How to default a ticket(non-compalint)

[Scooterdog]

As some of you have followed, there seems to be some "government" bs going on here. I intent to put this to rest on non-complaint tickets/fines. I also, intend on showing, certain advise on here, could be used in a criminal hearing, to help you to win.

First of all: My legal "theory" is based on common law. This has been the basis for our system since its foundation. This applies to all cases. When statutory law confilcts with common law, statutory is the lesser of the two.

This is a lesson from a Person in PROPRIA PERSONA. I don't promise that this eill work, for every judge in the county, what I do promise, if you know what you are doing, willing to learn, this will beat their ass's!

This may take a week or two, but bear with me lol"

To Start with, any time you are charged, written a "ticket". Le that be. No fighting on the road side will help you. One must be a lil smarter than the drone that just pulled you over.

We will start with the stop, the compesation to the state, and 3 different ways to put this crap to rest.

 

[Scooterdog]

PaT ONE(for my chronic pain. GH and Super cop Carl)

Let's dispense with one fallacy right up front. Traffic tickets have nothing to with highway safety. I want to emphasize that traffic tickets and traffic law enforcement are not synonymous, and the first should not be considered a necessary component of the latter.

State and local governments learned long ago that traffic ticket financial sanctions have little deterrent effect on motorists. Some might argue that fines could be increased to the level that motorists would be sufficiently intimidated to obey the law. In reality, large fines increase motorist resistance to paying high fines and instead, they demand a trial. Trials take all the profit out of the system.

Eventually the "point system" was developed wherein a chronic violator would lose his or her drivers license if sufficient points were accumulated. It's the points, not the typical fine, that catches the average drivers attention.

As the saying goes, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist" to figure out why the traffic ticket system has survived all these years, despite the fact that it does nothing to improve highway safety. The obvious answer is "money." We're talking about a $15 billion dollar annual income stream just from fines and insurance surcharges. But, the reasons go deeper than just putting extra cash in government coffers. Traffic tickets virtually fund many court systems. Traffic tickets justify the existence of entire police agencies (state highway patrols). Traffic tickets are the measurement criteria for enforcement budget requests and personnel performance ratings. Traffic tickets are used as an excuse to raise the insurance rates for otherwise safe drivers to the cumulative total of billions of dollars each year. And, in some instances, traffic tickets from speed traps virtually fund local units of government.

When you begin to grasp the full magnitude of the public and private vested interests that depend on ripping off motorists through traffic tickets, you begin to understand why this blatantly immoral and unethical system persists and expands.


Here is the average of what you will pay for a speeding ticket:

1-5 miles over the posted speed limit - Warning.
6-9 miles over the posted speed limit - $25.00 plus court costs.
10-14 miles over the posted speed limit - $100.00 plus court costs.
15-19 miles over the posted speed limit - $125.00 plus court costs.
20-29 miles over the posted speed limit - $150.00 plus court costs.
30+ miles over the posted speed limit - $250.00 plus court costs.

Speeding fines are doubled in school zones and construction zones.

Moving Violations, such as running a red light or stop sign, violation of right-of-way, improper passing, etc. have increased to $60.00 plus court costs.

Not wearing seatbelt - It is unlawful for any person: to operate a motor vehicle in this state unless all persons are restrained by a safety belt. The fine for each person is
not restrained is $30.00, plus $10.00 court costs.

Child Restraint Violations - The fine for child restraint violations (under 6 years of age not restrained) is $60.00, plus $10.00 court costs, with three points assessed against the driver's record.

No one knows how many traffic tickets are actually issued. Not including parking tickets (another grand scam), Ic can only estimate that somewhere between 100 to 150 million traffic tickets are issued each year.

It should be noted that we haven't even considered the money siphoned off for "traffic schools," attorneys' fees, and avoidance devices like radar detectors and scanners.Anecdotal information we receive in our office suggests that tickets average about $100.00. This means that the up front cost nationally is between $10 billion and $15 billion dollars. If just half of these tickets result in auto insurance increases (typically $300 over a period of three years), you can add another
$15 billion dollars to the gouging attributable to traffic tickets.

On the high side, we're talking about a $15 billion-dollar annual income stream just from fines and insurance surcharges. That's more money than a fair number of states take in from all taxes combined!

The traffic ticket system operates under a few basic tenets:

1. Pass enough laws so that anybody can be stopped anytime and be given a ticket for a
traffic violation.

2. Exaggerate, stigmatize, distort, and otherwise blow out of proportion the effects of
various traffic violations.

3. Maintain a public relations campaign that claims traffic tickets are only given to bad
drivers, that these drivers should pay for the cost of enforcement, and that it's only
logical that the police and courts should be funded from traffic ticket receipts.

