Abatement at Common Law
 

 

 

 


                                            

By: Melvin Stamper, JD.

Common Law Copyright 1997

      All Rights Reserved                             

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


"We can have intellectual individualism and the rich, Cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State,... the price is not too great; But freedom to differ is not limited to those things that do not matter much. That would be a mere, shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

 

   "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, (1943).

 

 

 

 

COMMENTS FROM THE PROFESSOR ON TRAFFIC CITATIONS AND INTRODUCTION TO ABATEMENT

 

There are many who believe that special appearances (by paper work, motions, etc.) nullify a court’s jurisdiction. Under emergency powers this is false doctrine. There is no remedy in challenging a courts jurisdiction, except by abating its process, first. Abatements are not a challenge to a courts jurisdiction, merely a good faith attempt to correct errors in process, "correct the errors judge and I'll appear."

 

Special appearances fail when a judge knows what he's doing; under martial rule, judges do whatever they want, whenever they want so long as he/she does not alarm the public or disturb the peace. Jurisdiction is always granted to try jurisdictional questions, even if one goes to higher courts. Defendants grant jurisdiction without knowing it, because they never challenge the process that creates the jurisdiction in the first place. (See FRCP §2.4 (2)(4))

 

Process is perfected by appearance, special or otherwise. Also remember the court is not the building the judge or anyone else, it’s the paperwork. If the court paperwork is defective there is no court and it ceases to exist. The only way to overcome the War Powers court process is by Abatement.

 

Traffic tickets are a pain for all of us. When using this abatement strategy, first send in the Notice of Abatement, Memorandum of Law and Denial of Corporate Existence to the Clerk of Court.  That generally takes care of the pesky ticket. If you do not hear from him within 15 days, send in the Default Notice of the Notary to the Clerk. If you receive a summons, which has the proper signature of the judge and the court seal, send in the Subpoena and Discovery Interrogatories to the Prosecuting Attorney and the court. Your challenging jurisdiction and the opposing party must traverse your challenge or the court cannot proceed. In most cases they will never give you the documents you have requested or answer your questions, if they do, you won. The people granted authority to the state legislature to adjudicate only a few matters: Actions at law, actions in equity, and actions under the rule of necessity (military). Admiralty was remanded to the federal government and the states (are supposed to) have no authority to legislate in this jurisdiction. There was a time when someone aggrieved of harm would file a tort at law. And the nature of the action governed the rules of the procedure. If there was a breach of contract, then this was an equity matter. If the aggrieved party could allege a tortious breach of contract, this matter was moved from the equity side of the court into the law side.

 

This is because the people must have access to a remedy at law if this type of action could give relief. If one were in the military, or if one were under territory under martial law, the court was a military court. If there was a breach of an international contract, the matter was federal and heard under admiralty.

 

The state legislature cannot vest a "court" with authority that has not been delegated to it by the people via the constitution of the state. They cannot create a new "nature of action" out of thin air. Later on, when the Constitutions of the several states were amended to recognize and administrate corporations, a separate court was established, and the action was in the nature of administrative.

 

Human beings could not be brought into administrative courts, as the only matter at issue was a breach of corporate charter by an artificial person. Somewhere along the line, the announcement in the complaint of the nature of the action was lost.

 

The attorneys all got together and decided that it would be much "simpler" (for them) if there were only one form of action. So today, there is no disclosure of the nature of the action, unless one demands to know the nature and cause of the accusation by using a demand for a bill of particulars.

 

I have been quite successful with this procedure, even in states that have decided that a demand for bill of particulars is a discretionary motion before the court. For example, in Pennsylvania, the demand for bill of particulars used to be prior to arraignment so that one had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against the elements of personal jurisdiction and "venue" (to include territorial jurisdiction as well as the "nature of the action" that used to be a part of subject matter jurisdiction).

 

Within the past couple decades, they moved it into "discovery", which is after arraignment, so the ability of one to challenge the jurisdiction and venue of the court was lost.

 

This is because entering a plea ACCEPTS the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject matter jurisdiction was challengeable. If they say this is a matter at law, my defense against this jurisdiction is whether or not there is a damaged party. I do not ask if this is an equity jurisdiction because equity is not a criminal type of action.

 

If they say this is a matter in hustings (which is the true nature of action of all administrative law), my defense against this jurisdiction is that I am not an artificial person (unless I am a federal citizen - but that is quite another matter entirely), unless they can show from the records in the Secretary of State's office that I have charted as such.

 

If they say this is an admiralty matter, my defense against this jurisdiction is whether the offense was committed on federal territory over which the state has retained concurrent jurisdiction (although I still have-not found how the state exercises an admiralty jurisdiction in light of 28 USC § 1333).

 

If they say this is a military matter, my defense against this jurisdiction is that1) I am not a member of their military (I am, however, a member of the militia of one of the several states - but they do not operate as such anymore), 2) the nation is not under martial law (or is it?).

 

Given the fact that there are currently 14 Notices from the President’s of a Declaration of National Emergency published in the Federal Register, we may very well be in a state of martial law. The one from March 6, 1933 is still in effect today.

 

However, they are not going to admit the nature of the action, as this will admit their want of jurisdiction on the record for all to see, so THEY move to dismiss the charges. Every time.

 

While I will never succeed in bringing down the current regime in this manner, at least other folks see what I am doing and some decide along the way that they want to learn this procedure.

 

I contend that if only 10% of the people enforced their right to know the "nature and cause" of the accusation, that we could most certainly shut down the incessant stream of revenue being fleeced from the people by these "administrative" courts. As far as the "compelling government interest" doctrine, this is clearly matter founded in law martial rule - the military authority is in the process of returning control to the civil authorities, but has not yet completed the process

 

I simply do not understand the nature and cause of the accusation with regard to the elements of personal jurisdiction, venue, and the nature of the action until the prosecution properly alleges them. I am therefore unable to enter a plea to the charge until I have had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against these elements. I cannot rebut an unstated presumption.

 

The courts operate on silent judicial notice of presumption all the time. It is time for this to end.

 

Generally, when you appear the Police Officer is not there because he has been instructed to stay home that day. You simply move for a dismissal for lack of prosecution, as the Prosecutor cannot testify to facts, which he has no first hand knowledge of. Be especially careful of the judge’s conduct, he is required by his Oath of Office to be an impartial trier of fact, not the assistant prosecutor.

 

Have fun but please do not abuse this procedure or it may become ineffective because of the abuse.

 

Melvin Stamper, JD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certified Mail No.                                                                

 

Dated:                                                                                  

 

To:       (Name of Judge)

            (Circuit Court)

            (Address)

            City, State, zip

 

From:    (Your Name)

            (Address)

            (City, State, Zip)

 

The Honorable (Name of Judge),

 

When I specially visit your court on a forced response on (Date of Hearing) to a Bill of Pains and Penalties issued by the (Officer Name) employed by the (Police Agency), employed by the corporate (YOUR STATE), I move this court and you, (Judge Name), to take judicial notice that my special visitation was forced, that my visitation is special, and not general, since this notice is my timely and specific objection to the presumptions upon which a false conclusion of law has been made administratively with regard to my status before this court.

 

The plaintiff in this case is an administrative officer representing the corporate and de facto (YOUR STATE), which has legislative power to compel performance upon the letter of its statutes upon all persons subject to its jurisdiction. The only due process that its legislative courts recognize is the right to be heard on the facts of the case.

 

The corporate plaintiff in this criminal action before this court has made an unproven conclusion of law that (Your Name) is among those persons who have lost, or otherwise abandoned, their status in the guaranteed "Republican Form" of Government and who must perform under legislative power upon the exact letter of every legislative statute with no due process of law protection other than that outlined in paragraph two of this letter.

 

It is from this false conclusion of law that administrative officer (Officer Name) issued the contested Bill of Pains and Penalties upon (Your Name).

 

This court must take judicial Notice that (Your Name) an un-enfranchised individual has made a contrary conclusion of law to that of plaintiff. (Your Name) claims his guaranteed, fundamental and unalienable rights stemming from both the National and State constitutions to full due process of law in all criminal actions against him, means he is subject only to judicial power, not legislative power. Said judicial power when exercised over him requires a corpus delicti or a damaged party who has sworn out a verified complaint against him. This is lacking in the criminal complaint against (Your Name) brought on by plaintiff.

 

So, the unlawfully charged (Your Name) declares that his un-enfranchised status as a preamble American Citizen of the guaranteed "Republican form" of government known as The United States of America and inhabitant of (Your State), that without a corpus delicti, no court judicial or legislative tribunal has a criminal jurisdiction over his person or property.

 

Therefore, the accused specially visits before the law side of this court seeking its protection from the excess zeal of corporate government, trusting that this court will assume a neutral stance at law and require the corporate plaintiff in this criminal action to prove its in rem and, or, in personam criminal jurisdiction over the accused to be a fact of law before this court will take on the role of judging the facts of this legislative charge brought before you. Your Oath of Office compels nothing less from you.

                                                                                   

 

Cordially yours,

                                                                                   

_____________________________

(Your Name), sui juris

                                                                                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clerk of the Court                                                                                 (Date)

Address                        NOTICE OF ABATEMENT

City, State, zip                                                                           Certified Mail #

 

To The Honorable (Name of Judge)

 

Reference: (STATE NAME) UNIFORM TRAFIC CITATION AND COMPLAINT # ??????

 

Honorable (Clerk Name),

 

I am noticing you to Abate the above referenced (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint # ????.

 

I (Your Name) am a natural man, living on the land of the State of (Name). I am not exercising my right to travel freely within this state to engage in commercial activity. As my travel is not commercial, I am not subject to being detained or summoned to the court by Officer (Name) exercising the Police Power of the State to enforce its statutes in commerce. Below are some of my reasons as to why I will not appear unless defects in the service of process are corrected.

 

 

NOTICE OF ABATEMENT OF IMPROPER SERVICE

 

I am in receipt of a document titled in Capital Letters as (NAME OF STATE) UNIFORM CITATION AND COMPLAINT dated                . I have received but have not accepted the Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint and am hereby rejecting said document for cause without dishonor. I am returning said document marked "Without Prejudice" thereby retaining all of my Rights in Law and Equity as I challenge the subject matter and in personam jurisdiction of the court for the following causes:

 

Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially merely ministerial, having thus no judicial immunity, and unlike courts of law do not obtain jurisdiction by service of process nor even arrest and compelled appearance. Boswell v. Otis, 9 Howard 336, 348.

 

Service of a traffic ticket on a motorist does not give the court jurisdiction over his person... Service of a traffic ticket imposes no compulsion on him, and no penalty attached for failure to heed it... Purpose of traffic ticket is to secure the motorist's voluntary appearance. Colville v. Bennett, 293 NYS 2d 685.

 

If the (NAME OF STATE) UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION AND COMPLAINT is a Summons requiring my appearance, the following defects must be corrected before I will submit to the courts’ jurisdiction.

 

The mandate contained within Amendment V of the United States Constitution requiring “due process,” i.e., meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, precedes the imposition of administratively issued summonses, except where licensing agreement obligate assets.  I have no knowledge of (Your Name) having any licensing agreement(s) with the County of (Name), State of (Name), or the United States, which obligates assets and I demand strict proof to the contrary.

 

The Police Officer (Name), (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint, in issue does not meet the legal definition of a judicial “summons” as follows:

 

“Summons.  Instrument used to commence a civil action or special proceeding and is a means of acquiring jurisdiction over a party.  Writ or process directed to the sheriff or other proper officer, requiring him to notify the person named that an action has been commenced against him in the court from where the process issues, and that he is required to appear, on a day named, and answer the complaint in such action.  Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk is required to issue a summons and deliver it for service to the marshal or to a person specially appointed to serve it.  Fed.R.Civil P. 4(a).”  Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 1436.

 

Note:  There are no definitions for the terms “administrative summons” in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

 

The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint in issue neither indicates on its face that a lawsuit is pending, nor does it comply with the rules for  “form and content” of civil summonses and is defective in the following ways:

 

(a)    The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not bear the signature of the clerk of the court.

