It is an undisputed that RCW 46.61.688 cites a THREE-DIGIT number allegedly entitled “federal motor vehicle safety standard 208" that does NOT exist in fact or law in the entire Code of Federal Regulations hereinafter referred to as the “CFR” or the United States Code hereinafter referred to as the U.S.C. There is a SIX-DIGIT Seat Belt code section, but the RCW does NOT cite it! See RCW 46.61.688 to wit: RCW 46.61.688 Safety belts, use required--Penalties--Exemptions. (2) This section only applies to motor vehicles that meet the manual seat belt safety standards as set forth in federal motor vehicle safety standard 208 and to neighborhood electric vehicles. This section does not apply to a vehicle occupant for whom no safety belt is available when all designated seating positions as required by federal motor vehicle safety standard 208 are occupied. It is also undisputed that RCW 46.61.688 makes absolutely NO reference which volume of books to even try to find a so called “federal motor vehicle safety standard 208"? “It is not the defendant’ burden to search the law for the legal elements of the offense which he is charged.” State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, at 102, 812 P.2d 86 (1991). “Defendants should not have to search for the rules or regulations they are accused of violating. Auburn v. Brooke, 119 Wn.2d 623, 836 P.2d 212 (September 10th, 1992). and; “It is unreasonable to expect an average person to continually search the federal register to determine what drugs are controlled substances.” State v. Dougall, 89 Wn.2d 118 (1977). It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.688 violates both the Washington and United States Constitutions which guarantee a criminal defendant “the right . . . to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him,” Wash. Const., art. 1, sec. 22 (amend. 10), and “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” U.S. Const. amend. 6. It is also clear that a plaintiff using RCW 46.61.688 violates the third prong of Washington Court Rule CrRLJ 2.1(a)(2) which reads: “The complaint shall state for each count the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged to have violated.” The statute itself, RCW 46.61.688, fails to cite 49 U.S.C. part 571 section 571.208. Finally, a plaintiff using RCW 46.61.688 fails to prove/cite the existence of a THREE-DIGIT Section “208" Seat Belt Law by citing its title, and the days of

its passage as required by subsection (j) of RULE 9 PLEADING PRIVATE STATUTES, therefore a court cannot take judicial notice of this case until the plaintiff can provide a “certified copy” citing the date of passage of the alleged THREE-DIGIT Section “208"Seat Belt Law CRLJ(9) or CR 9 to wit: “CRLJ 9(j) Pleading Private Statutes. In pleading a private statute, or a right derived therefrom, it shall be sufficient to refer to such statute by its title, and the day of its passage, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice thereof.” In Bowen v. Baumgardner, 6 Wn.App. 18, 491 P.2d 1301 (1971), the court refused to consider claimed applications of the Seattle Traffic Code Sections because they were neither pleaded nor included in any affidavit. Likewise an honorable court is required by RULE 9 to refuse to consider claimed applications of NON-EXISTENT THREE-DIGIT Federal Seat Belt law Section 208 that are neither pleaded or included in any Affidavit. It would be contempt of court under ARLJ No. 7 for failure to dismiss my Seat Belt Ticket under the CrRLJ 1.1 DECISIONAL LAW OF THIS STATE WHICH REQUIRES AN AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO CITE ALL THE STATUTORY ELEMENTS under Washington’s Essential Elements Rule on the following authority’s to wit: Charging documents that fail to set forth all of the essential elements of a crime are constitutionally defective and require dismissal, regardless of whether the defendant has shown prejudice. State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151, 822 P.2d 775 (1992); State v. Holt, 104 Wn.2d 315, at 320, 704 P.2d 1189 (1985); State v. Leach, 53 Wn.App. 322, 766 P.2d 1116 (1988), rev. granted, 112 Wn.2d 1017 (1989); State v. Ashker, 11 Wn.App. 423, at 426, 523 P.2d 949 (1974); Seattle v. Proctor, 183 Wash. 299, 48 P.2d 241 (1935); State v. Heath, 57 Wash. 246, 106 P. 756 (1910). A conviction based on an insufficient charging instrument will be reversed and the charges will be dismissed without prejudice. State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 791, 888 P.2d 1177 (1995). It is permissible to dismiss criminal charges when all the elements of the crime are not set forth in the information. State ex rel. Clark v. Hogan, 49 Wn.2d 457, 303 P.2d 290 (1956). The omission of any statutory element of a crime in the charging document is fatal to the information. Holt, at 320; State v. Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1, 653 P.2d 1024 (1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 831, 78 L.Ed.2d 112, 104 S.Ct. 111 (1983). RCW 46.61.688 omits citing the CFR and THREE-DIGITS! For help beating your tickets, call Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or write him at: <rcwcodebuster@hotmail.com> or to hear Luis speak, go to: www.theotherradionetwork.com> or <www.VeritasRadio.com> or <www.truthradio.com> See