RequestCal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 25, 2019AWN OWQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 San Ramon, California Timothy J. Dummer C/o 7527 Blue Fox Way F l L E 616-633-6778 SEP 13 2mg Defendant, In Pro Per Clerk of the C BYSUPONOI' Court ol CA u y ofosgrrl; Clara Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara People of the State of California ) Case: 19-AP-002569 ) plaintiff/Respondem’ ) Defendant’s Opposition and Objection to ) Order of Dismissal, 0r in the Alternative Motion For Reconsideration. V' ) M07701 To DI>MIU ) Date: ) Time: Timothy James Dummer, ) Dept: ) Defendant/Appellant, ) ) )J INTRODUCTION This case should have been dismissed on December 29m, 2019 pursuant to California Penal Code §1382(a)(3)l, 30 days afier nonresident Appellant Timothy James Dummer (Dummer) filed his Motion to Quashz and appeared at arraignment. Or at least by the second arraignment hearing on February 6, 2019, 176 days afier Dummer’s arrest. ' Penal Code Sec. l382(a)&(a)(3) (in part) “(a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the action to be dismissed in the following cases: (3) “Regardless of when the complaint is filed, when a defendant in a misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30 days afier he or she is arraigned or enters his or her Elea, whichever occurs later...” "A motion to quash...constitutes a ‘pleading"' Goddard v. Pollock (I974) 37 Cal.App.3d 137, I41 Def Opposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 1 UI-PUJN \OOONON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 l8 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Although Dummer’s Notice of Appeal was taken from the Order denying his Motion to Quash/Dismiss, that same order also found Dummer “guilty” of the alleged noncriminal offense. Dummer’s Notice of appeal stated “the Traffic Court ruled on the case, finding Appellant guilty.” The Court should have treated Dummer’s Appeal as an appeal of the conviction if an appeal of a denial of a Motion was not authorized by statute. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. Dummer Has Been Repeatedly Denied Due Process. From the beginning of this matter, Dummer has been denied due process. First, Dummer was seized3 on August 14m, 2018 without a warrant by a peace officer for ”4 underan alleged flcriminal violation. That seizure constituted a “warrantless arrest California Law.5 Then, Dummer was required by threat of imprisonment, to sign the citation, promising to appear by November 15‘ , 201 8.6 (79 days after the initial arrest.) Then, Dummer was denied a public prosecutor] and the Officer/Witness instead initiated action against Dummer in violation of Govt. Code §26500.8 Then, on September 17th, 201 8, Dummer, by Special Appearance filed a timely Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Service 0f Summons and a Motion t0 Dismiss for Want of Personam Jurisdiction, a timely Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of those Motions, and a timely Declaration in Support of those Motions, thereby verifying the motions. A hearing was finally set for November 29‘", 201 8 (128 days after Dummer’s arrest). 3 Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) a traffic stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. 4 “Some courts have been reluctant to use the term ‘arrest’ to describe the status of the traffic violator on the public street waiting for the officer to write out the citation [citations omitted]. The Vehicle Code however, refers to the person awaiting citation as ‘the arrested person.’ Viewing the situation functionally, the violator is being detained against his will by a police officer, for the purpose 0f obtaining his appearance in connection with a forthcoming prosecution. The violator is not free to depart until he has satisfactorily identified himself and has signed the written gromise to appear.” People v. Hubbard (I970) - 9 Cal. App. 3d 827 California Vehicle Code §40300.5 is the sole authority in the Vehicle Code for making so called trafiic stops in California. That section refers to traffic stops as “warrantless arrests”. 6 Penal Code Section 853.5(a) if the anestee refuses to sign a written promise, has no satisfactory identification, or refuses to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint may the arrestee be taken into custody. 7 California Govt. Code §26500. The district anomey is the public prosecutor, except as otherwise provided by law. The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all prosecutions for public offenses. 