Home   Red Light   FAQ   Testimonials   Guarantee   Order   Site Map   Contact  
 
 
California Superior Court Declares Ticket Slayer Common Law Default Win In Written Court Record!
 

California v. BARKUS

Case 267876CB

Superior Court of California, Riverside County 04/27/07

 
Click Here to view the court record of the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside web site dismissing this traffic case for lack of prosecution upon the default of the prosecutor.
 
This case is citable as case law for those using the Ticket Slayer Common Law Default Process due to the fact that all Superior Courts of California are courts of record.
 

Riverside, California traffic court judge dismisses traffic case against a Ticket Slayer customer, stating on the written court record; "Good cause exist to dismiss 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, a standard 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. Luckily for us Chris, the defendant and a Ticket Slayer customer in this case, found out by obtaining his court record, this is not what the judge placed in the court record. (Read on.)

About 95 to 98 percent of the time traffic court judges will use their favorite 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 sends word to the officer that he is not to 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 they may leave (meaning leave the courtroom now). Now, the judge is free to use the excuse that the officer could not be present in court to give testimony and he or she must dismiss the case. No one is the wiser, because the judge completely hid from the rest of the flock waiting in the courtroom to be sheered why he really dismissed this case.

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." However, the defendant never moved the court for dismissal of his traffic ticket for lack of prosecution due to the absence of the prosecutor in court. What does this mean? What is the real reason the judge in this case?

People viewing the court record in this case (shown below) without prior knowledge of the California Supreme Court case of the People v. Marcroft are likely to wrongly conclude that this case was dismissed because the officer was not present at time of trial. Which is inarguably solid legal grounds to grant dismissal of a case. However, the court stated the reason for dismissal of this case as "due to lack of prosecution," and not as due to the lack of a prosecution witness against the accused. For a court to state that the case was dismissed due to lack of prosecution (lack of a prosecutor) would be highly improper, and wholly contrary to the California Supreme Court case of the People v. Marcroft, (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, wherein the 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."

This case was not dismissed either because of the fact that there was no prosecutor present at the time of trial. The court record does not reflect the fact that there was not a prosecutor present at the time of trial, because California Courts hold that no prosecutor is necessary in court in order to prosecute traffic cases pursuant to People v. Carlucci. The California Supreme Court ruled in the traffic case of the People v. Carlucci, 23 Cal.3d 249, " ...the trial court at a traffic infraction hearing may call and question witnesses in the absence of a prosecutor. Such actions constitute neither a per se denial of due process nor transmute the judge into prosecutor."

What is the one and only possible logical reason for dismissal of this case now that it has been revealed herein, that this case was not dismissed for lack of a witness against the accused, and that this case was not dismissed for the lack of a prosecutor present at the time of trial? To learn the real reason for dismissal of this case one must read the defendant's documents (the documents highlighted in green highlight listed in the below court record were the documents comprising the Ticket Slayer Common Law Default Package in 2007) served by him upon the prosecutor, and filed by the defendant into the court record. These documents show that the defendant legally recorded a common law default judgement against the District Attorney, or prosecutor representing the alleged claim of People against the defendant in this case.

The judge in this case did not dismiss for lack of prosecution for lack of a witness, or for the lack of a prosecutor present in court. The judge dismissed for lack of prosecution because the prosecutor legally defaulted under the common law, losing all legal jurisdiction to prosecute the case. There was a lack of prosecution because the prosecutor was legally barred upon their default from prosecuting the case. The power of the common law default in action!

 
Case 267876CB Defendant 1421329 BARKUS, CHRISTOPHER BOYD
(Ticket Slayer Customer)
Click Here to view the court record
 

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  

 

 

 
 
  Order The Ticket Slayer Common Law Traffic Default Docs
 
TRAFFIC TICKET DOCS
Common Law Default Documents .................................... $ 79
Red Light Camera Documents ......................................... $ 99
Common Law Default +Plus Red Light Camera Docs ....... $ 139
 
3 WAYS TO PURCHASE Credit or Debit Card Check U.S. Money Order
Ticket Slayer Docs Include Easy To Follow 		 						    													Instruction Guide TICKET SLAYER DOCS INCLUDE AN EASY TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTION GUIDE