I _____________________ , am not liable to the Municipality, _________________________ ,
for their interpretation of Law, of which is abuse of liberty, justice and the American way. I am not proceeding to any such courts for taking into account of abusive measures by which by the state intimidates a free society, which the municipality through political power procedures abuse such freedoms. The US Constitution has already proven that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are requirements within the American Christian Liberties which our Country, The United States was Founded on. The traffic municipal court has no bearing on what Freedom is. The right to Life, Property and Peace are all part of the American Dream. The Constitution protects the individual from self incrimination and the municipality has broke the law by forcing a person to appear in court over a traffic camera or ticket which is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Due Process is not only for criminal procedures. Also the Law of Due Process has been abused for years by municipal courts over petty traffic fines, and other petty court complaints where the municipality fines and fees are abusive and deceitful.
The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” ~ Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489. Arms, Guns, Constitution
..."the municipality saw traffic stops , arrests, tickets as a revenue generator..." - Barack Obama, former President, at Town Hall at Benedict College, Columbia, SC , on 3/06/2015
Driving is a lawful and legal right of the American individual. Taking away their vehicle for not being able to pay a municipal fine is the same as theft. The city is therefore breaking the Law of God. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors belongings is therefore totally ignored by the municipality and state. Taking someone's vehicle due to inability to pay the fine or failure to pay the forced fine to the city is therefore a violation of Law created by God The Creator.
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
“Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Hale v. Henkel 201 US 43 (1906)
“…There is a clear distinction…between an individual and a corporation…The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way…He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state…it’s powers are limited by law.”
Byars v. United States 273 US 28 (1927)
“…it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 170) 5 US 137 (1803)
“…a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 (1886)
“An unconstitutional act is not law…it imposes no duty…it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887)
“The supreme court of the United States is, however, the final expositor and arbiter of all disputed questions touching the scope and meaning of that sacred instrument [the US Constitution], and its decisions thereon are binding upon all courts, both state and federal.”
Ex Parte Young 209 US 123 (1908)
“The Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law…when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the federal constitution. And he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”
Staub v. Baxley 355 US 313 (1958)
“…an ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.”
United States v. Jackson 390 US 570 (1968)
“If a law has ‘no other purpose…’ than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.”
Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton) 19 US 264 (1821)
“A law cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. The several state legislatures and judiciaries, are all bound by solemn obligation of an oath, to support the federal constitution;…willfully legislating in violation of that constitution…[is] guilty of perjury. 
I, therefore am not obligated to pay any fines, fees that are questionable and have no constitutional or spiritual bearing on my soul. This is not to imply that I am above the law, but rather that I am supportive of righteous, logical reasoning and not forced into illogical, political scams from the municipal and state governments to take possession of me, my and my goods. I stand with God and He is my witness!
Therefore I peacefully protest my right to be left alone, the right to freedom to drive without being harassed by state or local governments.
City, state, zip
I, ________________, believe to the best of my knowledge facts set herein described are legal and true.