Barbara Bratton’s attorney then stated again that there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS TO WHO FILED THE DOCUMENTS, AND IT WOULD BE SPECULATIVE AT THIS POINT. Her LAWYER STATED THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING MY CLIENT GIVING INSTRUCTIONS TO ANYBODY TO FILE THE DOCUMENTS.
The court then replied ” Well, there’s evidence that she’s the one who signed them. They’re being filed for her benefit, as you point out, an attempt to either save or regain possession and title of the home that was lost in the foreclosure. Judge Smith continued by saying whether she’s the one who walked in herself and filed them, or she hired a service to go file it for her, or a friend CAME IN AND FILED IT FOR HER, its BEING FILED AT HER REQUEST.
Judge Smith stated that he was not overly impressed with the idea of burglary, going into the Recorder’s Office to file something, but technically, IT IS AN ENTRY EITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY, A FALSE DOCUMENT, SO. Judge Smith further stated he thought she was a principal in that offense. Whether she’s the one who personally did it or not. He also agreed that there was no evidence to indicate she’s the person who was at the counter and filed it; but I believe the evidence indicates that there is certainly probable cause to support the inference that it was filed for her benefit, and therefore at her request or direction, which is sufficient to MAKE HER A PRINCIPAL.
A Penal Code 17 (b) motion in California is where a defendant petitions the court to reduce a felony offense to a misdemeanor Law section (ca.gov). This is only possible if the felony is a wobbler, meaning the offense could have been originally charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.
Judge Smith stated “with regard to the 17 (b) motion, the fact remains that the subject property, according to the trustee sale, was in excess of 200,000-dollar property. So, it is obviously a very significant fraud that’s basically being perpetrated to substitute her as the continuing or current owner of the property that was lost.” “So given the value of the property, I don’t think REDUCTION TO A MISDEMANOR IS APPRORPIATE, DESPITE THE LACK OF PRIOR RECORD.”
The court then stated it does have probable cause to believe that the offenses of forgery of an offering, a false or forged instrument or recording, and second-degree burglary as charged in the complaint were COMMITTED. PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT MISS BRATTON WAS A PARTICIPANT AND A PRINCIPAL IN THOSE OFFENSES, THE COURT WILL GRANT THE MOTION TO HOLD THE DEFENDANT TO ANSWER FOR THOSE OFFENSES.
