1John Doe N/D,N/R, C/O

2XZX Briyce Street,

3Santa Rita, California Republic
4sui juris
5
6
7 Superior Court of California, Sacramento county
8
9PEOPLE OF THE STATE, ) alleged case ? TRAFFIC
10OF CALIFORNIA ) DAR # 65XX68
11 Plaintiff in error )
12 ) Date___________ time_______C#_____
13 v. ) Affidavit of Truth,
14JOHN HENRY DOE, ) Requirement to abate or show cause,
15Aggreived Defendant in error ) Exhibits A-E
16 ______________________________________________________________________
17 Notice and Demand to show cause or Abate the above entitled
18 action
19I, John Doe come by special appearance, under protest, to present this document, in this
20court of record1, to challenge service of process and jurisdiction only.
21 Affidavit of Truth-Requirement to show cause or Abate matter #________________
22I, John Doe, Sui Juris, a common-law-free-man, hereafter “I”, “me” or “my”, one of the
23people2 on Sacramento county soil (California), over the age of 21 years and competent to
24testify, having first hand knowledge, and swearing under penalty of perjury as God is my
25witness per laws of California, all the material facts and law are true and correct as follows:
26 1. For I cliam I am a man living on-the-land and a creation-of-God/Nature known as
27 John Doe, and not a artificial-fictional-entity or corporate “person”, such as JOHN
28 HENRY DOE or any variation of that capital lettered nom-dequerre.
29 2. For I claim all rights and remedies and waive no rights or remedies.
30 3. For I claim I am not a member of the body- politic. [terminated voter registration]
31 4. For I claim I am not a resident of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [ I sent a letter
32 to the postmaster terminating my status as a 'resident' of the STATE OF
33 CALIFORNIA]
34 5. For I claim that I have seen no evidence the Claimant (THE PEOPLE OF THE
35 STATE OF CLALIFORNA) is/are not a legal fiction(s).
36 6. For I claim that the Claimant is not real and therefore cannot be a "real party in
37 interest"3 and I object to a fiction suing any man or woman.
1
1 of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the
A “court
magistrate
2 designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled
3 for a perpetual memorial. Jones v Jones 188 Mo. App. 220, 175 S.W. 227,229: Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. , Mass. ,
171, per 4 Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Ritalsky, 244 N.Y. 406,155 N.E. 688, 689 - Blacks 4 th pg426
2
"...at5the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are
sovereigns
6 without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....". CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440,
455 @DALL7 (1793) pp471-472.
“Sovereignty
8 itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign
powers 9 are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all
government
10 exists and acts.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356; 6 [Link]. 1064 (1886)
"It is 11
the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this state
do not 12yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." California Government Code, Section 11120. verified Bagley-
Keene 13Open Meeting Act.
3
EVI14 §451. Compulsory Judicial Notice>(a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the
United 15States... (d) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, such as the
Rules16of the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
 1 7. For I am not a public servant and have no required “Oath-of-Office”.
2 8. For I have no lawful contracts4 with the State of California, Sacramento County, or
3 the City of Santa Rita that waive any of my rights5.
4 9. For I claim that no warrant or requred probable cause6 existed to support an arrest7
5 and to issue the alleged “notice to appear”.
6 10. For I claim an infraction8 is not a crime so no probable cause can exist for an arrest
7 based upon the violation of an infraction such as VEH § 22350 claimed in the
8 alleged Complaint (see attached Exhibit A).
9 11. For I claim that I was travelling in my private property-car, and not in a “motor
10 vehicle9”, or engaging in any “commercial” agreement such as being paid a fee for
11 hauling people or cargo, when I was arrested and there is no evidence to the
12 contrary.

the Admiralty
1 Rules, the Rules of the Court of Claims, the Rules of the Customs Court, and the General Orders and Forms in
Bankruptcy.
2
FRCP-17(a)
3 : (a) REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. (1) Designation in General. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the
real party
4 in interest. 
4
5
CONTRACT: An agreement between two or more parties, preliminary step in making of which is offer by one and acceptance
by other,6 in which minds of parties meet and concur in understanding of terms. Lee v. Travellers’ [Link]. of Hartford, Conn.,
173 S.C. 7 185, 175 S.E. 429
It is an8agreement creating obligation, in which there must be competent parties, subject-matter, legal consideration, mutuality
of agreement,
9 and mutuality of obligation, and agreement must not be so vague or uncertain that terms are not ascertainable.
10 & Co. V. Klengenberg, C. C.A. Cal., 23 F.2nd 611, 612 [BlacksLaw4th-1968,pg394]
[Link]
5
“ 11
It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite
another12 to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a
contract.
13 To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to
exercise
14 that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION
& BAYLESS,
15 ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. [Link].394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50
U.S.L.W.
16 4169 pp. 144-148
6
17 is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the
“There
Fourth 18Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution.
{GO>12}19 We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person
which 20do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It
must 21be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has
"seized"
22 that person.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) [verified]
[Link].1§13>The
23 right of the peole to be secure n their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable seizures and
searches
24 may; not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation…
7
Cal25VEH §40500 (a) Whenever a person is arrested for any violation of this code not declared to be a felony, or for a
violation
26 of an ordinance of a city or county relation to traffic offenses and he or she s not immediately taken before a
magistrate,
27 as provided in this , the arresting officer shall prepare in triplicate a written notice to appear in court … [arrested]
VEH§40504
28 (a) The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person and the arrested person in
order29to secure release must give his or her written promise to appear in court … Thereupon the arresting officer shall
forthwith
30 release the person arrested from custody. …[a traffic stop is an arrest]
8
31
“Further, infractions are not crimes and the rule forbidding successive prosecutions of a defendant is not applicable when an
infraction
32 is one of the offenses involved. (People v. Battle (1975) 50 [Link].3d Supp. 1 [123 [Link]. 636].) fn. 1 [1b]
Proceedings
33 on infractions are not attended by the same constitutional safeguards as those attending felony or misdemeanor
prosecutions.
34 The limitation on an accused's right to jury trial of infractions has withstood constitutional attack upon the rationale
the Legislature
35 did not intend to classify infractions as crimes. (See People v. Oppenheimer (1974) 42” People v. Sava (1987)
190 [Link].3d
36 935 [235 [Link]. 694] [verified]
9
1837U.S.C. 31. "‘‘Motor vehicle’’ means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical
power38and used for commercial purposes on the highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property
and cargo;
39 ...
``Used40 for commercial purposes'' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other
consideration,
41 or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]"
VEH42 §15210 definitions 7- In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code shall apply.
Cal. VEH
43 §260. (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or
maintained
44 for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the
transportation
45 of property. (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire,
compensation,
46 or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
6700)47of Division 3.
 1 12. For I accept all valid “oath-of-office”(s) for each and every public servant as a
2 binding contract(s).
3 13. For I am not a slave and slavery is prohibited by both California and
4 [Link].
5 14. For I claim I don't consent to any form of involuntary servitude.
6 15. For I claim that I am not a 14th amendment United States Citizen..
7 16. For I claim I have not been presented with any facts showing I am "in this State" or
8 "in the State" ( of California) and subject to the legislated acts of California and
9 believe none (facts) exist.
10 17. For I John Doe, a common-law-free-man has not been joined in the above
11 encaptioned suit.
12 18. For I claim it is my right to use the public right of ways10.
13 19. For I claim I caused no injury or loss to any man/woman11.
14 20. For I claim all public-servants-government-employees are required to obey all
15 public policies (legislated acts), and the Constituitons of California and the United
16 States in their capacity as trustees12 of public trusts (Constituitons).
17 21. For I claim my right to a court of record13 proceeding under Common-Law as it is a
18 requirement enforced by the California Constitution of 1879.
19 22. For I signed the presentment “under protest” upon the alleged Petaluma police
20 officers’ threat of force of arms (to be taken to jail) if I did not sign and as such
21 have voided this implied-expressed contract.
22 23. For I claim that Jill Rambo (hereafter DA) has no standing to sue me on the invalid
23 complaint proffered (see attached offer of proof Exhibit B) as there is no sworn oath
24 that any party had probable cause by witnessing a ‘crime’ or ‘public offense’ as the
25 complaint is not signed and without the sworn affidavit of a witness to a crime, it is
26 void per Kalina v. Fletcher14.
27 24. For I claim the Superior Court of Sacramento is an agent of the U.S. government as
28 evidenced by their Federal Employee Identification # _________________, and the
10
1 and highways are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel and transportation by the public, and uses
"Streets
incidental
2 thereto. Such travel may be for either business or pleasure ... The use of highways for purposes of travel and
transportation
3 is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right, of which the public and {Page 35 Cal.2d 876}
individuals
4 cannot rightfully be deprived ... [A]ll persons have an equal right to use them for purposes of travel by proper
means,5 and with due regard for the corresponding rights of others." (25 [Link]. 456-457, § 163; see, also, 40 C.J.S. 244-247, §
233.) Escobedo
6 v. State of California (1950) 35 Cal.2d 870 [222 P.2d 1] 1950 [verified]
11
“[2]7It is well established that "In every prosecution for crime, it is necessary to establish the corpus delicti, i.e., the {Page 254
[Link].2d
8 189} body or elements of the crime." (1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) § 88, p. 84; People v. Francisco, 228 [Link].2d
355, 358
9 [39 [Link]. 503]; People v. Smith, 223 [Link].2d 225, 237 [35 [Link]. 719].) The corpus delicti consists of two
elements,
10 namely, (1) the facts forming the basis of the appeal, i.e., the facts establishing the injury, loss or harm; and (2) the
criminal
11 agency causing them to exist. (People v. Frey, 165 Cal. 140, 146 [131 P. 127]; Iiams v. Superior Court, 236 [Link].2d
80, 8212[45 [Link]. 627]; 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, supra.)” People v. Lopez (1967) 254 [Link].2d 185 [62 [Link]. 47] [verified]
12
13 in its elementary common law sense of deceit -- and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the
“Fraud
statute,
14 see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) -- includes the deliberate concealment of material information in
a setting
15 of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants
who appear
16 before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. When a judge is
busily17soliciting loans from counsel to one party, and not telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing
material
18 information in violation of his fiduciary obligations. “ McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) [verified]
13
19
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION> ARTICLE 6 > JUDICIAL SEC. 1. The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme
Court,20courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.
