Verified Complaint, why are police and other officers reluctant to put a “verified” complaint in the official record (process) upon which the prosecutors can act upon for criminal prosecution.
I believe the answer is:
1. No evidence of a type of activity that a statute regulates.
2. No evidence of territorial jurisdiction.
3. No officer wants to be liable for damages due to a false sworn complaint.
4. No limit on the scope of applying the statutory law therefore greatly increasing revenue.
5. County prosecutors do not demand them because it would greatly reduce charges.
6. Judges do not generally require them because they are paid by the false revenue created by due process lacking charges.

>>

Verified Complaint

To make it clear, the purpose of the verified complaint is to find the injured party. The “complainant” who has “standing” to invoke the jurisdiction of the inferior court.

“Complainant”-One who applies to the court for redress; one who exhibits a bill of complaint. Benefit Ass’n v. Robinson, 147 Ill. 138, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, page 356. Redress- The receiving satisfaction for an injury sustained. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, page 1444.

and

Standing of Complainant-“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.

If their is not a ‘complaining’, injured party, there is no crime.

>>

See- Why this judge hated a judicial notice of the 4th amendment. http://freeinhabitant.info/4th-amendment/jailed-challen…-4th-amendment.htm

Here are basic case opinions that force ether a verified complaint or a dismissal of the charges. 5$

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

  1. admin says:

    Jurisdictional challenge is the primary way we have been winning.

  2. Andy Jackson says:

    They never have one. A verified sworn complaint is a first hand witness who saw a crime and describes that witnessing with claims of facts and sworn to, IN FRONT OF SOMEONE WHO CAN HEAR THE OATH. So, the cop is supposed to be the witness, who states facts that indicate a crime was committed by the accused, but, in the courts they dont have that. What they will show is an unsigned or signed complaint issued by a District Attorney but, that is a fraud and is not a valid sworn complaint as shown in Kalina v. Fletcher Supreme Court.
    “Following customary practice, petitioner prosecuting attorney commenced criminal proceedings by filing three documents in Washington state court: (1) an unsworn information charging respondent with burglary; (2) an unsworn motion for an arrest warrant; and (3) a “Certification for Determination of Probable Cause,” in which she summarized the evidence supporting the charge and swore to the truth of the alleged facts “[u]nder penalty of perjury.” Based on the certification, the trial court found probable cause, and respondent was arrested and spent a day in jail. Later, however, the charges against him were dismissed on the prosecutor’s motion. Focusing on two inaccurate factual statements in petitioner’s certification, respondent sued her for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that she had violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures.”;

    “Held: Testifying about facts is the function of the witness, not of the lawyer. No matter how brief or succinct it may be, the evidentiary component of an application for an arrest warrant is a distinct and essential predicate for a finding of probable cause. Even when the person who makes the constitutionally required “Oath or affirmation” is a lawyer, the only function that she performs is that of a witness. “ Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) [verified]

    So the DA cannot swear an affidavit that could lead to a warrant, and no warrant is ever issued in most cases. If no warrant exists then they cannot sieze you, imprison you, and without a warrant, it is extortion to charge bail as you are not lawfully held on a warrant based on a sworn complaint by a competent witness at a probable cause hearing.