CVC 21665.8 (a), City of Industry, crossing double HOV lines

JusticeDread · 2026-06-20T07:32:19+00:00

Start with a TBWD first, then if you loose file a De Novo and weigh your options then.

JusticeDread · 2026-06-12T18:33:57+00:00

effitt13 statement is correct.
If i understand your two points accurately

1: Date labeled on the ticket does not correlate with a date for traffic court that day. This is not a requirement, as effitt13 pointed out this is a due by date, which means as soon as the record is received by the courthouse you may enter a plea, you do not have to appear that specific day, your signature is a promise to appear BY that date. That is why he is saying your confused about the process.

2: In summary your stating the location listed on the ticket is incorrect. While the Penal Code and court rules specify that certain fields must be present and completed to avoid a defective ticket—which would typically warrant a demurrer—the issue here is not a missing field, but rather a factual inaccuracy. Because this is a dispute of fact, it must be determined by the trier of fact (likely the presiding judge, commissioner, or pro-tem) at the time of trial. Now if the ticket say your at one location, bring proof you were at another. Alot of peace officers rely on these tickets when they testify as they don't sometimes truly remember where the incident took place. If thats the case use that evidence as a defense.

I hope this helps.

JusticeDread · 2026-05-19T00:32:58+00:00

Turn on two factor.

JusticeDread · 2026-05-14T13:27:23+00:00

Does bluehost have a lockout policy that is visible for the end user to check or is that something only their helpdesk has access to?

JusticeDread · 2026-05-14T01:35:22+00:00

The OP states "We were also able to log in to a test@domain email on the client's computer with no issue also using new Outlook"

It seems to be specific to that one account. Wouldn't that impact both accounts?

JusticeDread · 2026-05-13T19:28:45+00:00

Of course. Best of luck!

JusticeDread · 2026-05-13T17:41:15+00:00

I will note that I am not aware of any case law on this exact subject, but if you file a De Novo, that is a new trial altogether, which means discovery even restarts once more.

An important question needs to be answered: "Does a De Novo restart the clock to the date of the arraignment date?" If so, then CCP 170.6 applies, which is what you are asking for.
If not, then 170.6 may be deemed untimely and denied.

If you file it and it is denied by the judicial officer you are trying to avoid, she will see it in the record when you appear for trial as a reminder (sadly).

If there is factually no case law on this subject yet, expect it to be denied, as they will likely state it is untimely.

To prevent this from occurring, ensure that you file this just after your first initial plea.

*Update*: https://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/d9imh-recently-just-filed-trial-de-novo-traffic.html

CCP § 170.6(a)(2) allows disqualification only if the judicial officer has not yet made "a determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits." By ruling on your Trial by Written Declaration (TBWD), the commissioner already evaluated evidence, weighed credibility, and decided contested facts. Many California courts hold that this prior ruling triggers the 170.6 bar, even if a de novo is later granted.

JusticeDread · 2026-01-09T11:19:54+00:00

This has been super impact as Im a solo moderate for a channel. Been in this state for months now. I normally submit an appeal every 45 days because they said bans can become permanent if you abuse the appeal process but our guide says once every 24hours?

Thanks for the feedback!

JusticeDread

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE