Rule of Law Radio Archive Search Engine

So along those lines, that's the basic grounds why the citation itself cannot be a charging instrument

When we go back to the fact that we're looking for a charging instrument based upon the case law that I've read

That's the charging instrument, and what an information is, is a criminal complaint filled

appearance which and you challenge jurisdiction now you're saying the citation is only in effect a promise to appear and once they appear there has to be an information or a charging instrument there's got to be something else well yeah that's a requirement simply because he's 100 percent correct

What is the charging instrument?

no charging instrument, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

However, it says that if the defendant doesn't object to the defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in the charging instrument

Well, Randy had a question, how did I waive my defense against lack of a charging instrument?

But the employer has to file a 1096, which is signed under penalty of perjury, and it in essence becomes the charging instrument.

There has to be a charging instrument.

And the charging instrument, okay, the information is considered to be what gives the court jurisdiction.

There's no verified affidavit to support the charging instrument.

Whatever that is, you've got an energy of the charging instrument or an information,

error, or irregularity of form or substance in the charging instrument

there is a valid way for a complaint to finally be used as a charging instrument, they just

And if they're starting over, why isn't a proper charging instrument required?

because without a charging instrument or a complaint or whatever they want to call it in Virginia

or is the citation used as the charging instrument in Virginia?

and he says it's a charging instrument.

And he just told me it's a charging instrument, but he wouldn't give me any more explanation of that.

If it is considered by Virginia law as a charging instrument,

On top of that, don't trust a lawyer to be telling you the truth about it being a charging instrument either.

You need to see what the state constitution and what the law says a valid charging instrument is,

because here in Texas they try to say that the complaint is a valid charging instrument,

It's very clear that only an indictment or an information is a valid charging instrument here in Texas.

He's taking that thing as if it's a complaint or it's a charging instrument.

it's a valid charging instrument under law, if it is signed, that is.

serves as a charging instrument right wrong um that's what i read in uh annotated code criminal

is the charging instrument not the complaint okay okay let me explain in this instant the word

what they cannot do is testify at trial nor can the complaint be used as the charging instrument

jurisdiction improper charging instrument based on no accuser you demand to be faced by your

accuser and they must be in the complaint no i'm sorry no proper charging instrument

defendant pleads not guilty. The complaint itself serves as a charging instrument.

Where they said that the complaint could serve as the charging instrument in a justice or municipal court.

I haven't seen actual indictments for charging instruments or the wage report.

is that even possible? If there's no charging instrument, Judge, what are we doing here?

without a charging instrument, and you have none. If you do produce it, I am entitled

not a valid charging instrument, so without knowing the nature and cause, I can't enter a plea. I don't

Okay. Well, but again, that's still not a valid charging instrument, nor is it a valid complaint.

A complaint is typically a charging instrument, it's not necessarily intended to support all

of charging instruments, an indictment or information.

Right, but before you get to the charging instrument, we're talking about the investigative

be drafting the complaint asking for the charging instrument.

Yes, the criminal complaint is a charging instrument and in a sense the sheriff was

Well, in all honesty, it is not a charging instrument.

It is what the charging instrument is to be based upon.

That is your charging instrument.

which is not a valid charging instrument.

there's a problem. If there was no valid complaint accompanied with a charging instrument

There has to be a charging instrument created in support of that complaint.

And only that charging instrument grants jurisdiction to the court to hear the cause

I said that's not necessary. There's no charging instrument

The judge said the complaint is the charging instrument and it's his discretion to reset it

The first one being that the complaint is not a valid charging instrument, no way, no how

So lacking the information or other charging instrument, they're FUBAR

There's no complaint or charging instrument.

The other problem is the complaint is not a valid charging instrument.

The court entered a plea on my behalf against my will, or you did, absent a valid complaint and charging instrument.

But Eddie talks about the charging instrument, and in my state, most states, it's either

There is no authority in law for anyone else to sign a charging instrument.

A complaint in and of itself is not a valid charging instrument.

There is no charging instrument accompanying that signed

There is no charging instrument in the file.

and there is no charging instrument,

She can't enter a plea because there is no charging instrument,

and one of them was a motion to compel the prosecuting attorney basically to come up with a charging instrument,

Enter a plea and make a decision in a case for which no complaint or charging instrument exists

Well there's nothing explicitly in Chapter 45 that says a complaint is a charging instrument

It's not a charging instrument, the state constitution says explicitly that it is not a charging instrument

Excuse me, it doesn't say that a complaint is not a charging instrument, it just doesn't include it in the discussion of

One of the bases that he's challenging on is this exact issue that there's no complaint, there's no information, the citation is not an adequate charging instrument

And he got it on tape or on his digital recorder in the courtroom, the prosecutor admitted in open court, he said yes your honor, the defendant is correct, the citation is not sufficient charging instrument

The point is the prosecutor admitted in open court that the citation is not a valid charging instrument, that's the topic

But even so it was still a court of record that we're getting off topic here, the whole point is that the prosecutor admitted that the citation is not a proper charging instrument, that there has to be information

And that is true, but the complaint also is not a valid charging instrument, not even in municipal court

Now, what charging instrument did they send to you?

Okay, those are not charging instruments.

Only an indictment or an information is a charging instrument.

The law says that you can't enter a plea to anything other than a valid charging instrument,

charging instrument, Montana misdemeanors can be commenced on a complaint alone.

on this same situation of the charging instrument's invalid

you know, with that charging instrument coming down like that, what would you advise to be done at that point,

that the complaint serves as a charging instrument.

And this ticket is not a valid charging instrument.

Two, the citation is not a valid complaint nor is it a valid charging instrument of any kind.

The issue is a proper charging instrument.

So how did the court obtain jurisdiction absent a proper charging instrument?

It does not even so much as mention a complaint as a charging instrument for the purpose of

of a proper charging instrument in the name of judicial expediency and to deny the accused

I've just gone over a couple of things dealing with a proper charging instrument.

If the Constitution says these are the only valid charging instruments, where

on charging instruments. They're going to have a real hard time convincing these people they're guilty of

I particularly nailed him on the fact that you said he pled not guilty to a citation, and then the charging instrument, the complaint, is generated.

Well, look at what constitutes not just a complaint. In Texas, for instance, a proper charging instrument and a complaint are not the same thing.

In fact, a charging instrument cannot exist without a valid complaint existing first.

And the charging instrument is what conveys jurisdiction to the courts of Texas, not the complaint.

It's called a proper charging instrument.

For instance, in Texas they can't create a charging instrument unless there is a sworn complaint to base it on.

They did not have jurisdiction. There was no charging instrument in his case.

They will not file a proper charging instrument. They will not hold a proper examining trial

If it's a valid charging instrument in your state, that would be another thing.

citation without a complaint and thus without a proper charging instrument because the charging

as far as to say that the statute in question creates a third charging instrument in Texas

legislature nor the courts have any authority to create an additional type of charging instrument

fact, there is no valid charging instrument on filing the court record granting the court

Now, you're also entitled to a copy of the complaint and the charging instrument no later than one day prior to any proceeding in the prosecution of the case.

to have a proper charging instrument.

that deal with charging instruments,

Okay. The other thing they will not have that the law requires them to have is a proper charging instrument, meeting and information, which the city attorney cannot sign.

of the charging instrument. It is not noticed to be handed a copy of the ticket at the time.

charging instrument in Texas. Sure. The Constitution says there's only two. The what? Which is

the indictment or the information. The what? Charging instrument. Texas Constitution.