8 Incidentally, the case (Carlucci) relied on by the State for failing to adhere to Cal. Govt. Code 26500 is based on the finding of People v. Battle which held that infractions are not public offenses, which is Dummer’s argument. Def Opposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 2 N $9) OOwNONUI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Then, Dummer appeared specially at the November 29‘" hearing at the Superior Court. The Judge called Dummer before the court, but refused to have any hearing, denying Dummer the opportunity t0 be heard. Then, the Judge stated that a hearing would be scheduled at a “traffic court” sometime in the future, denying Dummer a meaningful hearing in a Constitutional Article Six Court of Record.9 Then a Hearing was eventually set for February 6m, 2019 (69 days afier Dummer first appeared, and 176 days afier Dummer was arrested). Then, on February 6‘“, 2019, the Traffic Court Denied Dummer’s Motion to Dismiss without cause and without prosecution ever providing justification for Dummer’s warrantless arrest.” The same Court Dismissed Dummer’s Motion to Quash, again without any cause shown. The same Court convicted Dummer and found him “guilty” 0f the alleged noncriminal offense, without ever establishing Jurisdiction (which remains challenged), and without a jury. Incidentally, and ironically, Dummer was arrested for and accused 0f committing a “public offense,” but Penal Code §689 declares, without caveat, that “No person can be convicted ofa public ofiense unless by verdict of a jury. . .” Then, without any reason for changing Dummer’s address, this Appellate Division mailed an Order T0 Show Cause Re Dismissal to Dummer’s (rarely checked) post office mailbox instead of the address on all of Dummer’s pleadirgg.” [Dummer Decl. Exhibit 1] Dummer did not receive the Order To Show Cause until August 24m, 2019 (375 days afier Dummer’s arrest), and too late to timely respond. Then, again without any reason for doing so, this Appellate Division mailed an Order Of Dismissal to Dummer’s correct address from his pleadings. [Dummer Decl. Exhibit 2] 9 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 6 JUDICIAL SEC. l. Thejudicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record. ‘0 “Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that the arrest was made without a warrant, and burden then rests on the prosecution to show properjustification.” People v. Holguin (App. 1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 520, 302 ” Dummer doesn’t even know where the Court got the address for Dummer’s post office box. Def Opposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 3 \OOO\)O\ 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. Because The Order To Show Cause Was Sent To The Wrong Address, The Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Order Dismissal. “Successful service by mail requires strict compliance with all statutory requirements, including those set forth in section 101 3; the failure to comply deprives a court ofjurisdiction to act. (Sharp v. Union Pacific R.R. C0. (1992) 8 Cal. App. 4th 357, 360 [9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 925]; Dobrick v. Hathaway (1984) 160 Cal. App. 3d 913, 921 [207 Cal. Rptr. 50]; Triumph Precision Products, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d at p. 365; Valley Vista Land Co. v. Nipomo Water & Sewer C0. (1967) 255 Cal. App. 2d 172, 174 [63 Cal. Rptr. 78].)” Lee v. Placer Title C0. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 508, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 572. When the Court mailed its Order To Show Cause to a different address than what Dummer provided, Dummer was deprived of due process. "Due process requires notice before a dismissal of a case may be entered. (See Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 1186, 1193 [18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 287]; Cordova v. Vons Grocery Co. (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1526, 1531 [242 Cal. Rptr. 605]; Gilbertson v. Osman (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 308, 313-314 [229 Cal. Rptr. 627], disapproved 0n other grounds in Woods v. Young (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 315, 328, fn. 4 [279 Cal. Rptr. 613, 807 P.2d 455]; see also Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 554, 561, fn. 7 [194 Cal. Rptr. 773, 669 P.2d 9].) [3] As one court noted, parties must distinguish ‘the authority of a court to dismiss a case because of the actions (or inactions) of its litigants [from] the procedural requirements that precede any such dismissal. At a minimum, such requirements include notice t0 the plaintiff of a motion or intent to dismiss and an opportunity for plaintiff to be heard.’ (Reid v. Balter, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1193.)" Lee, Supra [28 Cal. App. 4th 510] The Court was required t0 mail its Order to Show Cause to the address provided by Dummer. “[S]ection [CCP] 1013, subdivision (a), provides that the notice must be mailed ‘in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person 0n any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail’" Lee, Supra [28 Ca]. App. 4th 508] Def Opposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 4 omflambwww NNNNNNNNN-Ir-‘n-nu-nu-ay-t-au-tp-‘H WQQM$WNHO©WNOM#WNHO CCP §1013, subdivision (a) applies to the Court. “This subdivision applies to mailings by the court clerk.” (Triumph Precision Products, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1979) 91 Cal. App. 3d 362, 365 [154 Cal. Rptr. 120].) Lee, Supra II. Dummer’s Appeal Should Have Been Treated As An Appeal From The Appealable Order Under The Rule Of Liberal Construction 0f Appeals. Dummer timely filed his Notice of Appeal, entitled “NOTICE OF WRIT OF MANDATE or in the Alternative, APPEAL of the Traffic Court’s Dismissal and Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Quash/Dismiss.” Dummer went on to state that Dummer “hereby appeals from the order” Denying and Dismissing Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash, Service of summons, filed on February 6th, 2019.” Under the section entitled “ISSUES ON APPEAL” Dummer stated (emphasis added): “The Traflzc Court ruled on the case, tmding AQQellant gyilgy, without giving Appellant time to Answer to the Complaint, in violation 0fCCP § 41 8.10, subd. (e)(1).” Despite the title of Dummer’s Notice of Appeal, the issue on appeal was the guilty verdict. It’s hombrook law that a notice 0f appeal shall be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency. “In Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal. 2d 54, 59 [10 Cal. Rptr. 161, 358 P.2d 289], the California Supreme Court stated, ‘Under this rule, and prior to its adoption, it is and has been the law of this state that notices of appeal are to be liberally construed so as t0 protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced.’ (Accord, Vibert v. Berger (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 65, 67 [48 Cal. Rptr. 886, 410 P.2d 390]; Smith v. Ostly (1959) 53 Cal. 2d 262, 264 [1 Cal. Rptr. 340, 347 P.2d 684]; Kellett v. Marvel (1936) 6 Cal. 2d 464, 472-473 [58 P.2d 649].)” Vibert v. Berger , 64 Ca1.2d 65. Incidentally, on Dummer’s CR-143 Statement on Appeal Form, under the section entitled “Reason For Appeal", section 3(a) Dummer wrote: Prosecution never provided any evidence ofa warrantfor the arrest oprpellant. ‘2 The same Order found Dummer ‘guilty’ of the alleged violation. Def Opposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 5 \OWQO\U\J>UJN~ NNNNNNNNNHHH-t#-a~#~# WV¢M¥WNHO©WQONMAWNHO “Defendant makes a primafacie case ofunlawful arrest when he establishes that the arrest was made without a warrant, and burden then rests 0n the prosecution to show properjustification. " People v. Holguin (App. 1 956) I45 Cal.App.2d 520, 302. Then under section 3(b) on that same form, entitled “Describe the error”, Dummer wrote: The court erred when it found Appellant guilty without first establishing jurisdiction. Appellant was "arrested" without a warrant under PC836. 836 requires a minimum 0f a public offense. Noncriminal infractions are not I II'"criminal" and therefore cannot constitute ’public offenses. Infractions are not crimes”People v. Sava (I987) 190 Cal.App.3d 935, 235 CaI.Rptr. 694 Dummer contends that the Superior Court Judge’s decision to not hold a hearing on Dummer’s motions, or an Arraignment Hearing, while Dummer was before him was prejudicial error. Dummer thereafter believed his only option under his unique circumstance of challenging the traffic court jurisdiction was to not generally appear at the traffic court until Dummer’s request for proof ofjurisdiction was established, then wait for a dismissal of his Motion, and then file his Writ of Mandate (appeal). “[a] defendant submits to the court's jurisdiction by making a general appearance in an action’ by ‘participat[ing] in the action in a manner which recognizes the court's jurisdiction.” Factor Health Management v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 246, 250. Dummer alleges that California Traffic Courts erroneously consider all vehicle code violations as “public offenses” (criminal) in justifying a warrantless arrest under VC §40300.5 and PC §836, but then treats that same offense as a civil violation when a defendant wants to utilize protections associated with criminal accusations. Simply stated, Dummer suggests that the State cannot reclassify vehicle code violations as civil offenses in order to remove the panoply of constitutional protections associated with even the most minor criminal acts, insist that those offenses are criminal exclusively for the purpose of making arrests under the penal code, ignore a defendant’s motions t0 establish jurisdiction, and then force the defendant to generally appear at an inferior court, and call it justice. Def Opposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 6 \OWNQUIAWNfl