Educational Purpose

 Bad information IS going to get on the record. You don’t get to strike everything that you object to. You only get to flag it as something questionable. As long as you bring it up before the end of that “session” you have properly objected and flagged it so that you can use that later in other defenses or appeal.

He seems to be glossing over the difference between: hearing and trail.

Nelda,
Let me ask you another question. Were you able to use case law in your administrative hearing? Did it even matter since the rules aren’t strictly applied?

For me, this is all about preventing waste of resources including time. The courts don’t like waste. I consider bad information getting on the record as waste, not just for myself, but for all parties involved.

I’m trying to determine how to get a judge in CA disqualified. What arguments have you all used to do this? We are beyond the preemptory phase and have to show real prejudice of some sort.

Right, so that's the whole point, the 1915 Supreme Court ruling changed the right to travel to Motor Vehicles being a separate thing.
The way our country is structured, the Supreme Court gets to interpret the constitution. I don't necessarily like that, but that's the way it is.

In the same way, flying a helicopter would be the right to travel. Honestly I'm glad that helicopter licenses are heavily regulated and controlled, because I don't want any idiot who can afford a helicopter flying over my house and possibly putting myself and my family in danger.

So essentially, the Supreme Court classified Motor Vehicles in the same way that they would classify a helicopter.

The problem is that in 1915, things were very different, cars were not as common and way more dangerous.

The person argument does not hold up in courts, historically speaking if you look at case history, have AI help you search, you will not find any cases where someone argued that they are not a person and had their tickets dismissed.

The courts uphold that a person includes a natural human being - I don't like it, but those are the historical facts, and if you can prove otherwise with actual Court cases, I would love to see them.

Would it matter if it was an administrative hearing and not a court of law? The rules don’t necessarily apply in an administrative hearing.

Many many (like lots!!, like over 35 in the last 5 years) admonishments in the judicial records for CA judges for impartiality and for embroilment:

Embroilment occurs when a judge abandons their role as a neutral arbiter and becomes so personally involved that they essentially become an advocate or adversary in the proceeding. The pattern of behavior you have described fits this description perfectly.

This gives me confidence that the motion should be filed, that you are not the only one experiencing this. You should see what some of these judges have said to juries about the criminals they are about to sentence! It’s ugly!!

But don’t expect them to roll over without a fight. They need to keep up their fraud

Well, well, well!! Look at this! Thank you for the recommendation! Very helpful!!!

“A judge performed administrative functions in a manner that appeared to reflect abuse of authority and a lack of impartiality. (Ann. Rept. (2001), Advisory Letter 7, p. 20.) “

That’s exactly what happened in @CatherineAlbertini ’s hearing!

And yes, you are correct that driving is a privilege, but travel is a right. Gotta get your words/terms right in the legal arena where red means blue and up means down

Vehicle Code 470.  
“Person” includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.

Now look up Corporation in Blacks Law and you see that a corporation is a natural person. You see the lies of these scumbags