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! |