The what? I said Texas now. The charging instruments define a transportation code. Or

there was no valid charging instrument in his case. He may have consented. The complaints

There is no charging instrument.

there's no requirement for a charging instrument, unfortunately without a sworn complaint against

valid but the complaint still does not constitute a charging instrument when you look at the

the cause is a valid charging instrument, which again, the Texas Constitution, Article

be a proper charging instrument in the form of an indictment or information. Where did

charging instrument or information against me.

the charging instrument, which is not the complaint, must be specific.

because there is no charging instrument.

The problem here is they must also have a proper charging instrument in order to get

requirement and the statutory requirement for a proper charging instrument, which is

They try to say that the complaint is a charging instrument, but nowhere in Texas law is a

complaint ever defined as a charging instrument.

Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, improper charging instrument, no indictment

Do not tell them you want to see a copy of the complaint or the charging instrument.

attorney has no authority to sign a charging instrument, among other things.

But only in a criminal case is there to be a charging instrument that must accompany that complaint.

to create an entirely new charging instrument

Okay, now, since there's no charging instrument

lacks jurisdiction because there is no charging instrument?

get a charging instrument when there's

Because the charging instrument can't exist

If they get a complaint or charging instrument, there's nothing to go to

and any charging instrument based upon that complaint.

And a complaint is not a charging instrument.

An indictment or information is a charging instrument.

because there was no proper charging instrument before the court in the first place.

If there's no charging instrument along with that complaint, there's no issue

or are you challenging it based on the lack of a proper charging instrument?

The complaint is not a valid charging instrument.

there is no complaint in charging instrument in the file.

The criminal complaint should and the charging instrument must.

any complaint and proper charging instrument.

I cannot enter a plea there is no charging instrument and there is no

so that I could find out my charging instrument, and they couldn't provide me with any paperwork.

The complaint should, and the charging instrument absolutely must.

and I kept asking for the information, the charging instrument,

to file without the complaint a charging instrument cannot be generated if a charging instrument

that they sworn to complaint then you can't generate the charging instrument the citation

no one is actually signed a complaint no one is actually generated a charging instrument

if the, if there's an improper charging instrument,

There's not a proper charging instrument.

there's not been a proper charging instrument.

the charging instrument itself.

A complaint is not a charging instrument.

It is the pre-cept, precursor to a charging instrument.

There is no charging instrument.

being used as a charging instrument.

Right, it can't be a charging instrument

See, the difference is a charging instrument

The charging instrument must cite

as the charging instrument is just absurd.

of the charging instrument are

He's not signing the charging instrument

a proper charging instrument.

a criminal complaint without a proper charging instrument.

So the legislature cannot allow them to create out of thin air a whole new charging instrument

authorize or recognize a complaint as a charging instrument.

attorney have reached a consensus to accept the citation as a charging instrument and

thus waive the necessity of generating a complaint and a charging instrument.

upon the complaint without any other type of proper charging instrument, they're trying

to allege that the complaint is a proper charging instrument and that is not true.

are not a requisite of a complaint, but they are a requisite of a charging instrument such

The charging instrument is the thing that is required to have the necessary detail in

complaint is a proper charging instrument when it does not give proper notice?

a charging instrument, nor did it say that a complaint constituted a proper charging

need a charging instrument, the complaint will do.

Eddie, you said, had stated or staked the necessity of a charging instrument having

to dismiss or whatever in a lot of these cases where that wrong charging instrument is used

clearly indicates a method for a complaint to turn into a proper charging instrument.

Groups, the word complaint in with charging instrument in the sentence, an indictment

information complaint or other charging instrument or a related document in a criminal case may

They cannot, by statute, make a complaint a charging instrument.

or other charging instrument or a related document in a criminal case may be filed?

and that there was no charging instrument filed by a duly authorized officer in the court,

There are two things that the Constitution and the statutes refer to as charging instruments.

They're the only ones that are authorized by law to sign and file a charging instrument,

Therefore, a charging instrument does not exist if a municipal prosecutor is prosecuting

Hence, without the charging instrument, the court itself is not vested with jurisdiction of the cause,

prepare and file charging instruments. Who can do that? And as you've seen in statute

to put his name on a charging instrument and file it with the court. It's absolutely

capacity. They're the only ones that can sign a charging instrument, namely an information.

File to dismiss for no valid complaint and no charging instrument

particular thing, charging instruments.

Who has the power and authority to create a constitutionally proper charging instrument?

Does not ever anywhere in the Constitution say a complaint is a valid charging instrument?

not sufficient as a charging instrument.

things that must be proven, but an indictment or information as a proper charging instrument

judges get the idea that a complaint is sufficient as a charging instrument.

as a charging instrument.

One, it's not listed in the Constitution as a charging instrument and two, it's not

So on its face, the argument that it's valid as a charging instrument and a prosecution

Now let's continue on here with just the simple fact that a charging instrument cannot be

but an information or indictment must, and that's what's required as a charging instrument.

Though a complaint on its face cannot possibly be a charging instrument, because very rarely

Now we get down to the problem of the charging instrument once again.

the city attorney out in the cold for producing a proper charging instrument.

proper charging instrument because the city attorney couldn't make one.

attorney from signing a charging instrument, but they granted him prosecutorial powers

the constitution requiring a proper charging instrument and despite the constitution requiring

with the legislative enactment, then we'll forego the charging instrument and let the

If they don't have a proper charging instrument, then they have a problem.

Somebody needed to have created the complaint, and somebody needs to have turned it into a charging instrument.

And until there's an actual issue, there's no way to create a charging instrument, which in this case is the indictment or information.

You don't need a charging instrument. A criminal complaint is not a charging instrument.

That's not my point. It's not a charging instrument in Texas either. But it is required to start the process. Somebody has to file a complaint.

A complaint is not a proper charging instrument under Texas Constitution or law.

There is no law that makes a complaint a charging instrument.

It is discussed in statute along with charging instruments, but never is it stated that a complaint is a charging instrument.

Now, without a proper charging instrument in the form of an indictment or information, the trial court never gets jurisdiction of the case, period.

This call is about complaints, charging instruments and so on and so forth that you've talked

about that. First of all, you said like a complaint is not a charging instrument and

for instance, in the criminal complaint and the proper charging instrument, which they never have,

and invalid to act as a charging instrument.

And by the same token, there is tons of case law that says when the charging instrument

I'm not going to call a complaint a charging instrument because it simply isn't.

So this once again completely invalidates using a complaint as a charging instrument.

be a valid charging instrument.

have been a valid charging instrument.

that achieved for lack of a charging instrument.

because it wasn't a proper charging instrument.

And there was no other case history to where the complaint is a charging instrument.

must be in the charging instrument.

So as an affidavit for the purposes of issuing a charging instrument,

Without a proper charging instrument vesting the court with jurisdiction,

Particularly when you are not accepting the legitimacy of a charging instrument, you know, if you're challenging jurisdiction, you're accused. Somebody said you did something, but that doesn't have the same legal force as a legitimate legal charge.

Texas Constitution Article 5, Section 12 Bravo says there are only two charging instruments

The complaint itself, under no law that I've ever read, was ever a proper charging instrument.

of a complaint are not the same requisites as those for a charging instrument.

That argument alone invalidates any usage of a complaint as a charging instrument.

factual about the way the trial was conducted, the charging instruments, the complaints.

The charging instruments themselves alleged absolutely no facts charging Randy with a

trials, our right to proper charging instruments, properly sworn complaints, and so on and so

to the court record where they have hidden the charging instrument, if there is one,

a proper complaint, whether or not there's a proper charging instrument, whether or not

I've said that they've completely misrepresented what constitutes a charging instrument.

What they've attempted to do is allow a complaint to serve as a charging instrument.

The problem is, is there is no statutory requisite for a complaint to serve as a charging instrument,

There was no proper charging instrument, which specifically relates to an information.

They're required by constitution and statute to provide you with a proper charging instrument, in other words, an instrument which is based on a complaint.

They're trying to, the courts have tried to declare that a complaint is a charging instrument.

Nowhere anywhere is a complaint ever referred to as a charging instrument except in the

you have to look at the charging instrument very carefully.

If a complaint was issued and no charging instrument was ever presented to a court, statute of limitations is run.

They cannot replace a charging instrument mandated by the Constitution with a citation.

Then to top it off, it is also still not a charging instrument that is an information

But since the citation can't serve as a complaint, it's not a charging instrument.

Just exactly how did they do that? There's nothing in the statute that allows the complaint to act as a charging instrument. Absolutely nothing.

it is also for the prosecution to get all of their ducks in a row and to get in all of their complaints, their charging instruments,

These courts don't have a complaint, they don't have a charging instrument, yet where is their authority to hold a magistration?

Now again, if there is a complaint and charging instrument, the court now has jurisdiction to take a plea and hold an arraignment.

There is not a complaint, there is no charging instrument, and the courts have completely skipped the 15.17 magistration,

How do they get you in there on the day of trial and you've never seen a complaint or charging instrument?

It's not a sworn document. It's not a charging instrument by any stretch of the imagination.

In Texas, you have the right, not the privilege, but the right to challenge the charging instrument,

Without a charging instrument, the court has never gained subject matter jurisdiction.

They never give you proper notice because they never file a proper charging instrument and they never give it to you before trial and so on and so forth.

uh no okay did they give you a copy of an actual charging instrument whatever that

charging instrument is there in connecticut again all things which dan may be able to help you with

invested with jurisdiction via a proper charging instrument if the court is not properly vested

proper charging instrument to give the court jurisdiction all right folks this rule law radio

There is no charging instrument in the file.

First and foremost, they never serve you with a copy of a charging instrument.

Ladies and gentlemen, the citation is not a charging instrument.

I don't care what they try to tell you, it flat out is not a charging instrument.

as to how a court is vested with jurisdiction, what constitutes a proper charging instrument, none of that.

The citation is not notice because it is not a charging instrument, okay?

A complaint for exactly the same reason is still not a charging instrument.

If that isn't done, it's not an information, therefore it is not a charging instrument.

Those are the only two proper documents that the Texas Constitution recognizes as charging instruments.

Now they have to generate the charging instrument from the complaint.

Now, after that charging instrument has been done, then and only then can they conduct an arraignment.

Then they're required based upon that complaint to generate these other charging instruments.

or any proper charging instrument that the complaint has to precede

Did they provide you with a copy of the charging instrument?

No charging instrument is in the file.

There is no charging instrument before the court.

No charging instrument was filed with this court in this cause number and no issue was before the court for such a plea to be entered or order to be made.

Okay. And in this case, you've got your complaint, your charging instrument, which in the case here in Texas, 27.01 says the primary pleading of the state in any criminal prosecution is the indictment or information.

They haven't served you with a copy of the, of the complain or charging instrument in a timely manner.

The proper charging instrument has been filed.

The magistrate has no subject matter jurisdiction until he has a charging instrument in his hand, which is the criminal complaint.

Don't refer to the complaint as a charging instrument.

upon the accused of a single piece of paper, not a complaint, not a charging instrument,

Okay, in my case, I still haven't received a charging instrument.

They've never served me with a complaint, never served me with a charging instrument,

Never served, never provided with a copy of the charge or the charging instrument.

Well, there was no contact information for us to provide our filings to. Who do we serve? None of that information's on the ticket, none of it's in the complaint, there is no charging instrument, there is no primary pleading.

The state has for the defendant to get notice the state has to send the charging instrument

It's the generic concept. They have to send the charging instrument

We can talk about what a charging instrument is

But whatever qualifies as a charging instrument that has to be delivered

Such as the cause number a copy of the complaint a copy of the charging instrument the name and service address of the court

For instance delivery of the complaint or charging instrument the day of trial on the merits

There's no complaint or any other thing constituting a charging instrument if a complaint could even validly be so

Well, maybe not but you idiots are saying it's a viable charging instrument

So there would be the affidavit in the form of a complaint and then a formal charging instrument called an information

Coupled with a formal charging instrument namely an information that would then have what?

He has to read you the charge in a charging instrument.

I would never call a complaint a charging instrument.

Was the defendant provided with everything that the law gives them a right to have and or that was required to be provided in order to respond, such as the cause number, a copy of the complaint, a copy of the charging instrument,

For instance, delivery of the complaint or charging instrument the day of trial on the merits is not proper sufficient and timely notice to the defense and therefore constitutes a direct due process violation.

They want to say they can just stick the complaint or the charging instrument in the court record and it's your job to come search the court record to get notice.

Because you have not been served and noticed so that you can make your rightful objections to forming content of the complaint and any charging instrument based on that complaint.

or the charging instrument in the form of an indictment or information.

Or anything based upon a complaint that could even be remotely called a charging instrument.

prosecutor's pressure, then the charging instrument is filed in the court.

That charging instrument is supposed to be filed immediately.

As far as notice in the traffic case, does it make much of a difference if the ticket can be used as a charging instrument?

I'm just going off her memory. I know that a ticket can be used for a charging instrument and I just couldn't permit that.

Okay, but that's what I'm asking you. The question here is, what are the requisites of a charging instrument and does the citation meet them despite any statutory exemption?

Okay, in the case of a traffic citation, does it meet all of the criteria that the statute says a charging instrument must have and then does the requirement exist that such an instrument must be sworn to under oath or penalty of perjury or something of that nature?

Not to mention that here in Texas, the statutes do not allow another peace officer to be a verifier in a charging instrument for any case that's going to a justice or municipal court.

So that's what you need to find out in your statutes is whether or not there are specific things that apply that contradict the perception of it's available as a charging instrument because they tried to do that here under 27.14D.

you because it's not a proper charging instrument in Texas.

There has to be an information for it to be a proper charging instrument and that has

Failure to file a proper charging instrument, for instance, would constitute no notice.

They are doing everything under the sun as if they have a valid case in front of them and yet no complaint and charging instrument even exists.

Only cases have numbers. There are being no charging instruments filed, much less served.

There has never been timely or proper service on Craig of any charging instrument or anything at all identifying all parties and proper service information for saying, which is true.

He has to have every element required to be proven in the charging instrument.

If he doesn't, the charging instrument itself is bad and you can challenge that and get it thrown out.

Subsection F, if the defendant does not object to a defect error or a regularity of form or substance in a charging instrument

Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from acquiring an objection to a charging instrument be made in an earlier time.

This is exactly one of the reasons why I argue that a complaint cannot and is not a charging instrument.

And according to Article 5, Section 12b of the Texas Constitution, those are the only two things that constitute a charging instrument vesting a court with jurisdiction of the cause.

The idiotic appellate judge said that because in Chapter 45, the complaint charged the commission of an offense, it was good as a charging instrument, baloney.

Nowhere in Texas law has a complaint ever been called a charging instrument.

You are never served with a copy of a charging instrument, namely an information.

Did they ever serve you with a copy of the complaint and a charging instrument?

and the necessary charging instrument. Yep. I came across that just not too long ago.

They never serve you with a copy of the complaint and the charging instrument as required by

an actual charging instrument, and we were going to proceed the trial off of the citation alone,

But if they proceed with the kangaroo court, and I don't have an actual charging instrument

of what I'm charged with. The charging instrument will be much appreciated and logical.

getting at the citation alone was going to stand as my charging instrument at which point in time

charging instrument right there and if you don't like it, well, then you're going to have to

No charging instrument with it.

It simply lists a single word or five of a particular offense the officer is alleging you committed, but that citation does not contain any of the necessary elements required to be proven at trial to even remotely constitute a valid charging instrument.

The citation alone can't do that. That's why it can't substitute for a complaint, but at the same time a complaint can't do that because it can't substitute for a valid charging instrument, which is an indictment or information according to both the Texas Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, there's nothing that vests the court with jurisdiction to do anything except dismiss without the charging instrument. There is no legal issue before the court, criminal or civil.

There has been no proper charging instrument filed nor served upon the respondent.

If they are something that requires proof in an evidentiary setting, then it must be listed as an element in the charging instrument, meaning the information.

The court can either dismiss for lack of a charging instrument in the form of an indictment or information, or the court can conduct the 15.17 proceedings and the examining trial.

Because in this case, the indictment or information is the charging instrument. The legislature attempted to write the complaint to conform to the same specifics of charging the accused with an offense as an indictment or information does.

And that complaint is the sole basis for the creation of those two other instruments that are charging instruments.

They are proper charging instruments. A complaint isn't.

The court did not have jurisdiction without a charging instrument.

But remember, there is no charging instrument under the Article 5, Section 12B, an indictment or information, vesting the court with jurisdiction.

Without that charging instrument, the court lacks jurisdiction and the legislature cannot create an instance where they would have it in violation of constitutional requirements.

It attempts to substitute a complaint for a charging instrument. It attempts to create the waiver of a required charging instrument and it creates the process by which the defendant must waive his rights under the constitutional requirement of subject matter jurisdiction.

but there's no charging instrument.

And then he said, what do you think? And he read the motion and said, well, and my motion had said to dismiss because there's no charging instrument.

have to have a charging instrument to

If they then wield that power in a manner consistent with having standing for the accusation in a court of law by proper notice, proper filing of a charging instrument, and proper subject matter jurisdiction because the facts in the record prove the subject matter exists, they have it.

and the charging instrument are moot.

Because they never asked for the dismissal of the complaint, they asked for the dismissal of the charging instrument that vests the court with jurisdiction.

but I have no charging instruments for him to plead to.

If no one has signed and sworn to a complaint and a charging instrument has not been generated

You have waived lack of notice. You have waived anything that's in the complaint or the charging instrument. You've waived it all.

and charging instrument,

and that complaint has been turned into a charging instrument.

Or they have impaneled a jury without a proper charging instrument,

Now, the other thing the ticket cannot be is an actual charging instrument because it won't comply with all of your rights in knowing the elements of the charge against you.

As addressed in Rodriguez's Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss, Rodriguez, by law, is entitled to proper notice, i.e. service of a written copy of both the criminal complaint and proper charging instrument, i.e. an information, not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution under the provisions of Articles 1.05, 2.04, 2.05, and 45.018B Code of Criminal Procedure.

I said a complaint and or a charging instrument.

Okay? Right there, we can only be taken in by a criminal charge by presentment or indictment by a grand jury. What's presentment? Presentment of a charging instrument. What's a charging instrument? An indictment or information.

Two, they drop the case after Jeopardy has attached, as in they have filed an indictment or charging instrument.

That's exactly why a complaint alone is not and cannot ever be sufficient as a charging instrument.

That argument alone is exactly why a criminal complaint is insufficient as a charging instrument, why it is a violation of criminal due process to attempt to prosecute on a complaint alone.

Find out if there's a complaint, find out if there's a charging instrument, and then move to dismiss for, it's outside the statute of limitations.

Because the complaint is not the charging instrument. The indictment or information is.

and substance of the complaint and charging instrument.

And of course, there was no complaint. There was no charging instrument.

a complaint and a charging instrument is.

of the charging instrument before the day of trial on the merits, then you're screwed.

can't proceed without the charging instrument attached to it, which they never produce if

This is the charging instrument that has to list all of the elements required to be proven

or substance in a charging instrument, notice it says, charging instrument, it does not

There is no sign and sworn complaint or charging instrument.

Have you been served with a charging instrument?

You have waived in personum jurisdiction. You have waived the right to object to the form, content, and facts stated in the complaint and the charging instrument.

Requirement to put in a proper charging instrument now

You can notice them that the charging instrument contains other defects as far as facts

It's called a charging instrument and it has to be an indictment or information signed

I have never been served with a sworn copy of any complaint nor any charging instrument

And that's that, the court lacks jurisdiction, I haven't been served with a proper complaint and charging instrument one day prior to any proceeding in this matter, have you?

That's the first thing you need to find out, did they file a charging instrument?

a proper charging instrument signed and filed by the appropriate state officer in their

requirements of a charging instrument and so on and so forth out of the Code of Colonel Procedure,

And as you all know, the entering of a plea waives fundamentally protected rights, especially your right to notice. It waives your right to challenge the content and substance and form of the complaint and the charging instrument.

I'm talking about the original charging instruments for Class C misdemeanors when they were with each other the first time.

and charging instrument, because one, there was no charging instrument,

Okay? And the charging instrument. And then they turn around and say that you also have that one day prior to trial on the merits when you have to complain that the complaint isn't proper.

and two, of what the actual charges against you were by being served with a copy of the complaint and the charging instrument in the form of an information or indictment?

Okay. And because, and also the penal code does specifically say that all misdemeanor laws apply to infractions. So what I was trying to do is find out how that ticket is not a charging instrument, you know, because it's not-

The charging instrument, according to Article 5, Section 12B of the Texas Constitution,

C. Hunn v. State, 901, blah, blah, blah, a complaint serves as a sole charging instrument

information or making itself a charging instrument.

no subject matter jurisdiction because he didn't file the valid charging instruments that Missouri requires.

Now that's not a charging instrument.

And the information by law is the charging instrument that lays out all of the elements

so you need to look at the charging instrument.

that the charging instrument was created.

Is every element necessary for the crime, including in the charging instrument?

You argue the sufficiency of the charging instrument.

Therefore, it is not sufficient as a charging instrument.

and all he has filed as far as charging instruments is the uniform citation.

rebut anything that's in the complaint and the charging instrument.

The complaint is not the charging instrument, okay?

Now, subsection F in relation to the complaint under 45.019F, if the defendant does not object to a defect, error or irregularity of form or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, the defendant weighs and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error or irregularity.

Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from requiring that an objection to a charging instrument be made at an earlier time.

Now, if the court has the rule that in order to comply with 45.018B and 45.019F, you must have your objections to the charging instrument in 14 days prior to your initial appearance in court, they've already screwed you.

of the complaint and any malformity of the charging instrument based upon that complaint.

You're entitled to notice of the charges against you, which means they have to file the complaint and whatever the proper charging instrument is in your particular state

And the charging instrument is the only thing required to have that. The complaint at best is an accusatory instrument

My due process rights have been violated by not providing me proper notice, not providing me with a written copy of the charging instrument and the nature and cause against me like you're required to do

I asked for a complaint or a charging instrument and he said that the ticket itself was sufficient

so the charging instrument has to use the special terminology if there's a special definition

The only thing you can do that with is a proper charging instrument.

be a charging instrument.

They had not given me any charging instrument and I had gone to the court several times

day and asked him for a copy of the charging instrument and the complaint with the information.

the charging instrument.

And I said, you have not given me any charging instrument.

So what my habit is is I just say facts asserted in the complaint and charging instrument are false

The reason that's important is because entering a plea weighs several due process rights, the right to challenge the complaint and the charging instrument or whatever that may be in Georgia.

Yeah, you waive impersonal jurisdiction to write the challenges of validity, form, and substance of the complaint or charging instrument.

If you have reason to believe there are errors in the charging instrument,

are certain errors in the charging instrument that cannot be corrected but typos and such like that

peers at the grand jury level or a proper charging instrument, which are the only two

No one served me with a copy of a complaint, a charging instrument, anything.

the charging instrument.

I've used them once in a while, but I have not seen any charging instruments

it's not a valid charging instrument,

It's not a valid charging instrument.

Well, what are you calling a charging instrument?

And nowhere in the Texas Constitution does it say that the legislature may create other charging instruments and utilize them as defined by law

It doesn't say indictments, information, or any other charging instrument created and controlled by law

You have waived the right to challenge the form and substance of the charging instrument

Nor are they given power to create a new form of charging instrument

And then using that complaint as the basis to get an actual charging instrument, which would then invest somebody with jurisdiction to go further

And I said, well, I don't know how to plead. I don't know what the charges are. I've seen no charging instrument

Well, there's a citation, well, that's not a charging instrument

What you should have done was move to quash the complaint or whatever the charging instrument

Is the citation what they're using as the complaint and charging instrument there?

They're going to waive your right to notice. They're going to waive your right to reject the charging instrument.

It waives the right to challenge the charging instrument.

jurisdiction, and to challenge the form and substance of the charging instrument and the

You haven't been served with a complaint and a charging instrument for the charges against

the right to challenge the charging instrument, and any indictment or information that goes with it,

Not the least of which is the fact that a complaint is not required to meet all of the other requirements of a charging instrument

Nowhere in the Texas Constitution is the legislature authorized to change what is considered a valid charging instrument

In fact, nowhere is the sworn statement ever referred to as a charging instrument within the Constitution

The only thing there in fact charging instrument doesn't exist, it simply states an indictment or information is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction

I'll provide that motion to you on challenging the jurisdiction of the court for the charging instrument.

Okay. That's the charging instrument. Is the charging instrument sufficient?

The primary document that's missing from the record is charging instrument, the complaint.

If they haven't done that and they enter a plea, the court is waiving your rights to notice, to challenge the form and substance of the charging instrument, and your right to challenge personal jurisdiction.

of a valid sworn complaint and proper charging instrument,

What must be stated on the charging instrument?

What does the charging instrument they sent you say it is?

The summons. That is not a charging instrument, Andrew.

A charging instrument is an indictment by a grand jury, an information by a prosecuting

not sworn. It doesn't meet any of the criteria of a valid charging instrument in the state

On my document, the charging instrument and the solvent –

And what we went over before is whether or not they had a valid charging instrument.

The creation of charging instruments will be defined by a state constitution almost universally that's going to hold true.

The reason I'm going to say no in Texas is because the Constitution is what says how they will define the contents of those charging instruments as a matter of law,

But when you allow the legislature to define the contents of a charging instrument in accordance with law,

when you first talk about the lack of a charging instrument and I don't know what to put for

There's no charging instrument here.

So I think that these guys have made a big mistake by using the charging instrument or the charging statute

I would probably want to get a DIR and an open records request and to see exactly what the charging instrument is

and to be able to examine that charging instrument and if it was faulty in any way,

Correct. That would be the smart thing to do. Including the charging instrument.

these transportation cases because these complaints and any charging instrument that goes with

Elements stated in criminal complaint and related charging instruments is insufficient

the charging instrument, rather than all that are required to exist before there could even

other charging instrument.

or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which the trial on the merits

a charging instrument be made at an earlier time.

and charging instruments are facially devoid of any allegation stating the existence of

The logic in what elements must be asserted in the charging instruments and then proven

must be specifically stated in the charging instrument. Why?

a complaint, without ever seeing a charging instrument?

and I said, well, I can't plea until I see a proper charging instrument.

And he holds up the ticket and he says, this is a proper charging instrument.

And he says to the county attorney, he says it's not a proper charging instrument.

And I said, you're here to plea? I said, I'll plea if you have a proper charging instrument

And so then he said, you need to make a plea and I said, after I see a proper charging instrument

And so I guess the county attorney said something so he holds up the citation and says, this is a proper charging instrument

I said, no it's not and then he says to the county attorney, he says it's not a proper charging instrument

It waives your right to challenge the form and substance of the complaint and the charging instrument.

from the defendant. They are public. You can't hold them from me. The charging instruments

He weighs your right to challenge the complaint for form and substance, the charging instrument for form and substance.

And if it's a misdemeanor, are they required to get an indictment or something else to go with it as a charging instrument, an information perhaps?

There will be a charging instrument there.

In the Fed, a charging instrument looks just like a civil suit.

in the court by the filing of a complaint and charging instrument. All of these things

substance of the charging instrument and the complaint. But you are also going to waive

is the charging instrument.

So where did the charging instrument establish the elements of the crime?

