Next Steps...


"next" has a lot to do with what the Court is going to do, next.

However, since the judge seems so sure that all a person do is apply a little "common sense" and they can comply with the law; I have to admit, I don't have any. I have educated sense. I have book sense. But absolutely no common sense. So, I am no longer attempting to comply with the law on my own . . . I don't have the skills . . . the next time I'm stopped (and God only knows when that will be), I am going to ask for some sort of list of "DOT approved" helmets from which to pick -- I'm certain that wearing one of those will put me in compliance, since that's what most officers ask for. (I did a run with the local club today . . . a hundred mile turn-around, and of the seven or so cops I saw, no takers.)

As for the "decision", I am first going to give him one more opportunity to stick to his guns. I want him *fully* committed to his judgment. I'll do that by either a motion for reconsideration or clarification. Either way, I'm confident he's just arrogant enough to stand by his ruling, as is. When that is done, I will move to the California Supreme Court by petition for habeas corpus to ask that they order the court to quit applying the law to me in a way that is contrary to *everything* -- statutory language to precident decisions (read corrrectly) -- and, of course, if the problem is the vagueness of the statutes involved, to rule them unenforceably vague; e.g.: void.

And, I'm going to start now, here, to encourage folks to get Raring to take a look as this decision as it would open the door for a return trip to the 9th to run concurrent with the run at the Supreme. The portion of the injunction which the 9th did not uphold, they created the language this judge cited . . . all based on the notion stated by the 9th that there is such a thing as a "DOT approved" helmet, and that it has a decernable "appearance." An inquiry to the 9th, by Raring, based on the impact of that decision on the judge in my case(s), would not only be appropriate, but would justify awarding attorney fees . . . thereby offsetting the hours of Raring's time it would take to do the case. And, since they already have all the stuff they need to take out the law, and a person who is actively dealing with it's problems (to cover the excuse they used last time); I would think that they amount of work to reopen the door would be fairly slight, and the chances very good.

Raring might not be interested, or he may not agree that this decision gives him the opportunity I suggest to address the vagueness issue again with the 9th -- this time with a case of violation of a citizen's rights based on the 9th's decision in an ongoing situation.

I'm also open to accepting help on the shot at the Supreme Court, from Raring or some other competent attorney (I say "competent" so that you'll recognize that nobody with aim will do).

The decision I get from the Supreme Court is going to impact hundreds of thousands of California bikers, and potentially millions nationwide. I'm not real thrilled with proceeding on my own, but if I'm the last man standing, I'll answer the call. About that I seem to have little choice. Some people live a lifetime and never figure out their purpose in life . . . mine seems to have narrowed itself down to doing what I can to rid motorcyclists of helmet laws.

While all that is going on, I am also preparing for the trial in San Benito County (Hollister) on whether or not the correctable citation issued to me there, should have been written at all. A positive decision from that court should help seal the fate of the law on a short track. I know you've heard this before, but I have a good feeling about the Hollister possibilities.

Other than that, I am just going to continue to ride my bike like I already have the Freedom that they're lining up our young kids to fight for half way around the world, against people who could care less whether or not I have to wear a helmet. I was too young for Korea, and to early for Nam . . . my oath upon entering the service has been applied instead against "enemies ... domestic," and I will not shirk.

Anyway, since the question was far from stupid, I hope the answer is as well.

Sorry about all the philosophical stuff, but that what riding does for me . . . especially riding with a bunch of folks who would rather not be made to wear their helmets, but just aren't equipped to do anyting about it, know what I mean?

quig
quig@usff.com

| Home | Studies | States | Nation | Helmets | Press | Archives | Backfire | Shop | Contact |

© Copyright 2013 Sasnet Design. All Rights Reserved.