Ticket Slayer has a 95% Success Rate Getting Traffic Tickets Dismissed

All traffic ticket defendants please place you bets, Judge M.Y.

Casino now presiding! Fighting a traffic ticket in traffic court is

tantamount to playing a rigged game of Traffic Court Roulette

with the judge. Our recent discovery of some little known game

rules allow our customers to now win the game of Traffic Court

Roulette almost every time. Ticket Slayer makes it possible for

anyone to beat the system at it's own game!


	Our process is very simple, so there are no long protracted and/or complicated explanations for you
	to read though. Ticket Slayer employs the power of common law to get your traffic ticket dismissed.
	Almost everyone has heard about common law, but few really understand what it is and how powerful
	it can be. For this reason, we will explain a little about common law. We will also provide you with the
	necessary information on how our process works to get your traffic ticket dismissed directly, but first
	it is important to lay down for you the foundation supporting our common law process so you can
	understand why it works.

COMMON LAW

Common law can be described as; law not initially set down in writing, unlike statutes or constitutions (which are derived from the legislative branch of government). Common laws received their binding power and the force of law, by long immemorial usage, and by their universal reception. Common law predates written law. Much of the foundation of common law is derived from biblical teachings, like the Ten Commandments. Common law is the underlying foundation of our Constitution and many of the principles of law used by our judicial system today.

Who is common law intended for? The answer is; flesh and blood people, or sovereigns. The purpose for legislative law or administrative law, which includes codes is to regulate the actions and behavior of artificial entities, such as corporations, associations, organizations and political & governmental bodies, not flesh and blood people

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A SOVEREIGN

As a sovereign you are not subject to any law besides that of common law. We realize that this idea is totally foreign to most of you, as we have been erroneously taught all of our lives that we are subject to laws passed by the legislature or those in the lesser bodies of government. We would love to go into all of the underlying reasons as to how and why we have been hoodwinked over a long period of time by our corrupt politicians, corrupt courts and lawyers into believing this lie, but that would take up a lot of space and is not the primary reason for this web site. In the near future we hope to add a link to this site providing people with an in-depth background study of this subject. In the mean time, We have included the following link to the1886 United States Supreme Court decision of Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 totally upholding the fact that we are sovereigns in our own right and not subject to legislative or administrative law. This United States Supreme Court decission was handed down before our legal system became nearly as corrupt as it is today in America.

The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins takes place in the late 1800's and is about Yick Wo, an immigrant Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco who was fined and then jailed for failure to obey a local ordinance passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors requiring all laundry owners to relocate laundries housed in wooden structures to brick or stone structures or to close down their businesses. The case is most often cited as a civil rights case because the all white San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Hopkins selectively enforced the newly passed ordinance along racial lines.

The white laundry owned laundries were mostly housed in brick or stone structures and the few white owned laundries located in wooden structures were all given a free pass, while not of one of the immigrant Chinese laundry owners were exempted from the ordinance. Most of the immigrant Chinese laundry owners were poor and could not afford to relocate their laundries to brick or stone structures. The Chinese laundry owners, like Yick Wo who continued to operate their laundries located in wooden structures in defiance of the order were fined and then jailed when they didn't pay their fines.

On August 24, 1885, Yick Wo petitioned the supreme court of California for the writ of habeas corpus, claiming he was illegally deprived of his personal liberty by the defendant Sherrif Hopkins, the sheriff of San Francisco County.

Justice Matthews states in the U. S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Yick Wo: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."

Justice Matthews makes a very profound statement in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins; clearly stating that we (you and I) are 'sovereigns,' not subject to law. Justice Matthews did not just dream up the concept that we are sovereigns and as a sovereign we are not subject to law. Of course not, he had very sound bases for his profound proclamation, which was based upon his knowledge and belief that God created man and decreed man to be a sovereign. Justice Matthews also based his opinion upon the knowledge and belief that our nation's founding fathers strongly held this same belief and incorporated it into the fabric of our constitution.

Justice Matthews reminds us; while, yes it is true that our government has sovereignty delegated to it by the people, the people are the creators of the government and of the administrative law and we the creators or sovereigns are not subject to the law as its creators.

Remember and teach your children well that you and they are the true sovereigns. Your place is above government and never beneath the feet of government. God is the Sovereign Creator of our universe, we serve God and never does God serve His creation; man. Man is the sovereign of his domain and created government to serve him within his domain. An axiom of truth decrees that; the creator never serves his creation. Ask yourself who is severing whom today? How did it get to this point? The true responsibility and blame lies with us and all Americans who preceded us following the Civil War.

Will you be the master or will you continue to be the slave? The choice of slave has already been made for you and your children unless you have the will and courage to change it.

THE COMMON LAW TRAFFIC TICKET DEFAULT PROCESS

The Ticket Slayer common law traffic default method consists of six legal documents. The six documents are filed in five steps with the prosecutor's Office and the Traffic Court Clerk as outlined in our easy to follow instructions. You will need approximately 15 to 20 days before the date of your trial to complete the filing process. If you have less than this amount of time before your trial date, then in most cases you can simply call the traffic court clerk and ask for a postponement of your trial. Generally, the court clerk is authorized by the court to allow you a one time postponement of your trial. The court clerk can usually grant a postponement of up to 30 days, and in some cases he is authorized to grant even more time.

