Another Daniel in the Lion's Den

Our Brother Daniel shows God's merciful power, by saying to king Darius:

Daniel 6:22, "My God has sent His angel, and stopped the lion's mouth, and they have not hurt me: for uprightness was found in me before Him; and moreover before thee, O king, I have committed no trespass."

The trespass he was "accused" of was for making supplication to our Father, and not to king Darius.

In the following "court record," we can see that there is truly "nothing new under the sun." Our Daniel of today fails to make supplication to the secular kings of the municipality, and is therefore thrown into one of today's lion's den, the County Jail. For "failure to appear" on a "traffic violation," they came with guns and dogs on a Friday night to the house where he was staying, and arrested him. This was the first time that he had ever been in jail, though he has had a long running spiritual battle within the municipality concerning other "violations" which he had not "satisfactorily complied with."

Our Brother here having previously abated and defaulted the "warrant for arrest," and the municipality thereafter having recalled the "warrant," reissued it three weeks later. It appears that they reissued it because he had failed to serve the District Attorney; at least that is the excuse they used.

In the following "record," we have changed only the names and places, but the discourse is unchanged from the original transcript. Randy Lee's comments are in [brackets]. The comments are not a criticism of our Brother's noble and blessed witness of the hope that is in him, of course, but strictly for the edification of those that may at one time or another be confronted with the same type of situation.

While reading the following spiritual warfare, keep in mind while in that lion's den, he was awakened by the jail-keepers every hour during the weekend to deprive him of sleep before he was brought before "THE COURT."

Morning Session

Court: Daniel — —.

Daniel: You say that I am.

[*Comment: He here leaves the presumption of who he is, in the judge's mouth. All responses to anything said should be directed to the prosecuting attorney, not the judge.]

Court: I am sorry. I didn't hear you.

Daniel: You say that I am.

Court: "Daniel — —," that is what the name says here. I don't know if that is a true name or not. You are charged in Case 0532 in Count I with resisting, obstructing or delaying a police officer. Count II reflects the charge of being an unlicensed driver. How do you plead?

[*Comment: To further rebut the courts presumption, and to clarify what the court "doesn't know is true or not," he could have pointed out that the "name" was in all capital letters, and therefore could not be him.

The "obstructing or delaying a police officer" was for not answering the "officer's" questions the way he wanted them answered.]

Daniel: For the record, greetings in the name of my Sovereign Lord Jesus, the Christ, who all power - - it is written - -

[*Comment: The judge interrupts him as soon as he fails to enter a plea or speak the words of the world.]

Court: I will go ahead and enter a not guilty plea on behalf of Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel, the issue here is whether or not I am going to release you on your own recognizance. Why don't you tell me some information on your behalf which would give me a good reason why I should release you on your own recognizance. Do you have community ties? Do you live in the area?

Daniel: For the record, I am a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is written that thou shalt worship the Lord Jesus Christ, and only Him thou shall serve.

[*Comment: This is the correct initial response. It sets the state of the forum, and ignores the "benefit of discussion" that the court has offered him to enter into. He could have continued with, "and also for the record, I am not a 'Mr.' or a 'sir,' for those are pagan and heathen titles of nobility." (If they continue to use those designations, it doesn't matter, for you have rebutted the presumption that you are one of their pagan entities). Since he had already abated the court, he could have also added, "and for the record, the issue here is not about me, but about whether or not this is a Lawful court.]

Court: Sir, the question I have is: Do you live in Beastly, and how long have you lived in Beastly? The address here on the file reflects a Beastly address.

[*Comment: The court is trying to establish 'residency.']

Daniel: I live where ever I have to be at the moment.

[*Comment: More precise is "I live, move and have my being in Christ Jesus.]

Court: You do? Why don't you have a seat for just a minute.

Court: Mr. Daniel, would you stand up, please.

[*Comment: These two commands (sit down, stand up) were probably issued to establish a response to the 'name', and thereby 'presumed' jurisdiction.]

Daniel: You say that I am.

[*Comment: Having responded to the 'name' by sitting down and standing up at the direction of the judge, "you say that I am" is no longer a valid response. The judge now 'presumes' that 'you and the name are one and the same,' due to the obedience shown to the commands.]

Court: All right. Mr. Daniel, the Court has entered a not guilty plea. After taking a look at the motion that you filed today, it is clear to the Court that you intend to plead not guilty to the charges. Is that correct, sir?

