On the matter of the City of Costa Mesa prohibiting sleeping in our vehicles vs. those who adhere to the practice as a matter of choice and necessity
by Linda Witt-King
In September and October of 2019 I received two citations from the Costa Mesa Police for sleeping in my car in violation of the City's municipal ordinance CMMC 10-194.
In court I pleaded not guilty, refused the services of a public defender and requested a jury trial as was provided for on the back of the citations issued to me.
All during 2020 we went back and forth to court for preliminary trial dates, to reschedule missed court appearances by the City, to discuss how we would proceed to trial in light of the lockdown. Then on February 4th of 2021 we were finally scheduled to conduct my trial.
And on February 4th, 2021, in a move that surprised us all, presiding Judge Haskins dismissed the charges from the bench.
On the last day that the City was allowed to appeal, they did exactly that - they appealed the judge's dismissal questioning his jurisdiction to dismiss the charges and sent me their Appeal document which I was now being called upon to file a Responsive Brief defending the judge's jurisdiction.
So, all through the remainder of 2021 I worked to do the research, to interview prospective lawyers to try to find someone qualified to help me with this - there was no one. I was in unexplored territory with this and no BAR attorney was gonna touch it. They would risk being disbarred if they did.
So, working from my minivan, I wrote my own. It took me awhile, I missed all their due dates while I worked to find space and time and money to write and produce my filing, all while maintaining sufficient charge on my laptop so that I could keep working.
And finally, on January 12th, 2022 I did indeed file my Responsive Brief with the Appellate Court...
...only to learn when I got to the window where I would file my brief, that the Appellate Court had already ruled on the matter just the week before. That did not, however, prevent me from filing and serving my Responsive Brief
In their ruling the Appellate judges did affirm Judge Haskins' dismissal of the charges against me.
They did not, however, rule on my several motions for remedy, nor could they since they had already ruled on the matter brought to them for their ruling before I was able to file my brief for them to include in their deliberations.
Trusting that all is occurring in Divine Right Timing, grateful that my Responsive brief has been filed and is now a matter of public record, I now await certainty about what is to be my next step in reclaiming the Inherent Divine in this matter, for that is my assignment, my purpose and my intention.
Below is a YouTube video rendering of the 62 page Responsive Brief filed with the court on January 12, 2022 with an excerpt of the opening Memorandum in Support of Motions and Requests for Judicial Notice copied into the description box below the video: