Law is Very Specific

The State can’t call you a “jerk” or a “criminal” or “speeder” unless there is specific facts related to a specific statute that specifically applies to you.

Good and innocent free men are often defeated by looking at citations and failing to observe that the general language is defective and has no power in law to convict a law-abiding citizen trapped in some commercial scheme regarding general criminal allegation. You must force your opponent to aver specifically, not generally; to state facts, not conclusions.

Note carefully the cases cited here. 

THERE IS NO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS When There is no Verified Complaint Enumerating Specific Averments in the Matter Nor Verified Summons, Nor Verified Affidavit Providing Specifics of The Charge, Nor Verified Warrant, et Cetera; and,

NEITHER HAS any party filed any verified summons, verified complaint, verified affidavit of charges, nor verified warrant, nor served any of the same upon Accused, in which the charges and averments are stated with specificity.  Instead, there is before the above captioned court a private instrument captioned, “NEW MEXICO UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION” merely citing a private statute[1] said to “affect” the “operations” of said “Department.”  Proceedings based merely upon this instrument are a mockery of due process of law.  The Accused cannot possibly understand the nature of the charge, nor enter a plea without understanding the charge. The problem is compounded where no charge, verified or otherwise, has been filed with the court, but, instead, the mere citing of a statute/ordinance, a flagrant violation of the Defendant in Error’s right to “due process of law.’’  The following court rulings testify to this point of law:

“With respect to the nature of the demand in question, the test for determining the jurisdiction is ordinarily the nature of the case as made by the complaint and the relief sought In this connection, the jurisdiction of the court usually depends on the sufficiency of the averments and not on their truth” Newlove v. Mercantile et cetera, 105 P. 971

“Furthermore, in the determination of subject matter jurisdiction, the courts are not bound by the labels put on the pleading, nor the caption of the pleading or prayer, but by the substance.” Benson v. Sales Corp. 238 Ca. 2d supp 937,48 Cal Rptr. 123

“Every ingredient of which an offense is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged. It is an elementary principle of pleading that where the definition of an offense, whether it be at common law or statute, includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the pleading shall charge the offense in some generic terms as in the definition; but it must state the species, it must descend to the particulars. The objective is, first, to furnish the Accused with such description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense and avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; second, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. For the facts are to be stated, not conclusions of law alone. An offense is made of acts and intent; and these must be set forth with particularity of the time, place, and circumstances.” US. v. Cook; 17 Wallace 174

“Offenses created by statute, as well as offenses at common law, must be accurately and clearly described, and, if the offense cannot be described without expanding the allegations beyond mere words of the statute, then it is clear that the allegations must be extended to the extent, as it is universally true that no charge is sufficient which does not accurately and clearly allege all the ingredients of which the offense is composed, so as to bring the Accused within the true intent and meaning of the statute defining the offense. Every offense consists of certain acts done or omitted under certain circumstances; and, in the charge of the offense, it is not sufficient to charge the Accused generally with having committed the offense, but all circumstances constituting must be specially set forth.” Archibold’s Criminal Pleading, 15th Ed. 43

“A formal accusation, in addition to enabling a defendant to prepare his defense, protects a defendant against double jeopardy and informs the court of the facts alleged so that it can decide whether they are sufficient to support a conviction. An indictment or information charging of a crime is necessary preliminary to a conviction by the court for that crime. No waiver or consent by the defendant to a criminal prosecution can confer jurisdiction or authorize a conviction in the absence of an accusation charging a violation of the criminal law.” Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1,47 S.Ct 250,71 L. Ed. 505 (1926)

“Before a man can be punished’ his case must be plainly and unmistakably within the statute, and if there is any doubt whether the statute embraces it, that doubt is to be resolved in favor of the Accused.” US. v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624

[1] Private statute is a regulation required for parties involved in a contract.