They don't have subject matter jurisdiction until they have a valid charging instrument.

of the same charging instruments that they use in their uniform citation,

So you attack the charging instrument, claiming that the charging instrument failed to address

And there's nothing in the charging instrument that addresses the element of commerce that

charging instrument is completely screwed up.

Let's talk about the charging instrument itself,

are not required to be stated in the charging instrument.

but they are not stating all of the required elements in the charging instrument,

and the charging instrument itself is not legally sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that court.

Now, what is the problem with your due process when the charging instrument does not state all of the necessary elements

and also their charging instrument is still insufficient on its face.

charging instrument. The instrument is insufficient if it doesn't charge all of

But if they simply presume it to be true, rather than putting it into the charging instrument,

A motion to quash, whatever they're using as a charging instrument, which they cannot proceed without, okay,

But here with the motion to quash, whatever they're attempting to use as the charging instrument to start the process,

proper charging instrument to go with the complaint to tell you either. They do it sometimes but not

The element of transportation is never stated in the complaint or the charging instrument.

It's not on complaining on the original complaint, the charging instrument.

So the charging instrument, without all that information,

about it is, is it isn't charging, it's accusing. It is not a proper charging instrument because

the only charging instruments recognized by the Constitution and the statutes of the Code

In a criminal, it's generally not how you would go with this. You would challenge the charging instrument is insufficient.

And on traffic citations, the approach I've been taking is challenging the sufficiency of the charging instrument

And information is not a charging instrument.

that's your charging instrument I was like oh well I I don't I don't think so but okay

to allege in both a complaint and accompanying valid charging instrument so as to provide

circumstantial facts alleged in the complaint and charging instrument.

the primary element that must be stated in any criminal complaint and charging instrument

from the complaint, charging instrument, and evidence.

The complaint and charging instrument must contain not only the identity or description

the complaint and charging instrument must also contain elements alleging

and or proper charging instrument for a speeding allegation. They're missing for

fail or refuse to alleging the complaint and charging instruments that

of the alleged offense, alleged in the complaint and charging instruments

or motion to quash the complaint and charging instrument because of

It must state both in the allegation in the complaint and any other charging instrument

So if they're citing subsection A on the charging instrument as the statute they're basing

a proper charging instrument, because a traffic ticket or

I've got the entire file and everything and what's not in there is the charging instruments

And in order for the court to have jurisdiction, the charging instrument must be sufficient

So the first thing we want to know is the charging instrument sufficient to invoke

By challenging the sufficiency of the charging instrument, that goes to a subject matter

And the judge just said, moved to strike the charging instrument, moved to dismiss, denied.

So they had no charging instrument.

charging instrument, according to what I understand, and therefore the court has no jurisdiction.

It does to some degree, but as to the charging instrument and how the charges are made,

And then the fact that it exists then allows the creation of a charging instrument in the form of an indictment and information.

The charging instrument would have to contain allegations of elements that would bring the

Well, but here's the thing, in New York, is the ticket considered the charging instrument?

Okay. Well, then here's your problem. If the ticket is not the charging instrument, what it specifically says on the citation is not going to get the resolution you want.

It's not going to be arguable as a mistake. What matters is what's in the actual complaint, what is called the charging instrument, whatever that may actually be.

And then the second part is traffic tickets and they believe if you tell them that the traffic ticket is not a proper charging instrument and it's not any in any of the 450 states.

as charging instruments. And their entire argument for reasoning that that way was that the Texas

and overruled, I was springing up the issue that the complaint is not a charging instrument.

Right. That's why the ticket can't be the charging instrument. That's why the ticket can't be the complaint, because it's not verified in any way and it doesn't provide any notice to the individual.

a complaint is just a charging instrument that it's not a real verified. No I didn't say it was

a charging instrument. I said it's a complaint. It's an accusation but it's not a charging

something that tells you what a proper charging instrument investing a court with jurisdiction

No. Then how is it a proper charging instrument? It's a freaking accusation on its face and

Okay, that's the one where it says that the complaint can be a charging instrument if

Well, I'm picking on the fact that they don't have a valid charging instrument to vest court

The first one is a plea to the jurisdiction or an exception to the charging instrument.

charging instrument then they must prove with evidence all seven of those

No complaint and charging instrument was ever filed in the case.

They must both assert it in the charging instrument and then prove it up at trial or they can't convict.

Okay. Well, I found Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 25.04 says that the court clerk has a responsibility to give me the charging instrument as soon as possible.

complaints and charging instruments.

You don't have a charging instrument?

question is is how they filed the proper charging instrument to invest the court

with jurisdiction to begin with because the charging instrument has to make

No proof in the record of jurisdiction, no proper charging instrument to invoke said

It's another reason why a criminal complaint is not a valid charging instrument because it cannot be stopped once it's filed in the same manner that an indictment or information can by moving to quash, set aside, or take exception to.

properly notified by the prosecution as to the allegation by being served with the charging instrument under 45.018B. But that's never done, is it?

There is no charging instrument.

So what we can do is we can say, wait a minute, we have to have a judicial determination as to whether or not that was merely a mistake in the charging instrument

versus how that statement was prepared in the written complaint to go along with the charging instrument.

Ah, good point. Very good point. Okay. I understand now. I understand. Okay. I missed the first time. Okay. However, even that said, I'm going to push for a judicial determination that the officer's made a mistake in the charging instrument

if the officer did that. If the officer made the charging instrument, then I think there's a, I don't know, I'm going to at least try it anyway, push for a judicial decision.

and that a complaint alone is a valid charging instrument.

can be hearsay, which is why they're not valid charging instruments. And the state of Texas

no, sir, it doesn't meet the criteria for a complaint, much less the charging instrument.

Well, back in May, late May I sent a public information request to the municipality asking for a copy of the citation and charging instrument.

been sufficient to provide proper notice and to act as a charging instrument. They completely

proper notice, so then he found a valid charging instrument, I don't even know what I'm being

And I simply asked for the charging instrument record of, you know, that is in relationship

Yeah, the charging instrument. Have you ever seen them come up with a charging instrument

Well, they try to say that they're either going to use the citation as a charging instrument

or they're using just the complaint as a charging instrument. But the complaint is not a valid

charging instrument because it's a hearsay instrument.

Right. So when they do come up with a charging instrument, is it the citing officer that's

Okay. So they have never really come up with a charging instrument in your experience. In

When asking for a charging instrument, would you ask that differently than just calling

it the charging instrument related to citation numbers?

whatever they were using as a charging instrument.

Because they're required to give you a copy of all the charging instruments and other paperwork, okay?

challenge to the sufficiency of the charging instrument, because it failed to give sufficient

That was what they were going to use as a charging instrument against me

That was used as evidence for the charging instrument against me

to the sufficiency of the charging instrument after the traffic trial.

I file a challenge to the sufficiency of the charging instrument, it failed to give me a fail to give sufficient notice of the nature of the claim again.

open the case, and find the charging instrument.