(b)    The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not have the seal of the court placed upon it.

(c)    The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the name of the court upon it.

(d)    The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the names of the parties to the cause of action with their respective designations as plaintiff and defendant.

(e)    The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney or plaintiff’s address per se.

(f)     The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the mandatory notice to the defendant of the time and place in which the defendant is to appear and defend.

(g)    The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the proper default warning language to defendant.

(h)    The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not have a copy of the plaintiff’s complaint and probable cause affidavit attached.

(i)      Without an attached complaint and probable cause affidavit or Bill of Particulars, petitioners have no way of knowing what the nature and cause of the underlying complaint is about and what relief the plaintiff demands.

(j)      Officer (Name), himself, “served” said (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint and is the party who has an “adversarial interest” in the instant matter.  

 

Note: “A ‘Summons’ may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action.”  Caldwell v. Coppola, 219 Cal.App.3rd, 859. 

 

The prohibition of personal service of process by parties is to discourage “fraudulent service by persons with an adversarial interest in a legal action.” 

 

It appears from the returned document, that your organization is requesting my voluntary appearance, but threatening me with conviction and judgment for an undisclosed amount exceeding the base fine if I do not voluntarily comply.

 

In light of the case law cited above and by voluntarily subjecting myself to your organization's jurisdiction I would put my personal property at a substantial risk of loss.

 

Your organization's coercive threats of retaliation for the exercise of stewardship over my personal property seem inappropriate and unconstitutional in denying me due process of law. Especially inappropriate, in light of the fact that I am advised by a decision of the United States Supreme court to pause, reflect and accurately ascertain your organization's official capacity and authority. 

 

Since "…whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority..." Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947).

 

I have included an attachment to this Notice of Abatement; a Memorandum of Law on the subject of my Right to travel upon the public highway. I think that it will enlighten you as to my position and give you ample evidence and reason to abate the Traffic Citation.

 

I expect your response to my Notice of Abatement and correction of the errors, by the issuance of a proper Summons or an Affidavit in rebuttal to the stated legal position. Signed by the appropriate judicial officer in black ink with the court seal of your organization and service of the Summons by the County Sheriff.

 

Demand is made for a Bill of Particulars identifying the jurisdiction, venue, nature and cause of the accusation so that I may mount an aggressive defense.

 

Demand is made of the plaintiff, if this is a common law action, to bring forward an Affidavit of damaged party, and a verified complaint.

 

 In addition, a clarification of any error you claim I have made in this Abatement along with all the documents you offer in support of your position, within the reasonable time period of 15 days of your receipt of this Notice of Abatement. If you need additional time please make your request in writing and it will be granted.

 

If I do not hear from you in 15 days, your lack of response will establish the presumption that the returned document was improperly served, that there exist no un-resolved material facts in issue or that a controversy between the parties exist. A Notice of Default will be issued to you. By your acquiescence in the matter your organization will have accepted my position as being applicable in this instance, thus closing the matter. Time is of the Essence.

 

GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY

 

Respectfully,

 

 

______________________

(Your Name, Sui Juris

Address

City, State, Zip

Phone Number

Registered Mail #

 

Affidavit of (Your Name) - Page One of Two

 

Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence of (Your Name)

 

One, (Your Name), a living, breathing man, declare and state that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and of which One has first hand knowledge of the matters stated herein. One, (Your Name), is of the age of majority and competent to testify on the matters stated herein. If any man or woman desires to answer this Affidavit, please do so in the manner of this instrument; by Notarized Affidavit, using your Christian or family name for signature and mail to the below named Notary address provided, within five (5) days or default will be obtained. You’re written signature only do not type it out.

 

1.       One, (Your Name) hereby denies that the following corporations exist and their capacity to sue or be sued, challenge by negative averment pursuant to FRCP 9(a):

 

THE UNITED STATES, a.k.a. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE STATE OF (NAME)

THE COUNTY OF (NAME),

(NAME) CITY, 

ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS,

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

(YOUR NAME ALL CAPS) of (Address, CITY (NAME), (STATE NAME) and

All other Corporate Members who are, or may be associated with any complaints against my natural body.

