The Basics: In every case no matter how inferior, there is a plaintiff and a defendant.

In a traffic violation, the plaintiff is The People of the State of California. You are the defendant. When you go to the courtroom for your initial arraignment and spend half your day waiting for roll-call and the judge to explain your options and the procedures, he/she fails to inform you of ALL your options. You are told you are allowed to say 3 things to the judge, and some judges will not let you say one word more. They tell us this so we won't waste anyone else's time in the courtroom, and also, (cough, cough), so you are intimidated enough to not try to motion for any other option they may have conveniently forgotten to tell you. These are the 3 options you are told you have to give the judge: 1) not guilty, 2) no contest, 3) guilty (usually with traffic school as an added option). What the judge does not tell you is about California Penal Code 740 and 949; Grafft v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Beane, 273 C.A.2d 379. You see, if you look around the courtroom there is no plaintiff in the courtroom, so in turn...there is no prosecution! You cannot defend yourself and be claimed a defendant in any case if there is no plaintiff to accuse you of wrongdoing. There's no plaintiff representing the People of the State of California - so as of that moment, there is no legal case you can claim guilt or no guilt to. There's not even a lawyer or signed document stating their case against you. The ticket you signed was just a promise to appear in court, not an admission of guilt, nor is it a substitute of a verified complaint against you by the plaintiff! You've met the court step-by-step so far by appearing in the courtroom, so you have done all you can do, as far as your legal responsibilities are concerned. The most important laws you need to know are: California Penal Code 740 states: all misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant. Grafft v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Beane, 273 C.A.2d 379 states: "it is the plaintiff upon whom rests the duty to use diligence at every stage of the proceeding to expedite his case to a final determination" and the defendant's presence is "involuntary" and "can be charged with no neglect for failing to do more than meet the plaintiff step by step" California Penal Code 949 reads: "The first pleading on the part of the People in all inferior courts is the complaint"

What these laws mean is this: At the time of arraignment, and only at the time of arraignment, you have the right to demand a verified complaint against you establishing the jurisdiction of the court and requiring your appearance in the courtroom! The arraignment is the only time during the case you can request this. Basically it's a prosecutors written complaint against you which is required in all U.S. courts no matter how inferior, that clearly states the nature and cause of the accusation, the essential elements of the charge, AND the identity and location of the plaintiff and his attorney(s). What happens is the court will send your paperwork up to Sacramento, a prosecuting attorney representing The People of the State of California will fill out the complaint form, sign it, and send it back to your courtroom. Usually this never happens and your case is ultimately dismissed. IF THERE IS NO VERIFIED COMPLAINT BY THE PLAINTIFF, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION FOR WHICH TO PLEAD TO. The judge will tell you that you HAVE to give a plea. This is false - you MAY give a plea! California Vehicle Code, Section 15 clearly defines "may" as permissive and C.V.C. Section 40513(b) offers a choice to the

"accused". I NEVER give a plea because I know legally there is no valid case for me to make a plea to. The plaintiff has chosen not to prosecute by not filing a verified complaint against me. How can I give a plea if there's nothing to officially plead to?? The main traffic law THAT IS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE TICKET is C.V.C. Section 40513(b), which reads: "whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council (A traffic ticket), an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea (notice the word "may") and, if the notice to appear is verified (which it never is!), upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed.

I've still never seen a verified complaint. Many times when I've brought this up to the judge, he sent me to the back of the line "to think about what I want to do", but really so no one else in the courtroom will hear about this rightful request. And many times the judge will just say anything to get you out of their sight and then just give you a plea of not guilty... which then requires another court appearance with the ticketing officer. I've had the judge tell me those laws were rewritten 15 years ago & I've had a few judges deny knowing anything I'm talking about - believe me, they know very well! If you are forced to come back for your trial (which is usually the case - they're not going to make it easy for you), it is then you can state your argument again that the case should be dismissed for lack of prosecution because the court failed to provide a verified complaint at the time of your arraignment. As everyone knows, if the police officer does not show up, you are automatically dismissed. Another note, the police officer is not the plaintiff, he is the witness. One thing I always do is bring a copy of the laws to show the judge (although they've never wanted to see them - again, they're not going to be made a fool of in their court!) California state law says if a defendant does not give a plea, the judge must enter a plea of 'not guilty' for the defendant, which has been the standard in all of my confrontations with the judge. If I am forced to go to a trial, and the police officer does show up, and I am still found 'guilty' despite my repetitive arguments, I let the judge know I will appeal the decision if found 'guilty'. An 'appeal' can only be used if the court has made an error in the law - this is not a retrial. The one time I had to go to the court for an 'appeal', the judge dismissed it for...lack of a written complaint.. TIPS: One thing that should be known is usually it's the same judge who does your arraignment, your trial, and your appeal. In most of my dismissals, the judge usually gets sick of seeing me and dismisses the case only because it's not a major infraction. I also try to add to the argument that I am very broke moneywise or unemployed which I know has helped in two of my trials. Some things to remember: You must make your court appearance(s)! If you miss an appearance the court will immediately send out a written 'Notice to Appear' which acts as a written complaint, which ruins most of your argument.