A big congrats to Jerry in Ohio and John in New York for standing up to the predators and getting complaints kicked out. While both are traffic, Jerry's dismissal is the more important because the judge spelled out exactly why the complaint was thrown out. Much to the critics' chagrin who falsely claim I've never had a judge agree with my argument on jurisdiction, this time as they can do is claim, "It's just traffic." Such efforts to marginalize this evidence are without merit. The same jurisdictional claims are made by prosecutors whether traffic, drugs or taxation, felony or misdemeanor. Doesn't matter, they make the same claim as did the prosecution in Jerry's proceedings. Claims of territorial, personal and subject matter jurisdiction all hinge on the same false opinion: if you're physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws apply. There's no evidence to prove this; claims the constitution and laws apply are just blunt assertions of power, based on neither argument nor evidence. The judge did lie and force a trial knowing the prosecutor had no evidence of jurisdiction. The Ohio judge pulled out the frivolous argument that jurisdiction is a trial issue. If you hear this line, object immediately and call the judge in this blatant lie. It's also grounds to disqualify the judge. As shown in the video, the judge dismissed the complaint on grounds that after the trial the prosecution failed to establish jurisdiction. This disproves a couple of persistent claims: 1. The complaint is evidence of jurisdiction and 2. physical presence in the court is enough to establish jurisdiction. Both claims are false, as is the claim no judge has ever accepted my argument there is no evidence proving jurisdiction. If you are attacked by government predators, then you definitely want to challenge the prosecutor' argument the constitution and laws apply to you. There is no evidence to prove it and without jurisdiction nothing else is relevant.