[*Comment: A motion was not filed with the court. Here, the judge attempts to reduce the previously served abatements to 'a motion.' The proper response would be, "A motion was not filed with this court, but all defendants concerning this matter have been abated.]

Daniel: If you say so. I would like to address the Prosecutor.

Court: I am sorry.

Daniel: I would like to address the Prosecutor.

Court: Do you want to represent yourself on this matter? I need you to answer "yes" or "no" out loud - -

Daniel: Yes.

Court: - - so the reporter - -

Daniel: Yes.

Court: - - can take down what you are saying on the record. You would like to speak with the Prosecutor and have a conference on this matter at this time? Is that what you want to do, have a conference on the matter with the Prosecutor?

Daniel: With you present.

Court: On the record. Go ahead. What do you have to say?

Daniel: Greetings in the name of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Sovereign Lord. I am one of His bondservants and ministers, and I possibly - - all - - it is written that all power and authority in heaven and earth has been given unto Him, and I would like to see a record in law establishing this court under His authority leading to the tree of life, which is the - - Jesus, the Christ. I could not possibly be willful in this thing that I am accused of because I do the will of my Father, God, who is in heaven, and nothing about Him is willful or evil. It is written that thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and only Him thou shall serve. It is also written no man can serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will despise the one and cleave unto the other.

[*Comment: He is standing with the Sword of the Word, and he clarifies and improves upon some of his earlier statements. Again, the judge interrupts.]

Court: Mr. Daniel, can I just stop you for a moment here? That is typical if you were having a conference and you were represented by an attorney. You have entered a not guilty plea. After hearing you speak today, I at this point - - and based upon your motion, because you are repeating a number of things in the motion, I don't know - - did you file the motion with the District Attorney's office or just with the Court?

Daniel: It was served - - it was served by two men- -

[*Comment: He should have said, "It was not a motion, and it was not filed. It was served.]

Court: Okay.

Daniel: - - on a man from the Beastly police department named K. Predador and also Judge Faracy.

[*Comment: Judge Faracy was the judge on the case, but was removed from it after being served with the abatement.

Since Daniel never rebutted that it was not a motion filed with the court, the judge reiterates the following for the 'record':]

Court: All right. The motion that was filed with the Court is in the court file and was filed. I think the People are entitled to read it as well because it is a legal motion that you have filed. And based on - - the other question that I want answered - - what are you doing, basically, is having a pretrial conference. This is normally not the pretrial stage. When you failed to appear in court at your arraignment day, I am going to assume, for - - based on what you have said, that that was not a purposeful failure to appear, but that is what resulted in the bench warrant being issued. I would like to set this for another pretrial conference so that we can - - you can continue this conference on the record with the District Attorney, who is present. However, right now it is five minutes after noon. The Court needs to take a recess. And I just need an assurance from you that you will return on the court date so that you can continue with the conference with the District Attorney. So why didn't you appear? Is it just because you don't - -

Daniel: Can I continue - - no, I respect the law above everything else.

Court: If I order you to return, would you return?

Daniel: Could we continue this in the afternoon - -

Court: Do you want to - -

Daniel: - - so we can settle it today?

Court: You want to settle the case today?

Daniel: Well, I would like to speak about what happened.

Court: Okay. We can continue it for settlement conference this afternoon if you think that would be - - This is the question I have: Are you - - do you think you would be willing to plead to either of the charges?

Daniel: I have been - - as I said, I was - - I could not possibly be willful in this thing that I am accused of.

Court: The one charge, which is the unlicensed driver charge, just is a charge that reflects that you were not - - that your license had expired, and if - - that doesn't require any willfulness. It is not a charge that requires any specific intent to, quote, unquote, do bad or harm. It is just a licensing charge by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that law says you are supposed to be a licensed driver to drive.

Daniel: On the 18th day of the 12th month in the year of our Lord, 1999, I was arrested by a man from Beastly Police Department, K. Predador, and I asked this man for some information, and he told me he wasn't a public servant, that he was an employee of the City of Beastly. Now, it is written, I believe, in your law that an officer of the law is appointed, and you don't become an officer of the law by having an employment contract with a dead corporation. I believe it is written in your law, also, that corporations, such as the city of Beastly, State of California, are - - have - - it is said that they have no soul. Therefore, they are dead, and the dead cannot be sued. Is there any law - - can you show me any law that says the living must be joined to the dead? It is written that whosoever shall believe in the Lord Jesus Christ shall have everlasting life.