 

2.       One (Your Name) has no Contract with the State or Federal governments, which give Equity Jurisdiction to the Courts. One has no bank account, no credit cards.

 

3.       One has rescinded the governments Social Security Number and any present or future benefits, of that socialist system for religious conviction.

 

4.       One (Your Name), has signed no International Maritime Agreement with the State of (Name) or Federal governments, either intentionally, willingly or knowingly, which would give Admiralty or Vice Admiralty jurisdiction to the Courts of either the state or federal governments and does not voluntarily submit to any of those jurisdictions.

 

5.       One (Your Name) is subject only to the common law of the Republic State of (Name) and United States of America and is not subject to a Corporation or its system of Administrative Law.

 

6.       One (Your Name), is not a Corporation or Member of a Corporation, a Trustee or Beneficiary of any Trust created by government; is not a legal fiction or a juristic personality and refutes any unknown nexus, which might attach him to any such entity or jurisdiction.

 

7.       One (Your Name) cannot be held in involuntary servitude pursuant to Amendment 13 of the Constitution for the United States of America. One cannot be held as surety or collateral for


Affidavit of (Your Name), - Page Two of Two

 

any Bankruptcy of the Federal or State governments without my permission, which has never been given.

 

8.       One (Your Name) has never applied for Bankruptcy and never given his permission to the State of Federal governments for his participation in any bankruptcy scheme of the Federal or State governments or the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc.

 

9.       One (Your Name) is a Natural Human Soul, living upon the land of the Sovereign Republic of (Name).

 

10.   One (Your Name) is not subject to federal law legislated by Congress under its authority of Article IV of the Constitution for the United States or state or federal Admiralty/Equity judicial jurisdiction.

 

11.   One (Your Name) is subject only to law legislated by Congress under its authority of Article I of the Constitution for the United States, if the law has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Administrative Procedures Act and the Federal Register Act, which would specifically identify the law as being applicable to the general population of the 50 Union States.

 

12.   One (Your Name) is subject only to a Republican Form of government, pursuant to the federal Constitution and the Constitution of the State of (Name) under the equal footing doctrine of the Constitution for the United States of America, not a Corporate form or Military form of government known as a Democracy or Martial Rule.

 

13.   Savings statutes have been in place since the beginning, but generally not understood by the general population or the legal profession. Citing "including trial by jury" preserves the full slate of due process rights included in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution for the United States and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the several Union States. As "existing law" is constitutional and common law is indigenous only to the several States, in the absence of legitimate federal common law, which extends to the several States, those government employees who operate under color of law are subject to the foundation law of the Union States. In the absence of legitimate federal common law, which extends to the several States, in order to retain all common law rights in the instant matter and to secure proper jurisdiction and venue in a Article III Common Law Court of the State of (Name), (Your Name) invoke the Savings to Suitors clause pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1331(1).  Shannon v. City of Anchorage, Alaska, 478 P.2d 815, 818. (Your Name) demand the full slate of due process rights including trial by jury pursuant to FRCP 38(b).

 

Further Affiant sayeth not.

 

 

 

____________________________________

(Your Name) Sui juris

 

 

 

NOTORIAL

 

On the  day of               2002, a man who identified him as (Your Name) appeared before me, a notary, and attested to the truth of this affidavit with his signature.

 

___________________________

Name of Notary and his Address

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information only:

 

Don’t replace the One with I, as I, is not you it is merely a signifier of a Number or entity. 

 

Use the Notary address for their response to you not your own. If within five days or their receiving the Affidavit they do not answer, type up a Notice of Default and send it to them, the Notary is the one who signs the default notice.

 

·        Three copies of this affidavit should be (preferably) handwritten; one copy forwarded to the U.S. Attorney in time to give them five days to respond and send it Registered Mail so that she has to sign for it.