“[2, 3]
21We cannot agree that, merely by requiring courts of limited jurisdiction to keep records of their proceedings, this court has
so drastically
22 changed the nature of these courts as to make them "courts of record", as that term was used in the constitution.”
Seattle
23v. Filson, 653 P. 2d 608 - Wash: Supreme Court 1982
14
24 Testifying about facts is the function of the witness, not of the lawyer. No matter how brief or succinct it may be, the
“Held:
evidentiary
25 component of an application for an arrest warrant is a distinct and essential predicate for a finding of probable
cause.26 Even when the person who makes the constitutionally required "Oath or affirmation" is a lawyer, the only function
that she
27 performs is that of a witness. “ Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) [verified]
 1 gold fringed military flag flying in it's courtrooms and therefore not part of the
2 judiciary branch of the separate sovereign State, California ( created in 1849).
3 25. For I claim the DA will be violating penal code 182 and be maliciously prosecuting
4 this matter unless each and every point in this affidavit is controverted with factual
5 evidence and testimony in the form of an affidavit15.
6 26. For I claim Jill Rambo has no license to practice law and has no power of attorney,
7 nor proof of agency to act on behalf of the Clamant, signed by the Claimant and
8 none exists.
9 27. For I believe the alleged judges of the Sacramento County Superior Court en banc
10 engage in a conspiracy with the clerks of the Court to fraudulently enter hearsay
11 information into the record by alleging the “DEFENDANT” appeared when no
12 factual evidence that a DEFENDANT has ever been show to exist in any hearing as
13 the alleged DEFENDANT is a fictional entity created by the Federal and State
14 Government and no evidence to the contrary exists. The above named parties also
15 have a routine scheme to show California Drivers license information on the
16 Court’s minutes when no testimony to those facts exist and the alleged License
17 information is based upon hearsay and is is a felony under 18 U.S.C. 100116 to put
18 material facts into a public record that are not known to be true.
19
20 Furthermore I say not, govern yourselves accordingly. Failure to rebut this affidavit
21 within 30 days, point by point and show cause with facts and law that any point is not
22 true and correct will by tacit procuration be declared to be the truth stated in the
23 unrebutted points and be evidence the Claimant has failed to join me as a true party in
24 interest or have any jurisdiction, and become a default judgement. Wherefor the court
25 should dismiss this matter sua sponte. I am the aggrieved defendant in error
26 (belligerant claimant) and object to any Martial-law-war-powers, presumptions,
27 summary judgment, and denial of due process the Claimant and Court engages in .
28
29 By:____________________seal
30 We the unersigned adults having first hand kowledge of the party, ______________
31 signing above swear she did appear before us on Sacramento county soil and sign and
32 swear her affidavit true on _____________________2013 A.D..
33
34 Witnessed By:____________________ Witnessed by:____________________
35
36
37 I require the extra copy I am sending to the Court CEO (Jose Guilermo) to be file
38 stamped for my records, enclosed in the self adressed, stamped envelope I am
15
[2] 1
These two procedures, with some slight modification, contain the necessary and desired safeguards and still serve the purpose of
avoiding
2 a trial when all the material facts are not genuinely in issue and could not legally support a judgment of guilt. A Washington
defendant
3 should initiate the motion by sworn affidavit, alleging there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do
not establish
4 a prima facie case of guilt. The affidavit must necessarily contain with specificity all facts and law relied upon in
justification
5 of the dismissal. Unless specifically denied, the factual matters alleged in the motion are deemed admitted. The State
can defeat
6 the motion by filing an affidavit which specifically denies the material facts alleged in the defendant's affidavit.
F107 Wn.2d
7 346 (1986) 729 P.2d 48 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. DOUGLAS W. KNAPSTAD,
8
Respondent. No. [Link] Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
16
18 USC
9 § 1001 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the
jurisdiction
10 of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
knowingly
11 and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes
12 any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any
false13
writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement
14 or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or,
 1 providing, and posted to John Doe. Failure to do so will be evidence of a violation of
2 penal code 135 for which I will bring charges. I will video tape the proof of service.
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 I, Henry Roe, not a party to this matter, over 21 yrs old., having first hand knowledge,
5 swear under penalty of perjury, on Sacramento county soil, I did serve by USA- post-
6 office , postage applied, the above document and the received ticket to (3) and copies of
7 ticket to (1), and (2) to:
8 1) Jill Rambo C/O 2) Jose Guilermo C/O 3) [Link]-# 215 C/O
9 District Atty Office Superior Court, rm105 SXXD
10 600 administration Dr 600 administration Dr 955 Sacramento Ave
11 Santa Rita, 9XZX3 Santa Rita,9ZZ03 Santa Rita,9ZZ04
12
13
14 Dated:____________2012 Without prejudice _______________