4. Keep the ticket prices below the pain threshold that would compel motorists to
aggressively contest traffic citations in court.

5. Remove as many due process protections for traffic law offenders as is politically
possible.

That the press and more legitimate political interests do not recognize or acknowledge the obvious conflicts of interest is perplexing. The police enforce laws that result in direct benefits to police agencies and personnel. Judges weigh decisions where a finding of "guilty" financially rewards the judge, the court and courthouse personnel. And, local units of government deliberately institute enforcement practices with the clear intention of extorting money from travelers to support local government services and to reward government employees. Yet none of these readily documented episodes raises a single red flag?

This system of legalized extortion can be eliminated if the driving public demands change. No court or police department should retain or directly benefit from the collection of any traffic fines. No police department should be permitted to rate or evaluate its officers on the basis of citations issued. No local unit of government should retain traffic fines. The money collected in local courts should be transferred to the state and returned via a local aid formula based on population.

 

[Scooterdog]

DRIVING IN YOUR AUTOMOBILE

If the po-lice stop you the four most important things to remember are :

1. Never argue with a police officer.

2. Cops believe "FELONY STUPID" is a real crime.

3. Never enter into an intellectual battle with an armed opponent.

4. "Contempt of Cop" is always harshly punished, sometimes by DEATH.

The officer may employ all reasonable and necessary force to overcome your resistance when he is making a LAWFUL arrest. The legality of the arrest has nothing to do with whether or not you are ultimately convicted. As long as the officer has reasonable grounds for making the arrest at the time of the arrest, you cannot claim later that the arrest was unlawful merely because you were found not guilty.

Resisting arrest with violence is a felony under state law.
Obstructing an officer in his duty with violence is also a felony.

Resisting arrest without violence or offering to do violence is a misdemeanor.
Obstructing or interfering with an officer in the performance of his duty
without violence is a misdemeanor.

A felony means more than one year in prison and a fine up to $15000.(General's Note: could be $1000 for a state_)
A misdemeanor means less than one year(Generals note: could be six months) in jail and a fine up to $500.

Note: this is for each count or charge. If you were charged with three felony crimes you could be facing $45,000.00 in fines and three or more years in prison.

You could be convicted of resisting, even if you are found not guilty of the ORIGINAL traffic ticket or other crime for which you were arrested.

If you believe that your rights are being violated, make it a point to remember exactly what the police officer did and then write down detailed notes concerning this incident at the earliest possible time.

The reality is that police can and will do anything they want out on the street. And they won't hesitate to lie about it later on.

Some cops are worse than others and all of them will treat you differently if they think you know your rights. The police depend on fear and intimidation to get what they want. Don't let them get away with more than they are allowed to, just because of fear.

If you run into a really bad cop, talking back to him and standing up for your rights might get you severely beaten or even killed, so be careful about the realistic limits of "the law" and of your Rights in America.

Amadou Diallo was gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets in the vestibule of his Bronx home in February 1999. The officers have claimed that the shooting was accident, not murder. They didn't suspect him of any crime, they just wanted to talk to him. They are all members of New York's Street Crime Unit - all claimed that the lighting around the vestibule was dark and they thought Diallo was reaching for a gun when they opened fire. But Diallo was unarmed when he was shot; he had only his wallet and keys.

Who can forget the video tape shown on TV of the horrific beating Rodney King received while he was lying on the ground after several California cops made a traffic stop on him. Do not fool yourself. Any meeting with the cops is dangerous to your health. When you are driving, you are more likely to be injured by a cop than by a car crash.

The cops are the most dangerous members of our society. They carry mace, clubs, knives and guns, plus each one has been trained in martial arts and hand to hand combat. They know all the tricks and methods to subdue or hurt you, and they go through and must pass training every year on methods to kill you, first. So pay attention and be very careful when you talk to or argue with them. Forget your notions of nice deputy Barney Fife and think more about Dirty Harry.



Want to know a secret?

Secrets the cops, the courts, and the insurance companies don't want you to know :

1. The purpose of car insurance is to cover UNUSUAL risk. Since the act of exceeding an unreasonably low speed limit is hardly unusual or dangerous, the risk assumed by the insurance company is nearly non-existent. Therefore, any surcharges added on your insurance premium for speeding tickets are all pure profit.

2. The millions of dollars in profits that an insurance company generates from speeding ticket surcharges allows them to purchase more radar and laser guns to give away FREE to law enforcement agencies. This allows the police to ticket more people, which in turn ensures a constant flow of revenue back to the insurance company.