STEP ONE: The default process is begun by serving your Affidavit of Truth upon the prosecutor, and filing a copy with the court clerk. The Affidavit of Truth is your sworn statement of facts, which include facts such as; you deny that you are the corporate person (under law a corporation is a corporate person) whose name appears in ALL CAPS upon your traffic ticket, or on court records, you have no contract with the county or the state, you say you are a sovereign, a creation of God, and are not subject to administrative law (referencing Yick Wo v. Hopkins). The prosecutor by law has X amount of time to rebut your claims made in your Affidavit of Truth or he is in default. Hundreds of people have used our default method across America, and only two prosecutors have ever attempted to counter the Affidavit of Truth. However, both prosecutors only made some general vague allegations about how they felt the Affidavit of Truth was somehow not valid, but they failed to attempt to rebut even one of its claims.

STEP TWO: After time has expired for the prosecutor to rebut your Affidavit of Truth, then you will file a "Notice of Default and Three Day Notice to Cure" (this is one document), this notice advises the prosecutor that a default now exists, and he has three days notice to cure the default. Meaning; the prosecutor has three days to drop the case against, or you will file a Final Notice of Default legally establishing a default against him.

STEP THREE: When the prosecutor fails to cure the default you file a Final Notice of Default. The Final Notice of Default finalizes the default under the common law, and under the common law principle of "bars and latches" the prosecutor can not legally proceed to prosecute you in this case.

STEP FOUR: After filing the Final Notice of Default, you will file your Motions to Dismiss and a Writ of Praecipe together at the same time. The Motions to Dismiss are legal reasons why the court should dismiss your case. Mostly, the reason we provide you with the Motions to Dismiss, is to provide the judge with a list of excuses he can use to dismiss your case. No judge is likely to ever admit his reason for dismissing your case is because, you left him no choice when you placed the prosecutor in legal default. Instead, the judge will find some other excuse to dismiss your case. However, don't be surprised if the judge does not use a one of the reasons listed in your Motions to Dismiss to dismiss your case.

In normal circumstances, only about 10 to 15 percent of traffic cases get dismissed in traffic court because the citing officer was not available to appear in court. It does strike us a just bit odd however, 90 percent of the time our customers have the judge dismiss their case because, the citing officer was unavailable to be in court to testify against them. Very curious, very curious indeed. We do have a name for this curious phenomenon; we call it the "Ticket Slayer officer-flu pandemic." It only strikes traffic officers just before they are scheduled to appear in court as a witness against a Ticket Slayer customer using our common law default method. We might be wrong about this.... it could be that judges are really just informing traffic officers not to come to court in cases where the officer has cited a Ticket Slayer customer using our common law traffic default, but that wouldn't be kosher now would it?

If the judge waits to the last minute before trial to read your default documents, he may not have time to inform the officer that, the officer has the flu, that is.... the officer shouldn't show up for trial to testify against you. In this case the judge has to quickly come up with a quick excuse to dismiss your case, without admitting the default is his real reason for dismissal. Judges are often a crafty bunch and they keep an ace shoved up their sleeves for just for such emergencies. In this case the ace up their sleeve is the old, - "I am dismissing this case in the interest of justice" excuse. This ace or magic phrase is used by judges to conceal the real reason why they are being forced to dismiss a case.

In step five, you will also file the Writ of Praecipe. A "writ" is an order. The Writ of Praecipe respectfully orders your servant, the traffic court clerk, to enter the default against the prosecutor and to notice all parties of interest. You give the court clerk three days time to carry out your demand.

STEP FIVE: When the court clerk fails to do his ministerial duty by recording the default and sealing it with the court seal, and by noticing the parties of interest, then you will be forced to file a Writ of Mandamus. Mandamus means "we command." Writs are used by higher courts to command a lower court do its ministerial duty, or by courts in general to command a person holding government office do their ministerial duty. In this case we present the Writ of Mandamus to the court, and respectfully ask the court to use our writ to command the Clerk of the Court, a person holding government office, to do his ministerial duty and enter the default.

The prosecutor defaults when he fails to rebut your sworn statement of facts, which attests to the fact that you are a sovereign; not subject to laws derived by governmental bodies. This fact is supported biblically, by common law and by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins. Together, these three foundations in support of your claims effectively create a legal claim so strong it becomes an almost certain legal impossibility for the prosecutor to rebut your claims.

When you arrive in traffic court for your trial, the traffic court judge should have already received and read a copy of all of your documents. The judge seeing that the prosecutor has defaulted, has no choice legally, but to dismiss your case as the prosecutor by law lost all right to prosecute you when he defaulted. Now, we know approximately 5% of the judges will violate their ministerial duty and their judicial oath of office by refusing to dismiss your case. Judges, even though some may not think so, are not above the law, and a judge who refuses to dismiss a case where the prosecutor has defaulted upon his right to prosecute, can be sued for violating their ministerial duty and judicial oath of office.