NNNNNNNNNHu-HHu-‘p-‘u-n-n-a-t WQONUIAWN-‘OOOOQQUI-bWN-‘O It would lead t0 absurd results to consider noncriminal Vehicle Code violations as “public offenses” under Penal Code §836, considering that Penal Code 837 authorizes a private person t0 make a warrantless arrest for “any public offense.” It would be absurd to presume that the Legislature had in mind a private person anesting a driver for wean'ng designer sunglasses under VC §23 120, when it authorized warrantless arrests for “public offenses” committed in ones presence. VC §23120. N0 person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing glasses having a temple width ofone-half inch 0r more ifany part ofsuch temple extends below the horizontal center ofthe lens s0 as to interfere with lateral vision. Despite the deficiencies in Dummer’s Appeal, the intent was clear, and Respondents are not prejudiced by treating it as an Appeal from the conviction. “The court has the power of interpretation. ‘Where it is perfectly apparent, as it is here, that appellant seeks a review of an order of dismissal, and where, as here, the notice of appeal is filed in ample time from either the entry of the order or judgment, and where, as here, the notice of appeal is addressed to all respondents and to their attorneys so that no one is misled, and where, as here, no prejudice to respondents exists, the notice of appeal should be treated as being from the appealable order even if the notice incorrectly designates the ‘order’ as a ‘judgment,’ and erroneously gives the date 0f the entry of the judgment rather than that of the order. It is therefore held that the notice 0f appeal is effective as to all respondents.’ Holden v. California Employment, etc., Comm. 101 Cal.App.2d 427, 431, 225 P.2d 634, 636. As also pointed out in that case, notices of appeal should be liberally construed t0 permit, if possible, a hearing on the merits. Many cases are there cited t0 illustrate that in applying this liberal rule, courts have frequently construed the word ‘order’ to mean ‘judgment,’ and vice versa. In re Estate of Stone, 173 Cal. 675, 161 P. 258, there was an incorrect designation of the proceeding appealed from, and a wrong date in the notice. Nevertheless, the court, by liberally construing the notice, permitted the appeal to be effective. See, also, Airline Transport Carriers v. Batchelor, 102 Cal.App.2d 241, 227 P.2d 480; People v. Saad, 105 Cal.App.2d Supp. 851, 234 P.2d 785.” Collins v. City & County ofSan Francisco (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 719, 722 [247 P.2d 362 DefOpposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 7 OOOOQQUIAWNfl OONO’NU‘AWN-‘OOOOVQUIAUJN-d III. The Traffic Court Has No Jurisdiction To Rule 0n A Criminal Matter Or A Defendant’s Motion T0 Quash Based On Constitutional Grounds. The California Constitution at Article 6, section 1 declares that the judicial power of California is vested in (only) three courts. The Supreme Court, the courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize a traffic court or inferior tribunal to rule on a criminal defendant’s motion. Section 10 of Article 6 establishes which courts have jurisdiction in California, stating: (emphasis added). Art VI, Sec. 10: The Supreme Court, courts ofappeal, superior courts, and theirjudges have originaljurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. Those courts also have original jurisdiction in proceedingsfor extraordinary reliefin the nature ofmandamus, certiorari, and prohibition. The appellate division of'the superior court has original jurisdiction in proceedings fbr extraordinary relief in the nature 0f mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition directed t0 the superior court in causes subject to its appellate jurisdiction. flyerior courts have original jurisdiction in all other causes. The court may make any comment 0n the evidence and the testimony and credibility 0f any witness as in its opinion is necessaryfor the proper determination ofthe cause. The Superior Court, where Dummer set a Hearing and appeared on November 29m, 201 8, had jurisdiction to rule on Dummer’s Motion, not the inferior Traffic Court. “A court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine a case where the type of proceeding or the amount in controversy is beyond the jurisdiction defined for that particular court by statute or constitutional provision.” Cambra v. Justice's Court, 4 Cal.2d 445 [49 PaCal.2d 1121]. Dummer was arrested without a warrant.” The so called “traffic stop” was a Seizure under the founh amendment and state equivalent.” A warrantless seizure in California is only ”IS authorized and lawful if a person commits a “public offense Every person accused of a “public offense” is guaranteed a jury trial.” In 1968 most vehicle code violations became civil '3 “ The Vehicle Code however, refers to the person