3. Thousands of speeding tickets are issued by traffic law enforcers who don't know or care how to properly operate radar, VASCAR, or other speed-measurement devices. They are ignorant of the proper operating procedures, performance characteristics, and common malfunctions or errors of their equipment.

4. Traffic ticket fines are the cash cow of the court system. No other class of "crime" is as profitable for state and local governments as is that of traffic tickets. Traffic courts cannot be fair and unbiased when their financial welfare depends only on traffic fines.

5. It is not true that writing more tickets will result in fewer accidents. A ticket writing binge in Florida resulted in an increase in accidents over the same time period in the previous year.

6. Many speed limits are deliberately set well below the prevailing speed of safely-driven vehicles. Doing so does not slow traffic but it does make a greater number of motorists eligible for a speeding ticket they don't deserve. Cops just love these speed traps.

7. There is no connection between receiving an occasional traffic ticket and the likelihood of being in an accident. Therefore, there is no justification for charging a person more for auto insurance just because they were convicted for a traffic violation.

8. Trivial or concocted traffic law violations are frequently used as an excuse to stop, detain, and search persons for whom the police have no otherwise legitimate reason to do so. "Probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" are inserted after the fact and only if the motorist lodges a formal complaint.

9. Most traffic stops are used only as a pretext to stop you so the cops can search you, your passengers and your vehicle. The reason they are so eager to search you is because the courts have said they can keep anything they find including your money and your vehicle, if they find contraband or illegal drugs. This is called "asset forfeiture" and the cops make millions of dollars every year taking your property and selling it to other people.

10. A large proportion of the stop signs erected by local governments are illegal and in violation of state traffic regulations. They know that people don't stop for them since the intention is to use the signs as speed control devices. This proliferation of stop signs merely increases the number of motorists who can be cited for failing to stop when there is no reason to.

11. The best protection against the "good ole boy" system where the judge, state attorney and the arresting officer are on a first-name basis is the jury trial. Jury trials are time consuming, expensive, and greatly diminish the profitability of the traffic ticket system. Therefore, the right to a jury trial is being unconstitutionally denied to traffic ticket defendants, all under the guise of being more fair when actually it is less.

12. Only a small fraction (about 2%) of all traffic tickets are seriously contested. The vast majority of these contested tickets are dismissed or the defendant is given a significantly reduced penalty. If just 10% of the people who received citations fought their tickets, the entire system of government extortion would collapse within a matter of months.

 

[Scooterdog]

From : MONTANA JUDGES' DESKBOOK
MUNICIPAL, JUSTICE, AND CITY COURTS

Section 100 – INTRODUCTION
100.100 The Law. The Law comes from several sources; constitutional law, statutory law and case law. The judge will also encounter references to annotations, unwritten and common laws and attorney general opinions. Attorneys will cite these various sources. Judicial decisions must be based on one or more of these laws

100.101 Constitutional Law. The most binding of our body of laws are the provisions of the United States and Montana Constitutions.

100.103 Case Law. In spite of the great number of statutes, much of our law is founded in the reported decisions of the Montana Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of the United States. These decisions establish precedents to be followed.

100.104 Annotations. Montana statutes are annotated. This means that every case, decided by the Supreme Court where a specific statute is quoted or followed, will appear in the annotations following the code section number. Annotations are in a separate set of loose-leaf books. These annotations are updated after each legislative session, as are the Montana Codes Annotated.

100.105 Unwritten and Common Laws. Three sections of the Montana Code Annotated state the Montana policy:

MCA 1-1-107. Unwritten law defined. Unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, as mentioned in 1-1-104, but which is nevertheless, observed and administered in the courts of the country. It has no certain repository but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the courts and treatises of learned men.


MCA 1-1-109. Common law of England—when rule of decision. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.[/QUOTE]

 

[Scooterdog]

Montana Constitution provides:

Section 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas.

Section 7. Freedom of speech, expression, and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty. In all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the facts.

Section 8. Right of participation. The public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law.
Section 9. Right to know. No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.

Section 10. Right of privacy. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.

Note: In Montana, public servants do NOT fall under Section Ten lol!

 

[Scooterdog]

Section 3. Oath of office. Members of the legislature and all executive, ministerial and judicial officers, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, before they enter upon the duties of their offices: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity (so help me God)." No other oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.