[*Comment: Brother Daniel is doing very well at this point. He is quoting their maxims (not codes, rules and regulations) and is staying with the Sword of the Word.]

Court: I am not sure what the point is. You are charged with driving a car without a license, and how do you want - -

Daniel: I told - -

Court: Mr. Daniel, we can finish - - Mr. Daniel, it is going on into the lunch hour now. At this point in time, we can take a break. What would you offer if Mr. Daniel wanted to plead to the charge? [*speaking to Ms. Argot, the prosecutor.] What charge would you want him to plead to? How many days have you been in custody, Mr. Daniel?

Daniel: I have spent four days in chains.

Court: You have spent four days in custody. Okay. Based on the - - based on my reading of the police report, my indicated sentence, if you wanted to plead to either charge, would be four, credit four. The question is: What charge would the People be willing to accept if Mr. Daniel were to plead no contest? Or we can take it up this afternoon if you want to.

Ms. DA: Yes. Let me think about it.

Court: This is what we are going to do, Mr. Daniel. Ms. Argot also just received the file. I want her to have an opportunity to take a look at the motion that you have filed and reflect upon your comments this morning. We will resume at 1:45 this afternoon. At that time we can continue with the conference, and then Ms. Argot can make you an offer in terms of the charges.

Daniel: I believe I spent time in jail due to contempt of the law.

[*Comment: This comment creates confusion. It would have been better stated that, "This whole process has evidenced contempt for the Law.]

Court: Okay. All right. Thank you very much, sir. Why don't you have a seat, and we will trail the Daniel matter until this afternoon.

Court: Daniel will trail until this afternoon.

Afternoon Session

Court: Sir, you wanted to - - did you want to continue, with the District Attorney, having a pretrial conference? We are back on the record on the Daniel -- -- matter, Case 0534. We put it over this afternoon. Mr. Daniel requested we put it over, as well as Ms. Argot, the Deputy District Attorney in the case, for purposes of seeing if the matter could be resolved. Mr. Daniel, if you want to continue, go ahead.

Daniel: Is it not written in your law that the law does not compel a man to do the impossible, and, also, any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all? I would like to go back to the 18th day of the 12th month in the year of our Lord, 1999. I had told K. Predador that I was exercising my duty of movement upon the common ways. My warrant for doing that is written in the word of God. It is - - go ye unto all the world and teach the gospel to every creature, also visit the widows, and feed the orphans. And it is also written I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me, and it is also written that I can do all things lawfully, but not all things are expedient.

[*Comment: Somewhat refreshed after the break, Daniel goes for the throat here. It is an excellent discourse, reconfirming what was said in the abatement process, and ultimately has an effect on the judge and prosecutor.]

Court: Okay. Mr. Daniel, I am wondering, for purposes of determining whether or not we can resolve this matter - - there was something that you said this morning that caught the Court's attention, and that was in response to the question that I had. You did sign a citation that you would appear in this court - - and that is, essentially, a promise to appear - - on January 27th. I note that the warrant that was issued was on that date. And I would also note that you did file - - or I believe you said you had two persons file on your behalf the eight-page motion, that I have read, in this court. And as you commented this morning that - - you made some statement about the failure to appear in this matter, and the question is whether or not you would be willing to acknowledge that you failed to appear in this matter. Because there is a - - in the Penal Code, which this is the book containing the laws of the State of California - - I believe it is 853 - - What is that section?

Clerk: 853.7.

Court: 853.7, and that is a violation of a promise to appear. Let me just look at this. "Upon a written promise to appear - - let me just take a look and read the section if that actually applies.

Ms. DA: Okay. As I recall, Mr. Daniel, you - - we were talking to you about the four days you had done in custody. You said you felt that was - - that was for contempt. Okay.

Daniel: Go to the 24th day of the first month of the year of our Lord, 2000.

Court: You want to talk about that day now?

Daniel: Yes.

Court: So January 24th of this year?

Daniel: Yes. I - - on or about January 24th - -

Court: Okay. Go ahead.

Daniel: - - two men served the abatement on K. Predador and the presiding judge, Judge Faracy, and ten days later, they came back for an answer or request for extension of time, and there was no answer, or extension of time asked for, and they promptly served a default - - a default notice, and default judgment was then posted at the local post office and also in several places at Beastly of the default judgment.

