Traffic Trial Held In Riverside, California — 04/27/07 (see court record below)

Riverside, California traffic court judge dismisses traffic case against a Ticket Slayer customer citing on the written court record that; "good cause exists to dismiss case due to lack of prosecution."

Prior to his trial, our customer (the defendant in this case) served the Ticket Slayer Common Law Default Documents upon the prosecutor, securing a legal default against the prosecutor based upon the prosecutor's failure to rebut the defendant's legal challenge to the people's claims against him.

There was no prosecutor present at the time of the defendant's trial, which is almost stand practice in California traffic courts. Our customer reported to us that the citing officer was present in the courtroom when he first arrived in court, but later on the officer left the courtroom before the judge called his case. When the judge called the defendant's name, he informed the defendant that he was dismissing his case 'in the interest of justice' because, the officer could not be present in court today to testify.

About 95 to 98 percent of the time traffic court judges will use the excuse that, the officer could not be in court to testify when dismissing a Ticket Slayer customer's case. Traffic court judges having received the Ticket Slayer documents before trial know of the default of the prosecutor and knowing that the default is absolutely legal, but not wishing to state or acknowledge this fact openly in court, judges will simply send word to the officer to not show up in court. In circumstances like this one, where the officer has come to court; judges will on the sly have the bailiff casually walk over to where the officer is sitting in the courtroom and very discretely inform the officer that, the judge said his or her testimony is not needed in this case and he or she may leave now. Now, the judge can use the excuse that the officer could not be present in court to give testimony and he or she must dismiss the case. This way no one is the wiser.

Our customer did not learn of the real reason the judge dismissed his case until later on after the trial, when our customer picked up a copy of the court record of his trial. The written court record stated the judge's reason for dismissal as; "good cause exists to dismiss case due to lack of prosecution."

In light of the fact that our customer (the defendant) never moved the court for dismissal of his traffic ticket for reason of a lack of prosecution due to the absence of the prosecutor in court, – the only plausible explanation for the judge's statement; "good cause exists to dismiss case due to lack of prosecution" is because of the legal default of the prosecutor.

If it were not for the well publicized case of the People v. Marcroft all California traffic court judges should certainly know about, it might otherwise be reasonably argued that the judge in this case considered the cop to be the prosecutor, (as judges sometimes claim) and since the cop was not present, – this is why the judge stated on record that he dismissed due to lack of prosecution. In the case of the People v. Marcroft (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1,8 Cal.Rptr.2d 544; the California Appeals Court ruled; "Whether or not the People provide a prosecuting attorney, the citing officer who testifies as to the circumstances of the citation is a witness, no more, no less."

It took three and half years and defaulting hundreds prosecutors with the Ticket Slayer Common Law Default Method in traffic court cases all around the nation, to finally get a judge to admit on court record that, the case was dismissed due to lack of prosecution after the legal default of the prosecutor.

Testimonial of Ticket Slayer Customer

One word describes Ticket Slayer’s common law default method, IRREFUTABLE!
I live in San Diego CA and have used it for my case which was for an illegal u-turn. If you go to this link   http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/onlineserv.htm   and search the court records You will find I have not been convicted and that the case was dismissed IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. You will see all the docs I filed in order to successfully defend myself against the mockery of justice these "tribunals" depict. Here is a copy of the case info below. I've deleted my name and case number to protect my anonymity but see for Yourself.
Case 26**76*B Defendant  *********S, CH********R - Actions and Minutes

NOTE: If you desire to look this record up for yourself, please email me at Greg@TicketSlayer.com and I will provide you with the info that you need to find this case in the court record. Chris, the defendant in this case, prefers that his identity not be posted all over the internet, but is ok with me supplying this info to potential Ticket Slayer customers.

Action Date	Action Text	Disposition	Hearing Type
04/27/2007 1:30 PM DEPT. T1	COURT TRIAL	DISPOSED	TRIAL
Minutes HONORABLE JOHN J. GALLAGHER PRESIDING. COURTROOM ASSISTANT: CAS-C. SMITH COUNSEL/PARTIES STIPULATE THE JUDGE PRO TEM/COMMISSIONER, AS INDICATED ABOVE, MAY HEAR THIS MATTER. OFFICER D FORTNEY NOT PRESENT. DEFENDANT PRESENT. AT 2:17, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD: COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO DISMISS CASE DUE TO LACK OF PROSECUTION COUNT(S) 01 DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. (1385 PC) CASH BAIL EXONERATED. DEFENDANT RELEASED.
04/25/2007	COURT ON 4-27-07 AT 1:30 DEPT T-1
04/25/2007	ACTION TO BE TAKEN PENDING TRIAL.ALL TO BE IN
04/25/2007	BE HEARD PRIOR TO TRIAL ON 4-27-07.NO OTHER
04/25/2007	JUDGE ORDER DATED 4-25-07.MOTION TO DISMISS TO
04/24/2007	FILED: AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH BY DEFENDANT
04/24/2007	FILED: MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY DEFENDANT
04/05/2007	FILED: ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONS & OATH OF OFFICE
04/05/2007	DECLARATION OF DEFENDANTSS STANDING FILED BY C**.
04/05/2007	DECLARATION OF DEFENDANTS STANDING FILED BY DEFENDANT.
04/05/2007	FILED: ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONS AND OATH OF OFFICE
04/04/2007	OFFICER(S) SUBPOENAED.
03/12/2007	TRUST 159.40 RECEIVED FROM DEFENDANT
03/12/2007	OFFICER(S) SUBPOENAED FOR COURT TRIAL, WHICH HAS BEEN SET 04/27/2007 @ 1:30.
03/12/2007	COUNTER ARRAIGNMENT - DEFENDANT ARRAIGNED ON INFRACTION CITATION.
03/12/2007	PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO COUNT(S) 01.
03/01/2007 12:30 PM DEPT. MV2	CALENDAR ADD ON: REQUEST NOT GUILTY PLEA AND TIME TO POST BAIL	DISPOSED
Minutes HONORABLE ROBERT M. PADIA PRESIDING. COURTROOM ASSISTANT: DB-D. BRAYLEY DEFENDANT IS NOT PRESENT. NO ACTION TAKEN. DEFENDANT RELEASED.
12/27/2006	DATE TO APPEAR IS CONTINUED TO 03/12/2007. REASON: DOUBLE EXT AT WINDOW
12/07/2006	CITATION (IMAGED)
12/07/2006	LOCATION: WINCHESTER X PROMENDADE NO
12/07/2006	CITATION FILED BY MVNDB