First, I challenged the sufficient state of the charging instrument, the charge on the ticket was no seat belt.

sufficiency of the charging instrument. And before the court can get to any of the elements

they have to get past, the challenge to the charging instrument. We can argue transportation

way we do that is first thing we go after is charging instrument. We want to see what

on the charging instrument was no seatbelt. Right. The judge had a duty to dismiss because

for at least three reasons. First, they challenged the sufficiency of the charging instrument.

that he was not wearing it properly, that should have been on the charging instrument.

First, I challenged the sufficiency of the charging instrument. The charge on the ticket was no seatbelt in trial court.

What is the use of the charging instrument in New York?

First, I challenged the sufficient state of the charging instrument.

in regards to the citation I know I understand it's not a correct charging instrument.

that i wasn't um i didn't understand the charges they didn't have a correct charging instrument

So I demanded to see the charging instrument, they couldn't find it, sent me the county

So, in that it's an insufficient charging instrument because they do that.

And that the complaint can be the charging instrument.

that a traffic ticket itself is not a proper charging instrument. Now would you agree with that?

other defense I would go into court and say the traffic ticket is not a proper charging instrument

it up. The states okay a information is not a charging instrument. An instrument an information

And this is why the owner, you cannot file an exception to the sufficiency of the charging instrument once trial has started.

The only thing before this court with this motion is, is the charging instrument sufficient?

And more specifically, every charging instrument has to name every element and charge every element

In New York State, a traffic ticket, and I've seen the case law for this, traffic ticket is not considered the proper charging instrument.

Traffic tickets are not proper charging instruments.

Hold on. Hold on. No, this is different. They're not proper charging instruments because the traffic ticket has to address

any charging instrument and once they do that they've they sign this little thing that says

going to file a different complaint after the fact they didn't have any charging instrument before

charging instrument was insufficient. That's a good point.

What is relevant is whether or not the charging instrument alleged all of the elements of the crime.

Prepare a subject matter jurisdiction challenge and move to dismiss the case for because the charging instrument is insufficient.

The efficiency of the charging instrument. Well, after the authority of the officer to issue the charging instrument.

One of the elements of this crime, not just proven, all of the elements of the crime must be alleged in the charging instrument.

to discharge if the jailer does not have a warrant not a charging instrument a

charging instrument gives the officer authority to arrest a person and bring

How is he going to enter a plea if he's never even been given a charging instrument and time to formulate a defense and everything?

Well, lo and behold, there's no charging instrument.

that says that the charging instrument may not be changed or amended. They say over the defendant's

If it's not stated, then the charging instrument

Danny, I think you're pointing out that there is in the charging instrument as we're demanding the commercial nexus, right?

But 14 years later, they did not have a valid charging instrument on file in the courthouse

So as soon as I found that out, I motioned to dismiss for no valid charging instrument

But they said it was granted in part for the fact that it's beyond the statute of limitations to file a valid charging instrument

They're beyond the statute of limitations to file a charging instrument

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, they cannot prosecute if they can't file a charging instrument

is considered the charging instrument or the primary pleadings in a criminal case.

this they're not proper charging instruments and they are just an invitation to come in

they they said that it's not a charging instrument that it does of itself and they've got case law

of the traffic tickets uh charging in charging instrument side well what they like to do is

list is a plea to the you're pleading an exception to the charging instrument form or substance

you're saying there's a problem with the charging instrument that's your number one first plea

allow themselves any written notice to substitute for a charging instrument and that's in in texas

And we're talking with John in New York, we're talking about charging instruments

But it's not sufficient to be a charging instrument

About the charging instrument?

There was one thing I wanted to address about the charging instrument

At least in Texas, what they try to do is get you to accept the charging instrument

That's the effect of 27.14 D, it says that you have to agree with the prosecutor, you have to expressly wave your right to have charging instruments brought to you against you

So what they're trying to do with this Code of Criminal Procedure 2714 D is to get you to proceed in a criminal proceeding as if you don't have to have a charging instrument

Even though every other part of the code in the Constitution itself is so super clear, it's not ambiguous at all, they have to have a charging instrument

And the charging instrument is not ambiguous either, it's either an indictment or an information

A traffic ticket is not a proper charging instrument because tickets are handled in criminal court

Because with every state, they have made a provision to be able to efficiently move ahead on the citation as a charging instrument

They waited until it was somewhere down the line and they said, hey, but it was never actually a charging instrument

Complaint or invalid charging instrument

specifically and what that procedure is involves a charging instrument a complaint a sworn affidavit

well let's see Randy do we want to get into the details of let's touch on the charging instrument

now generally the charging instrument is something people don't attack directly

in order to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court the charging instrument must

charging instrument or an exception to that bad charging instrument if there's anything wrong with

the citation as a valid charging instrument in relation to those specific kinds of cases

That depends. It depends on what you're arguing. Are you arguing the validity of the law? Are you arguing the validity of the citation as a charging instrument?

In no other state that I've looked at, have I seen case law this specific to the charging instrument?

It appears because there's supposed to be this other document, a simplified information that is the charging instrument.

and the place I like to go in subject matter jurisdiction is sufficiency of the charging instrument

sufficiency of the charging instrument keeps you out of a lot of these somewhat esoteric and complex legal arguments

But to challenge the sufficiency of the charging instrument, that is a lot more precarious situation for the courts

So the second sentence goes like, this is the pertinent parts I'm addressing, it says, if a non-indigent defendant, okay, I cannot be a defendant because there is no charging instrument given to court jurisdiction.

A charging instrument all by itself.

We were talking about retraction and a related concept would be if they make a mistake in the form or the substance of their charging instrument.

So it's the same way with a charging instrument.

Now, those are the only two documents that could be legitimately a charging instrument for a crime.

If they mess up the charging instrument, go ahead and respond to it and make your defense formulated defense based on that and then they're locked in.

crime. 180 days later, no charging instrument has been presented. And it doesn't say anything about

the existence of transportation itself. Yet, the charging instrument does not even mention

people in jail without due process, without a criminal complaint, without a charging instrument,

charging instrument. JC, that's what a guru looks like. Oh, boy. Well, I'm going to keep studying.

she said, well, I've got a ticket that she's using as a charging instrument.

The problem here is that the charging instrument is insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction,

and they kind of dotted their eyes and crossed their keys with the charging instrument.

Yes, but if the court has general jurisdiction, if you didn't challenge the sufficiency of the charging instrument, but challenged the general jurisdiction of the court, then they're right.

Like I said at the outset, the charging instrument on the surface looked sufficient.

okay i think i can get that by them but one of the other things that happened here is the charges also a revoked license and they charge on the initial ticket they're using the ticket as the charging instrument

yeah but what law says that they cannot correct an invalid charging instrument before it's heard

i said that any plea would be unconscionable there is no there is no charging instrument there is no complaint

and so under the criminal code and rules what are they required to have as a charging instrument

did you have an invalid charging instrument and you have an improper lack of notice

because there was no charging instrument. So I forgot to tell you the day before we went in

If it doesn't, you challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court claiming that the charging instrument is insufficient on its face

Because there's no charging instrument.

