Affidavit Of Last Testament

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Case No. 27-CR-14-1911

I AFFIANT, Baron Montero Jones, both of being of sound mind and person, flesh and blood
man, do under oath, under penalty of perjury, with all rights reserved, that the foregoing is true
and correct to the best of my understanding and ability hereby state:

1. AFFIANT STATES, On or about July 5, 2016 in the above case number hearing

at or around 1:30 pm, I had the opportunity to speak with Nancy Laskaris’

supervisor, Shawn Web, about my wishes to remove Laskaris. I explained to

Web that she had refused to further my “Creditor/ Debtor Law.1” Because the

Minnesota Court of Appeals “reversed and remanded” for the failure of the above

case number court to appoint me an attorney, they “did not address the issues

raised in appellant's pro se brief;”2 respect to his “Creditor/Debtor Law. Nancy

Laskaris refused to address and or advance these issues. And when I had spoke

with Shawn Web he was unaware of the “Creditor/Debtor Law” I had completed,

and was unaware of my case until an hour prior to our meeting.

2. AFFIANT STATES, On or about July 5, 2016 in the above case number hearing

at or around 1:30 pm, Judge Quaintance and Tara Ferguson-Lopez, had both

disclosed to me that my “Creditor/Debtor Law” and surveillance issues3 are now

mute and cannot be relitigated (except in a separate venue and or appeal). After

1
See, A15-0310 Minn. Ct. App. The Court of Appeals refused to address due to “reverse appellant’s
[Jones’] conviction and remand for a new trial.”
2
​Id.
3
It is reported that an unauthorized surveillance was used to determine Jones’ location.
1 of 1
AOLT #07112016
Affidavit Of Last Testament

roughly browsing the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly at the

Comments - 8 section, I realized that the their tacit procuration was illegal.

Because I never waived the Rasmussen Hearing as provided Minnesota Rules of

Criminal Procedure 8, Comment - 8 (“If the Rasmussen hearing is waived under

Rule 8.03 by both the prosecution and the defense, the 30 Omnibus Hearing

provided by Rule 11 must be held without a Rasmussen hearing. If the Rasmussen

hearing is demanded, the hearing must be held as part of the Omnibus Hearing as

provided by Rule 11.02.). ​Minn.R.Crim.Pro Rule 8 (Comment-8)​.

3. AFFIANT STATES, I Object to these proceedings. I object to the law

Quaintance said the “court shall practice.” I object to the court’s jurisdiction; this

matter has already been resolved between the parties and or agents (According to

a “court of record”4 of my administrative process proved successful. I had

handled this matter privately. There is no case or controversy). I will now

proceed further to STOP this unwanted transaction. THIS IS A CEASE AND

DESIST.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAITH NOT

Dated 7/11/2016 Baron Montero Jones/s

100 South 1st Street
Unit 580062
Minneapolis, MN 55458
612-217-0896
info@baronjones.org

Signed under penalty of perjury; All Rights Reserved.

4
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the
person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of
common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial.
1 of 2
AOLT #07112016