Defendant was cited for violation of Vehicle Code section 22350, the Basic Speed Law.

At trial the defendant raised numerous issues and failed to get a single positive ruling from Judge Pro Tem Clark. These issues included, among others:

• the fact that Judge Pro Tem Clark would not allow the defendant to make a personal recording of the proccedings;
• the fact that the officer referred to notes on his ticket but the defendant was not allowed to see the ticket;
• the fact that the Engineering and Traffic survey submitted by the officer was neither an original nor a certified copy.

The "facts" and chronolgy on the Settled Statement prepared by the Pro Tem differed greatly from those the defendant/appellant remembered; however, since there was no taping allowed...

In direct and blatant violation of the first three Canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, Judge Pro Tem Clark included his own arguments and conclusions concerning the merits of the grounds on appeal in the Settled Statement.

The appellant's Opening Brief contained 10 points including Judicial Misconduct (see preceeding paragraph).

Siezing on the lack of an original or certified copy of the survey, the Appellate Division concluded that they, "need not reach any of the other issues raised by appellant," and ordered the trial court's decision reversed and the case dismissed.