Ok, now that we have that, we move on to Non-victim crimes. We don't respond to the court, but the officer or prosecutor as flollows.:

1-Decleration of standingbody only)

TO: ________________, (name of county) ______________ (name of DA (prosecutor))

FIRST: This is lawful notification and is sent pursuant to the federal Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree, is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,391. Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law". See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."

1. I am a living, flesh and blood human being by the given name of
John Quincy Jones.

2. I am not the person, "JOHN QUINCY JONES", named on any papers submitted in this case and have never claimed to be "JOHN QUINCY JONES".

3. I have never been known as "JOHN QUINCY JONES", a nom de guerre and misnomer.

4. I am the sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370

Note: "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.; "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370"

5. I demand that the prosecutor, should he attempt to dispute my claim of right as a sovereign flesh and blood human being, who is not subject to the law (legislative law) as stated by Supreme Court Justice Mathews in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370, show proof to the court that, the United States Supreme has overturned this landmark case.

6. I have no contract or agreement with STATE OF (NAME OF STATE) or any STATE OF (NAME OF STATE) agency, or any STATE OF (NAME OF STATE) municipality.

7. I have no contract or agreement with (name of county) County or any other county.

8. I am not a party of the body politic or corporate.

9. I have not joined in the above captioned suit.



Date: ____/____/____

Affiant, ______________________________________

John Quincy Jones,
c/o (street address)
city, state, by [00000]

We, the undersigned, witness this (?th) day of (?month), 2005, that the one known to us to be John Quincy Jones, did personally appear before us in (name of county) County, State of (name of state), and upon affirmation execute and affix the above signature.


______________________________ ______________________________
(Witness Signature) (Witness Signature)


Address of Witness: Address of Witness:
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
LAST: If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut that with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, to me, within 10 days of this letter's date, and support your disagreement with fact, evidence and Constitutionally based law or case law. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful, and your irrevocable admission attesting to this, fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest, objection, or that of those who represent you.


I, John Quincy Jones certify that, I have served the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney a true and correct copy of this affidavit on this (enter date (i.e., 7th)) day of (type name of month), 200_ by leaving a copy with the clerk for the office, or the prosecuting attorney, also filing a copy of said legal document with the Court Clerk on the above specified date.

Affiant, _____________________________________
(signature)

 

[Scooterdog]

You would then send two docs such as below, One called: ACCEPTANCE OF OATH OF OFFICE / the other: AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
Acceptance body could go like this:

Notice for ________________, (name) ______ (title, i.e., Judge, Commissioner, Magistrate, ________ (county) District Attorney, etc.

Point of Law: All contracts commence with an offer and only become binding upon acceptance. See: "Contracts" by Farnsworth, third edition, sect. 3.3, pages 112, 113. Infra.

The organic Constitutions of the United States of American, and the State of ____________ (name of state, Upper & Lower Case Type) and the Oath of Office of the above named PUBLIC SERVANT, amounts to nothing more than an offer of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way between the respective governments and the private American people and for other purposes.

Be it known by these presents that I, John Quincy Jones, do hereby accept the organic Constitutions of the United States of America and of the State of __________ (name of state, Upper & Lower Case Type) and the Oath of Office of the above named PUBLIC SERVANT as your open and binding offer of promise to form a firm and binding contract between the respective governments, their political instrumentalities and the above named PUBLIC SERVANT and myself in my private capacity.

I expect that, as a PUBLIC SERVANT, you will perform all of your promises and stay within the limitations of your constitutions, create no unfounded presumptions, seek only the true facts and tell the truth at all times and respect and protect my right of personal liberty and private property and all rights antecedent thereto.

The foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Constitutions and of Oath of Office is made explicitly without recourse and now constitutes a binding contract and any deviation there from will be treated as a breach of contract and a violation of substantive due process.







VERIFICATION

I, John Quincy Jones, declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the laws of the United states of America that the foregoing is true correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

______________________________
(Declarer's Signature)


______________________________ ______________________________
(Witness Signature) (Witness Signature)

Address of Witness: Address of Witness:
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________

Dated: ________________

THIS INSTRUMENT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE




"Contracts" by Farnsworth, third edition, sect 3.3, pages 112,113

Offer and Acceptance. The outward appearance of the agreement process, by which the parties satisfy the requirement of bargain imposed by the doctrine of consideration, varies widely according to the circumstances. It may, for example, involve face-to-face negotiations, an exchange of letters or facsimiles, or merely the perfunctory signing of a printed form supplied by the other party. Whatever the outward appearance, it is common to analyze the process in terms
of two distinct steps: First, a manifestation of assent that is called an offer, made by one party (the offeror) to another (the offeree);
and second, a manifestation of assent in response that is called an acceptance, made by the offeree to the offeror. Although courts apply this analysis on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances, it gives a reassuring appearance of consistency.