awaiting citation as ‘the arrested person.’” People v. Hubbard (1970) - 9 Cal. App. 3d 827 '4 A traffic stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Brendlin v. California, 551 us. 249 (2007) '5 Penal Code §836(a) (referenced by VC §40300.5) states in part: (emphasis added) “A peace ofiicer...without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur: (l) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a gublic offense in the officer’s presence.” l6 Penal Code §689 “N0 person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict ofa jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where ajury has been waived, or by a plea ofguilty.” DefOpposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 8 A \OWQONUi 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 offenses” in order to remove the Constitutional safeguards associated with even the most minor criminal acts.” (See Judicial Council 0f California, Recommendation and Study on A System for Classifying Minor Traffic Violations as Noncriminal Traffic Infractions 1967)” Any person accused of committing a “public offense” is entitled to representation of counsel.” The traffic court follows none of these procedures because it’s an administrative court with limited jurisdiction. In Confederated Tribes v. State of Wash. (9th Cir. 1991) 938 F.2d 146, the ninth circuit said: (emphasis added) “The state max not declare certaijn infractions as civil, remove the panoply of constitutional and procedural protections associated with criminal offenses, save itself the time and expense of criminal trials, and then insist the same infraction is criminal for purposes 0f expanding state jurisdiction and appropriating the revenue raised through enforcement of the speeding laws.” IV. Because The Traffic Court Lacked Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Dummer, No Valid Order Or Final Judgment Yet Exists. Nonresident Dummer has never consented to service of a citation/summonsz‘ being made upon him within this state or otherwise. California residents that register their vehicles in '7 "No such intermediate grade between civil and criminal breaches of legal obligations is known to our law; there is no room between the terms of sections 22 and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedures for quasi-criminal acts, or actions for their prevention or redress." Ex parte Clarke, l8 Cal.app Dec. 587, l4] Pac. 831 '8 In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 333, 42 Ca1.Rptr. 228, 398 P.2d 420, '9 Page [8. The people ofthe State of California do enact as follows: Section 15 of the Penal Code is amended to read: “A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, either ofthe following: l. Death; 2. Imprisonment; 3. Fine, except when imposed for a traffic infraction pursuant to Division l9 (commencing with section 43000) of the Vehicle Code; 4. Removal from office; or, 5. Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit in this state. Page l9 43004. Acts defined by law as traffic infractions and committed on or afier January l, 1968, do not constitute crimes or public offenses. (page l9) 2° Penal Code §858. (emphasis added) (a) When the defendant first appears for arraignment on a charge of having committed a public offense, the magistrate shall immediately inform the defendant ofthe charge against him or her, and of his or her right to the aid of counsel in every stage 0f the proceedings. 2' “Summons. Instrument used t0 commence a civil action or special proceeding and is a means of acquiring jurisdiction over a party. Writ or process directed to the sheriff 0r other proper ofi'lcer, requiring him t0 notify the person named that an action has been commenced against him in the court from where the process issues, and that he is required to appear, on a day named, and answer the complaint in such action. Upon the filing ofthe complaint DefOpposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 9 Ulhb-DN \OOONON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California, or have California driver’s licenses consent to service of a summons under VC §§17459 and 17460. Nonresidents do not consent under those provisions. Dummer challenged the warrantiess arrest as being made without authority 0f law, and thereby challenged jurisdiction of the traffic court. “[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Shearer v. Superior Court (1 977) 70 Cal. App. 3d 424, 430 [1 38 Cal. Rptr. 824].) Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal. App. 3d 703, 710 [215 Cal. Rptr. 442]. Dummer alleges that the warrantless seizure “the so-called trafi'lc stop” was unlawful, and prosecution had the burden ofj ustifying the seizure. Dummer was accused of committing a civil offense, but was arrested under criminal provisions 0f the Penal Code (PC §836(a)). When a person is seized without a warrant under the criminal statutes, a traffic court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. (Penal Code §1462.2). Because the traffic court never acquired jurisdiction, it lacked the authority to issue any orders. "It is said in Corpus Juris, volume 42, page 558: 'An order made by a court or judge wholly without jurisdiction is void and of no force or effect. A void order remains without effect as completely as if never entered."' (Peters v. Anderson, supra, 113 Cal. App. 158, at p. 160; see, also, 31 AmJur. 91 .) Svistunoflv. Svistunofl, 239 P.2d 650, 108 Cal. App. 2d 638. The Conviction and Order denying Dummer’s Motions should be set aside. "[A] court may set aside a void order at any time. An appeal [1 08 Cal. App. 2d 642] will not prevent the court from at any time lopping ofi‘ what has been termed a dead limb on the judicial tree--a void order." (Macmillan Petroleum Corp. v. Griffin, 99 Cal. App. 2d 523, 533 [222 P.2d 69].) Svistunoff v. Svistunoff, 239 P.2d 650, 108 Cal. App. 2d 638. /// /// /// /// the clerk is required to issue a summons and deliver it for service to the marshal or to a person specially appointed to serve it. Fed.R.Civil P. 4(a).” Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 1436. DefOpposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 10 OOOQQLIIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHr-tw-I-t-‘wn-tflp-n ”\IQM-hWN’HOOOONQUIAWN-‘o CONCLUSION For all these reasons, Dummer respectfully requests the Order of Dismissal be reversed and a Writ of Mandate be issued Ordering the Conviction of Dummer and the Denial of Dummer’s Motions overruled, or in the alternative dismiss this matter under the speedy trial statutes, or whatever such reliefmay be granted. Dated: 9/5’1/1 7 - /\ Tirfinéyj Dummer V \ Def Opposition and Objection to Order of Dismissal. Case l9-AP-002569 ll POS-030 ATI’ORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. State Bar number. and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Timothy J. Dummer C/O 7527 Blue Fox Way San Ramon, California I L E TELEPHONE No ~61 6_633 .6778 FAX No. (Optional)- E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional) SEP 1 3 201g ATTORNEY FOR (Name). SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F Santa Clara smngclcggborocf/xtcgfiwcmosgg Clam STREETADDRESS 191 N. First St BY DEPUTY MAILING ADDRESS 191 N_ First St cm AND ZIP cons San Jose, California 95] 13 R- A BRANCH NAME. PETITIONER/PLAnNTIFF:People of the State of California RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:Timothy James Demmer CASE NUMBER: PROOF 0F SERVICE BY FIRST-CLAss MAIL-CML 19_AP_002569 (Do not use this Proof of Service to show service ofa Summons and Complaint.) 1. | am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. l am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place. 2. My residence or business address is: C/O 7527 Bluefox Way San Ramon, California 3. 0n (date):9/5/20 1 8 I mailed from (city and state): Dublin, California the following documents (specify): OPPOSITION TO ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MOTION TO RECONSIDER. Declaration ISO Considered Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. D The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class MaiI-Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-030(D)), 4_ I served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one): a. m depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid. b.E placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. l am readily familiar with this business‘s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. 5. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a- Name 0f person served: Superior Court Santa Clara b. Address of person served: Kaci R. Lopez 70 W. Hedding St. West Wing 6th Floor San Jose, California 951 lO E] The name and address of each person to whom | mailed the documents is listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class MaiPCivil (Persons Served) (POS~030(P)). I dedare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 9/5/20 1 9 Kari Dummer ’M (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) mmmgamrse PROOF 0F SERVICE BY FIRST-CLAss MAIL-CML wwwpmtgugggggg posoaommanuaw 1, zoos] (Proof of Service) T0 Morin (:7‘ MM amen, JWL/ #4 flew «4r flown Z‘J/ameMMWO/W 2: ta ma ¢W ‘ 7w V/W W w W44 / W J:M MN s‘ #4 M, ,1”;MW M05,” to Z/M ya. W”; AW 39/ W “7% RECEIVED 05,5133 2"” 75L 7 fi g U S P S F l H S T - C L A S S M A | L ® E l i “ d ( o 7 3 , 2 7 g l u t , c h ( 1 / 4 1 ‘ h 4 . 1 0 0 2 ~ . f 9 m ( a w n , 1 M 0 S H I P - ' : : : ‘ A T O : 1 9 1 N 1 S T S T S A N J O S E C A 9 5 1 1 3 - 1 0 0 6 W l l l l H m ( 4 2 0 ) 9 5 1 1 3 ' ' M I N w w m k - S f . ” * i ' r ‘ S a n > Q S ’ Q Y I fl fi l t é r n ‘ k c , " ' 6 9 % / » 4 M i , l: u, ,‘_, ‘ ‘ \ 3 '. \C ‘y x n,‘ x ~ M - ~ , ..V _ _ _.. -«‘ r