There's never been a charging instrument.

date and time there was no charging instrument in the record so that would

be like a charging instrument would be in Texas it would be a complaint and

print you know what I mean so that that's not a charging instrument yeah it

just pretend like they have a charging instrument treat that little fine slip

of notice of a paper as if it is a charging instrument and that goes to we

do not enter a plea before there's been proper charging instrument looks like

any charges it has to be charging instrument y'all get your act together

in the file. And there's basically nothing in there. There's one charging instrument thing

before they've come up with a charging instrument, then they don't have to come up

with a charging instrument because it's kind of like you're saying, okay, don't worry about it.

As of such and such a date, no charging instrument exists.

There's no charging instrument.

there was no charging instrument.

You've got to challenge the sufficiency of the charging instrument.

And generally, a challenge to the sufficiency of a charging instrument needs to be done prior to trial.

Or you see in there, hey, there's no charging instrument in here

That way as of such and such a date, there was no charging instrument in there

Any kind of charging instrument.

but they don't even have a charging instrument, nothing legitimately started the case, and

if there's no charging instrument in the record, then that's a strong case for, that's a strong

to just assume that a case got commenced properly, because there's no charging instrument.

I'm 100% sure they don't have a proper charging instrument in the file, because all they came

of a JP court just for fun, so they have to have an actual correct charging instrument

And it is the beginning of the charging instruments that go through a court case for a crime.

want to see, did they eventually come up with a charging instrument, because it may be too

If you look at the charging instrument on whatever it is that they accused you of in Arizona,

Well, we immediately got a certified copy of the charging instrument, and there really wasn't much.

error in a regularity of form of substance in a charging instrument for

It's super common in Texas that they will pretend like the citation is the charging instrument.

See what does a charging instrument consist of and get it thrown out that way instead of dealing with the merits.

calls a legit charging instrument.

According to California, you need to take a look at what does California say is a legit charging instrument

So once you have a certified copy of that, you have in your hot little hands exactly what charging instruments they feel like they got together to be able to commence this case.

Here are the characteristics of a document that would be in Ohio a legitimate charging instrument.

Yeah, you have a right to dismissal if they haven't provided a proper charging instrument. Don't give, you know, have a rule, never give fair warning.

Have you filed for a default judge for a file to dismiss for lack of a charging instrument?

You can have no charging instrument and pretend like there is one

But can we back up just a minute to the charging instrument?

So if their document that's charging you doesn't talk about that, then that's another defect in their charging instrument.

Since there was no other criminal conduct alleged in the charging instrument,

information as a charging instrument. All of these things are requirements under the

They're the only ones that can file and sign a proper information as a charging instrument.

They have to come up with a certain kind of charging instrument that has to have certain

they haven't properly presented charges, there's no charging instrument.

A citation, warning, none of that stuff actually counts as being a lawfully sufficient charging instrument.

what makes a lawfully sufficient charging instrument.

I mean, no charging instrument.

a charging instrument, so it's all just blabbing, really.

the sufficiency of a charging instrument that could it be good enough to even start the whole case

can a case commence on a charging instrument or something that's in lieu of a charging instrument

In the complaining or charging instrument

A crime means that the charging instrument must be an information, because that...

There is nothing in the record, Your Honor, to show that a proper charging instrument was used to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.

Well, Judge, this citation is the charging instrument.

We've been doing traffic tickets now for 200 years, and that's the charging instrument.

He says that the citation is a charging instrument.

In other words, where's the law that says that a citation called the traffic ticket is a charging instrument?

The traffic ticket has been a charging instrument.

When he says that the traffic ticket was written, Your Honor, the traffic ticket is the charging instrument, then what should be my next statement?

So you deny that the traffic ticket is a charging instrument, and then they're going to sit there and try to say that it is.

exceptions to the charging instrument are to be heard, anything about discovery.

so when it's filed with the grand jury, they actually have a charging instrument to go into the charges with to hand down a true bill,

A complaint is a charging instrument.

a complaint is the charging instrument and they're still running with it.

If it's not a traffic ticket and it's not a municipal court or JP, then the clerk doesn't have the charging instrument or the statement of, statement of cause.

charging instrument. You need to enter guilty or not guilty. That would be an arraignment.

I raised an exception to the charging instrument.

because we're not having a sufficient charging instrument,

I've got a template for a dismissal for an incipient charging instrument and a pretty good one.

Having been sealed in an envelope, along with the charging instrument,

Let's say that there's a charging instrument.

the charging instrument was fatally defective.

Laws create tickets, create charging instruments, if a document doesn't meet a charging instrument,

you don't have to have a law to say it doesn't meet a charging instrument.

I have a supposed charging instrument here,

In order for the prosecutor to produce an information, there must be a criminal affidavit, a charging instrument.

There is no charging instrument in the record, and the prosecutor is the accuser, and Kennedy State says that in order to avoid the obvious evils of the accumulation of power in any one office,

they can use that as the charging instrument

a complaint is the charging instrument wrong we used to have something in texas that said

that a complaint is the charging instrument in a classy misdemeanor we used to it doesn't say

the charging instrument they had something set up like that it was supposed to be for parking

They don't have any charging instruments yet.

There's I raise an exception to the charging instrument

And it used to say something about the complaint is the charging instrument.

and now on the document the charging instrument they've accused you of some crime let's say

The complaint is the charging instrument.

You know, I looked at the charging instruments and stuff and this guy didn't do anything

This should get a motion to strike the charging instrument as insufficient.

And it's possible, although unlikely, that you can get a judge to throw that out just because they've made a mistake in their charging instrument and what they've charged doesn't exist.

You challenge the sufficiency of the charging instrument as it fails to allege facts that beat the elements of the crime.

Well, it charges validity of the charging instrument.

Statement of the witnesses, see the charging instrument, the statement of the witnesses,

out, the charging instrument does not

charging instruments?

essentially is the charging instrument and then they go on to make up whatever they want

that's acting as a charging instrument and according to the to the Colorado law that's

This is a motion to dismiss insufficient charging instrument, and there's all kinds of evidence there you might want to see this is going into the record.

Because they want, because the summons mean the ticket is a charging instrument, but they need a summons complaint.

I asked the clerk, where's the charging instrument?

And the only way you could do that is with a charging instrument. So you had to have it,

and I had also attempted to enter a plea of raising an exception to the charging instrument.

And if you look at case law for raising an exception to the charging instrument,

In addition, I attempted to enter a plea of raising exceptions to a charging instrument.

proper charging instruments in accordance with the what is it article five section 12 of the

about charging instrument in that moment i mean you're exactly right there was the the primary

pleadings were missing but when you say charging instrument you're going to their playing field

being missing and get you over to where you can talk about a charging instrument because that's

a bigger category the charging instruments includes not only an indictment or information

charging instruments so just a little tidbit i mean you you did fine i mean bringing up the

that there was no jurisdiction because of no proper charging instrument i dialed 9-1-1 and

Insufficient charging instrument. They have no charging instrument because they're making crap up.

Yeah, they have something that pretends to be a charging instrument.

But if that document does not allege all of the elements of the accusation, it is not a charging instrument.

for insufficient charging instruments.

You appear on the summons, then they can ask you if you would agree to proceed with the prosecution just based on the summons, or so we don't have to produce all of the charging instruments.