I'm going to try the strawman route first and if that fails, then slam them with the usual.

Strawman Defense:
To all persons, be it known that I, Chaz Meathaed, do here by declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of Washington, certify that the following is true and correct to the best on my knowledge.

I come as a friend of the court to inform it that it has made a mistake and is asking a legal fiction to appear before it today. The legal fiction is a trust and transmitting utility. “THE STATE” who is the plaintiff in this case has certified this is true. This is evidenced by the certified UCC-1 form attached.

I have not been properly served notice of any violation, so there is no controversy involving me. I trust the court will settle this matter honorably. Since there is nothing in this matter involving me, my business is complete today. Have a nice day.


Backup Defense:
1. I believe the officer purged himself by stating he was “using proper tracking history” and said he “observed the speed reading for at least 3-5 seconds.” These are false statements.

2. We passed each other while going in opposite directions on what he called a “blind corner”. And when he saw me, he immediately hit his brakes and turned on his lights BEFORE he did a 3 point U-turn on the “blind corner.” It was no more than three seconds from when we passed each other and when he was turning around. So there was positively no proper tracking and I don’t believe he even looked at his speedometer.

3. First the officer stated he was in “moving mode.”

4. Then the he stated he was in “opposite direction mode”.

5. Then he states “If in moving mode, I verified my vehicle speedometer speed with the radar display”, which shows he didn’t know what mode he was in or if he was moving, when he stated earlier he was “TRAVELING W/B.”

6. There is no evidence showing the speedometer was working properly.

7. There is no evidence showing the officer was certified to operate the radar devise.

8. There is no evidence showing the officer has read the operators manual for the radar devise. Rule IRLJ 6.6 states “This agency maintains manuals for all of the above stated SMD's.”

9. There is no evidence showing the radar devise was operating properly at the time of the alleged offence.

10. There is no evidence showing how he determined he used the “designated” tuning forks.

11. There is no evidence showing the radar devise was certified to be operating properly, or by whom. And if it was, what the schedule is and that the schedule meets manufacturer’s standards.

12. There is no evidence showing the certification program meets Rule IRLJ 6.6 requirements.

13. There is no evidence showing the speed limit complies with RCW 46.61.415, RCW 46.61.405 or RCW 46.61.410 which even the Secretary of Transportation has to follow. In fact the records at Public Works Department show that speed limit does not comply with the RCW’s.

14. Under Rule IRLJ 6.6 “SPEED MEASURING DEVICE: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION” it reads “State the program in detail.” (on the certificate) The certificate does not state how often the devise has to be maintained or certified to meet or exceed manufacturer’s standards. And according to Rule IRL 6.6; the “Evidence shall be suppressed pursuant to subsection (c) of this rule if the evidence in the certificate, affidavit or document is insufficient.” Such is this case and I move the evidence be suppressed.


Washington State law requires a preponderance of evidence presented for guilty verdict, and clearly this requirement has not been met. The only remedy in this case is dismissal and I move the court to this verdict.