What is an "offer"? It can be defined as a manifestation to another of
assent to enter into a contract if the other manifests assent in return by some action, often a promise but sometimes a performance. By making an offer, the offeror thus confers upon the offeree the power to create a contract. An offer is nearly always a promise and in a sense, the action (promise or performance) on which the offeror conditions the promise is the "price" of its becoming enforceable. Offer, then, is the name given to a promise that is conditional on some action by the promisee if the legal effect of the promisee's taking that action is to make the promise enforceable. Empowerment of the offeree to make the offeror's promise enforceable is thus the essence of an offer. When does a promise empower the promisee to take action that will make the promise enforceable? In other words, when does a manifestation of assent amount to an offer? This is one of the main subjects of this chapter.

What is an "acceptance"? It can be defined as the action {promise or performance} by the offeree that creates a contract (ie, makes the offeror's promise enforceable). Acceptance, then, is the name given to the offeree's action if the legal effect of that action is to make the offeror's promise enforceable. When does action by the promisee make the promise enforceable? In other words, when does the promisee's action amount to an acceptance? This is another of the main subjects of this chapter. Because of the requirement of mutuality of obligation, both parties are free to withdraw from negotiations until the moment when both are bound. This is the moment when the offeree accepts the offer. It therefore follows, as we shall see later in more detail, that the offeror is free to revoke the offer at any time before acceptance.

 

[Scooterdog]

Aff. body could look like this:

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH​

I, John Quincy Jones, the undersigned, make this affidavit of my own free will and hereby affirm, under my oath, that the information contained in this affidavit is true and correct.

This affidavit is lawful notification to the (name of county Upper & Lower Case Type, (i.e., Los Angeles County)) _________ District Attorney, hereinafter referred to as the prosecutor, and is hereby made and sent to the above named prosecutor pursuant to the Federal Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, IX and X, and requires your written response to me within 10 days, via your sworn and notarized affidavit, specific to the subject matter specified in this affidavit. Notice to Principals is notice to agents, and notice to agents is notice to Principals. You are hereby noticed that your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, anything with which you disagree in this affidavit, is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this affidavit is true, correct, legal, lawful, and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection, or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence.

I, John Quincy Jones, hereby affirm that the following actions and events took place:

1. I delivered to the prosecutor's office my "Declaration of Standing" on or about
_____________ (date).

2. The document notified recipient: (a) of my legal standing; that the prosecutor did
not have proper jurisdiction over me to prosecute this instant case, (b) that the
prosecutor, within a specified time period, is required as a matter of law to rebut
my charges and averments made in those letters if the prosecutor disagreed with
them; (c) that if the prosecutor failed to do so, then the prosecutor agreed with
and admitted to my charges and averments;

3. The prosecutor received the document but failed to respond to the subject matter
contained in them;

4. The prosecutor failed to rebut any of my statements, charges or averments made
in the referenced letters;

5. Pursuant to the notice contained in the letters, The prosecutor, by his or her failure
to respond to, and further, by his or her failure to rebut my charges and averments
made in my referenced document, The prosecutor agrees with and admits to my
charges contained in the referenced letters;

5. By the prosecutor's failure to rebut the charges contained in the referenced
document, he or she admits to all of my charges. The charges, to which The
prosecutor agrees, by his or her failure to rebut them, are listed below.

Exhibit A: Included his/herein documents the following facts:
A. I am not JOHN QUINCY JONES (your name in ALL CAPS).
B. I am a flesh and blood human being not subject to the jurisdiction of the prosecutor, but rather the Sovereign in Yick Wo: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370"
C. I have no contract with the state of ______________, (name of state in Upper & Lower Case Type) the county of __________, (name of county where traffic trial is being held) nor the city of __________. (name of city where traffic trial is being held)
D. The prosecutor has no jurisdiction to prosecute this instant case.




AUTHORITIES
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
"This/here is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150.
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.















Therefore I demand the court dismiss this case sua sponte due to the prosecutor's
lack of jurisdiction:
Date: ___________
________________________________
___________________________
John Quincy Jones, Affiant

We, the undersigned, witness this __th day of __________, 200_, that the one known to us to be __________________, (your name in Upper and Lower case type) did personally appear before us in Washtenaw County, State of Michigan, and upon affirmation execute and affix the above signature.


______________________________ ______________________________
(Witness Signature) (Witness Signature)


Address of Witness: Address of Witness:
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________