[*Comment: He continues to stay on point. The efforts of the judge to sidetrack him have failed. He now forces the judge to enter into discussion of the abatement and default, which shows us that the court does recognize the abatement process, but still calling it a 'motion.']

Court: You did that?

Daniel: No, I didn't do that.

Court: Who posted the default judgment?

Daniel: The church did.

Court: And that was because of a failure of the Court to respond to your motion?

Daniel: The abatement is - - abatement is abating an unlawful persona designata or misnomer or nom de guerre, and until the defects are corrected in the paper work, nothing can proceed. The case can't proceed. So it went into default, and there was a default judgment.

Court: Now, see, I read the motion, and I didn't see anything in the motion - - because on a criminal matter, and you are charged with a misdemeanor, the law requires that you personally appear in the court on the date so ordered. In other words, unlike a civil - - unlike a civil law case where you can file motions in writing and deal with it that way, in a misdemeanor case, such as the case we are dealing with here, when you sign the citation promising to appear, you personally need to appear in court. In other words, if you - - if it was your understanding that it was up to the Court to then respond and failure of the Court to respond in writing to your motion, then that was, I would say, a misunderstanding on your part of the way that the criminal justice system works.

The people weren't served with the motion. The Prosecution is the entity prosecuting, not the Court, and the People are entitled to be served with the motion, and then if there were to be a written response, it wouldn't be from the Court, but it would be from the Prosecution from the District Attorney's Office, and because the People weren't served with the motion, then there was no response.

So I think the question that I have for you is whether or not the People would be willing - - well, I should ask this to the District Attorney.

Is there anything that you would be willing to offer by way of an attempt to resolve this matter? I think that is what Mr. Daniel wants is to try and resolve this case, and so - - yes. Go ahead, Ms. Argot.

Daniel: May I say one more thing?

Ms. DA: Sure.

Court: Go ahead.

Daniel: On the fifth day of the fifth month of the year 2000, I was again arrested by K. Predador and two other - - or three other officers from Beastly Police Department, and he said to me mockingly that, "I received your eight-page manifesto, but I don't know what to do with it" or "What am I supposed to do with it?" And I believe that - - and then I spent the four days in jail. I believe that was - - it is written in your law that - - let me see - - that that was contempt of the law, unlawful process, and it is written in your law that - -

Court: So - - Mr. Daniel, I want to understand what you are saying. You are saying that the fact that you were arrested on Friday, which would have been May 5th, was actually an unlawful process? In other words, you don't believe that you were subject to arrest? Is that what you are stating?

Daniel: Because he had been served with lawful - -

Court: I understand.

Daniel: - - abatement.

Court: I understand what you are saying now.

Daniel: And he had contempt for - - he had contempt for the law and, I believe, my Master and Lord Jesus Christ and for the church themselves because it is written when one member suffer, all members suffer, and less a contempt for me - -

Court: All right.

Daniel: And it is written ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially in those trying to execute the law.

So I believe that he was served the lawful process, according to the abatement.

Court: All right. Let me just respond because some of the issues that you have raised are - - pertain specifically to the Complaint, which has been filed by the District Attorney, and perhaps - - and, with all due respect, perhaps ignorance of the law of the State of California on your part, and that is that when you were served with the citation to appear in court, you must appear in court, and then the - -

Let me just explain the procedure to you, and that is that when you do fail to appear, a warrant is issued for your arrest. And that is what happened. A bench warrant was issued on January 27th, which was the date that you were to appear in court. And then when you are arrested, as you tell me that you were on Friday, then you must be brought to court, as you are today.

And so, Mr. Daniel, here is the question - - and there are a couple of different ways to go on this. If you want to resolve the matter today, I think the People would be willing to offer a charge, which is a failing to appear in court as promised. Now, that hasn't been added yet. I am not going to ask the People whether or not they want to add that charge at this point in time until I hear from you whether or not you are willing to acknowledge - - or plead to any charges at all.

If you don't want to plead to any charges, that is fine. You enter a not guilty plea. I will set the matter over for a pretrial date. Based on the fact that you appear to have not come to court and that your failure to do so, according to what you have told me, comes from your understanding that the Court needed to respond to you, and by failing to do so, it was actually the Court that defaulted on this case, I would go ahead and release you on your own recognizance. You would be released this afternoon. I would set another date in the case, and you would need to appear on the date that I selected, and I will pick a date that would be convenient with your calendar.

