no checks and balances here. The Interagency Interception Laws offer no protection or oversight. It is bound to be abused. It feels abusive, invasive, unethical and, in my opinion, should absolutely be Illegal.
The Opinion sites a source that they say distinguishes the difference between Civil and Criminal Penalties. This is just a couple lines after stating that these DUI REIMBURSEMENT Fees were NOT CRIMINAL FINES. I don’t see one bit of difference between a PENALTY FINE AND A CRIMINAL FINE. Elsewhere in the document they make it clear that these DUI Recovery cost fines are not PUNITIVE in nature. A penalty is punitive, Civil or Criminal!
The Opinion is flawed.
And as for the Adequate due process protections afforded me…. REALLY? What are they talking about? The protections available AFTER they take the money in an Interagency Interception? Getting your money back after being robbed doesn’t really qualify has a protection. A protection is proactive, and would keep you from being robbed in the first place. The civil remedies that are available to someone who was never convicted of the DUI are perfectly adequate for one thing: Making sure the CHP gets to keep the money and you can’t do anything about it.
They don’t have to take you to court to get the money, you have to take them to court to get your money back!
This Opinion was written by people (notice the first word: WE) who clearly have NO IDEA how the system works. I understand that. I HAD NO IDEA how the system worked until I got wrung through it. But I am not writing legal opinions on a topic I know nothing about, trying to influence what happens to other people in a court of law. They are living a fantasy if they really believe there are adequate civil remedies available if you dispute the bill. The burden of proof is never with the CHP, as the OPINION suggests. The first time we went to court the CHP was the defendant, not the plaintiff.
Now that we are in possession of a DENIED CLAIM from the State of California, we are legally allowed to sue the California Highway Patrol in Small Claims Court to try to recover our tax return.
I’ll cover Small Claims Court in the part 6.
Justifiably Disturbed by Gangstalking 