·         One copy should be kept on you when you go to court and thirty minutes before you enter the court, file one in their court record

·        Have the clerk stamp the other and keep with you in court in case the prosecutor and judge have not received their copies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE (NUMBER) Judicial CIRCUIT

(CITY) DIVISION

In the “State of (NAME)”

 

 

State of (NAME), inc.,                                  )                 Case No:
 City, County of (NAME),                           )    

                                                                              )           notice and demand for

And All Other Persons Known and Unknown;        )                 abatement

And All whom may be Concerned,                         )       

                                                                              )       

                                          Accuser(s)                    )       

v.                                                                           )       

                                                                              )          

Spell your name Up and Lc, Sui Juris                     )

                                                                              )

                                          Accused.                      )

_______________________________________ )

notice and demand for abatement AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

Now, comes the Accused (Your Name), sui juris, by his own authority, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily so as not to confuse the court and challenges the jurisdiction of this court. But being under threat of arrest if he failed to appear, at no time does the Accused submit to the Jurisdiction and Venue of the above-entitled court and at no time waving any Rights whatsoever knowingly or unknowingly. Accused asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that he is without counsel, is not schooled in the law and legal procedures, and is not licensed to practice law. Therefore his pleadings must be read and construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520 (1980); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981). Further accused believes that this court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect any and all of the accused constitutional and statutory rights. See United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,220 [1882]

 

The Accused gives notice that this proceeding be abated or dismissed immediately or show cause why the Accused should not take all lawful recourse against the accuser(s).

I.  ARGUMENT

Can the state legislature with the power to make all laws and needful rules, abrogate by that power the Citizens constitutional guarantees?

Accused (Name) believes that they may not.

1.      The Accused is possessed of all rights pursuant to the Constitution for the United States of America, the Constitution of the (Name of State) State, common law and the rules applicable to criminal procedure.

2.      The Accused makes this special appearance in order to determine what rights will be afforded him by this court and which rights will be denied.

3.      Due process requirements of the federal and state constitutions require among other procedures that the Accused be furnished by the plaintiff with a verified complaint of injury, so that the Accused may consider a plea other than guilty.

4.      By the Plaintiff not being afforded this fundamental right, he cannot determine the nature of the offense he is being charged with that has caused damage to the plaintiff; or what plea other than guilty is available to him.

5.      By denying the Accused the accusatory instrument, the court is denied subject matter jurisdiction, as there is no valid charging document before the criminal court at the time of the arraignment.

6.      Absence of a verified complaint or information denies the court of subject matter jurisdiction and even if the accused appears in court the judge cannot arraign him unless the accusatory instrument has been filed.

7.       In order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction, the police officer who has issued and served the appearance/traffic ticket must, at or before the return date, file with the criminal court a misdemeanor complaint, a simplified information or an information charging the person named in the appearance ticket with the offence specified therein.

8.      It may be that the court has a misunderstanding of what the law requires and that the signed appearance ticket is a sufficient document upon which to arraign (Your Name)

9.      The “appearance/traffic ticket” utterly fails to meet the requirements of an accusatory pleading in that it fails to state the title of the action, the name of the plaintiff, or contain a statement of the public offense which it allegedly charges; it fails to constitute a accusatory pleading since it is not sworn to before some officer entitled to administer oaths.

10.  In addition the appearance/traffic ticket is not subscribed by any prosecutor, it is signed by the police officer, but he is only a witness and is not identified as one who is authorized by law who may be a prosecuting attorney representing the people.

11.  As the prosecuting attorney does not subscribe the “appearance/traffic ticket” the people, of this great state of (Name of State), have not charged the accused with any crime whatsoever.

12.  Without an accusatory instrument subscribed by the prosecuting attorney, charging the accused with a crime, there is no charge for (Your Name) to plea to or to defend against.

13.   The Accused (Your Name) has met the plaintiff (whoever that may be) step by step, by this special appearance as he agreed to and promised in the “appearance/traffic ticket”; it would be the plaintiff who has chosen not to prosecute, by not filing a verified complaint, therefore depriving this court of any jurisdiction.

Therefore, (Your Name) notices this Honorable court to abate the “appearance/traffic ticket” numbered (Number of the ticket) for lack of jurisdiction.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

____________________________

 (Your Name)

Address

City, State, zip

Phone Number

 

ACCUSED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPORT OF NOTICE TO ABATE

 

This