If you want to resolve the matter - -

Would you be willing to offer any counts for Mr. Daniel to plead to?

This is the typical pretrial conference that we are having now. Usually, the People offer - -

Ms. DA: In order to resolve the case, that would be a much less serious count for Mr. Daniel.

Court: The 853.7, which is a failure to appear as promised to in court?

Ms. DA: Yes.

[*Comment: All of the convoluted diatribe that has just been spoken is for the purpose of covering up the compromise that the court is offering. Note that Daniel has not yet been charged with 'failure to appear,' though that was what he was supposedly arrested for. They will add that charge and drop the 'obstruction, unlicensed driver, etc.' charges. At this point, the combination of the words spoken by Daniel and the served abatements have sent the court into a 'negotiation' mode. They have 'tried the spirits,' and found him to be who he and his Father says he is.]

Court: That is what the People's offer is. Do you want to accept that offer and resolve the case today, or do you want to go ahead and put the matter over for another conference?

Daniel: I believe that - - that my Lord was transgressed upon, and I was also. And I have been four days in jail and have a wife and three small children.

Court: Okay. Do you want to take a moment.

Daniel: I would like - -

Court: Do you want to take a moment to think about it?

Daniel: I would like it, maybe, dismissed.

[*Comment: This declaration has to be firm. Not 'maybe.' And not 'I would like,' but 'if this court is truly interested in justice, this case should be dismissed.' This puts them on the defensive.]

Court: Are the People willing to dismiss everything?

Ms. DA: No. We can't dismiss everything in this case, I don't think, Your Honor. I would be willing to offer a lesser charge to Mr. Daniel that would resolve it, and that would be over. It would not affect his - -

Court: The charge the People, basically, have indicated that they would add is a Count III, which is a violation of - - a failure to appear on a written promise, and that is just your failure to come to court as you promised you would do by signing the citation. It is, basically, a plea disposition.

You would be willing to dismiss the charges that he was actually cited for on December 18th?

But it is your choice to make, to make sure, and if you want to plead not guilty, I will release you on your own recognizance today.

Ms. DA: I should say - - I am sorry. I should say, also, I think that - - I am offering that today. I can't guarantee that another prosecutor would offer that later on.

Court: Okay. All right. But it is up to you, Mr. Daniel. It is your choice. If you are not sure what you want to do, in any event, I assure you I will release you on your own recognizance. I will set another date. If you want to think about whether or not the People - - to accept the People's offer, I can pass this matter. I have another matter that I can attend to now, and I can bring you back out when we are through with the other court matter.

Daniel: I would like you to bring me back out.

Court: Do you want to think about it? Okay. Let me just clarify what is being offered here. The People would add a Count III, a violation of 853.7, violation of a promise to appear. The sentence would be four days, credit four, no fine, no probation. Basically, the time that you have spent in custody would be the sentence in the case. That would be it. If you don't want to accept that offer, that is fine. That is your choice. I would release you today on your own recognizance. I would set another pretrial date.

Ms. DA: But those charges would remain that are on.

Court: The charges would remain. You could come back on another date. You would be out of custody, assuming you come back as ordered. You could discuss the matter again with the District Attorney further, if you would like to do that.

Daniel: What were the charges?

Court: The two charges here are resisting, obstructing or delaying a police officer. That is Count I. And Count II is - - alleges that you were an unlicensed driver. Those charges are alleged to have occurred on December 18.

Daniel: And you said those are going to remain?

Court: If you do not accept the People's offer to plead to what they are offering, which is a Count III, a violation of 853.7, failure to appear in court as promised. If you accept that offer, they will dismiss Count I and II. If you don't accept the offer, Counts I and II will remain pending another pretrial date, a future court date. You could discuss the matter with the People at a future court date.

[*Comment: What we see here is, the court will not let everything 'slide.' They must have a conviction on something, to justify the arrest. By accepting the offer and compromise, the abatement stands (the original 'violations' are dropped) and the 'failure to appear' charges stand for the court.]

Daniel: Are not codes, rules and regulations arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, not law?

Court: Excuse me?

Daniel: Are not codes, rules and regulations arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, not law?

Ms. DA: They are not arbitrary and capricious.

Court: That is the People's response. "They are not arbitrary and capricious" is the People's response to your inquiry.

Mr. Daniel, do you want to - - a few moments to think about the offer?

[*Comment: Note that the prosecutor never challenged whether they are law or not.]

Daniel: Yes.

Court: All right. We will have one more brief conference this afternoon. If you haven't decided by that time, I will take it as a not guilty plea, we will go ahead and release you, and you can come back on another date, okay, sir?

Late Afternoon Session

Court: All right. Mr. Daniel, we have - - we just concluded the other matter, and - - so have you thought about the offer -

Daniel: Yes.

Court: - - which is to plead - -

Daniel: I am willing to accept your offer.

[*Comment: This is the proper response to the situation. This lets the court off of the hook, and allows you to continue with your life outside of the lion's den. To "accept an offer" from the court does not mean one has accepted a "benefit" from the court. It is simply a way to present an "escape" to a cornered animal. What has been accomplished is, Daniel has done his duty of, "let shine your light before men, so that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father Who is in the heavens." ]

Court: Now, this is the People's offer because, just for clarification, Mr. Daniel, it is the District Attorney's Office that makes the decision on charging, and that is why, as I explained before, when - - although, I know, you did serve the Court and, apparently, Officer Predador as well, the District Attorney's Office did not receive a copy of the filing.

(speaking to Ms. DA) And that is why you didn't respond . Because it would be the District Attorney's Office to respond.

But as I understand it, this is the offer, and that is that the People will be willing to amend to allege a Count III, a violation of Penal Code Section 853.7 - -

Clerk: Yes.

Court: - - and if you would plead no contest to that, the Court does sentencing, and I would - - the sentence would be four days, credit four. It would be a time served sentence. And then the People would be dismissing the resisting, obstructing, delaying arrest and would be dismissing the unlicensed driver charge. Is that what the offer is, Ms. DA?

Ms. DA: That is correct.

Court: And you are willing to accept that offer?

Daniel: Yes.

Court: Okay. Mr. Daniel, there is one more issue that I want to cover with you, and that is that I am a court commissioner, and in order for me to go ahead and sentence you in this case, you would agree to - - I would need to have you agree that I can impose the four day-credit four- sentence. Is that agreeable with you?

Daniel: Yes.

Court: - - that I impose the sentence?

Daniel: Yes.

Court: I am going to do oral waivers.

Clerk: Okay.

Court: Mr. Daniel - - First of all, is there a People's motion to add a Count III, a violation of 853.7? And that is a failure to appear in court as promised on the citation.

Ms. DA: Yes.

Court: Okay. That is the charge. Mr. Daniel, you do have the right to have an attorney in this matter, and if you cannot afford an attorney, I would appoint an attorney for you free of charge. Do you understand that right, sir?

Daniel: Yes.

Court: And do you give up that right in order to represent yourself on this matter?

Daniel: Yes.

Court: You have the right to a jury trial or a court trial, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to present a defense in your own behalf and the right to remain silent. Those are your Constitutional rights, according to the United States Constitution. Do you understand those rights?

Daniel: Yes.

[*Comment: He could of at this point said, instead of 'Yes' , "I never have and do not now claim any Constitutional rights, but whatever rights the court 'presumes' I have, the court can also presume that they are waived.]

Court: How do you plead to Count III, which is the amended count that was just added by Ms. Argot. And that is a violation of Penal Code Section 853.7, failure to appear.

Daniel: No contest.

Court: Okay. A no contest plea has the same force and effect as a guilty plea. You are convicted on the plea. It just cannot be used against you in a civil court. Do you understand this?

Daniel: Yes.

Court: Okay. Sir, I find that you have expressly, knowingly, understandingly and intelligently waived your Constitutional rights. I find that your plea has been freely and voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature and consequences thereof and that there is a factual basis for the plea.

At this time I will impose the sentence of four days, credit four. The $100 restitution fine is waived because of the time that Mr. Daniel has served in County Jail. There is no fine, no probation. That is it Mr. Daniel. Thank you very much. And are Counts I and II dismissed on People's motion - -

Ms. DA: Yes.

Court: - - in the interest of justice?

Ms. DA: Yes.

Court: Counts I and II are dismissed. Sir, that resolves this matter. Thank you very much, sir.

Daniel: I want to thank you both very much, and may God richly bless you both for your compassion and your respect to the law.

Ms. DA: Thank you. Same to you.

Court: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments. Good luck to you, sir.