Well, here's what I would do in court.
If the officer is not present then I would object immediately.
"Your honor, the officer is not present and there is no rule of law within the Swinomish Traffic Code that allows a written statement to be admitted into evidence in lieu of the officer's appearance in court."
If the court says something to the fact that the IRLJ governs all Swinomish Traffic Proceedings, I would say:
"Your honor, with all due respect, but I can find no where in the Swinomish Traffic Code that the Code has adopted the IRLJ. I respectfully disagree with your statement and would like you to point out for the record where the tribe has adopted the IRLJ."
You'll probably not do well with that. So you may need to move on. Again, you're kinda stuck in Kangaroo Court.
Next, you need to object to the SMD Certificate being admitted into evidence:
"Your honor, I object to this particular SMD Certificate being admitted into evidence due to the fact that there is no rule of law within the Swinomish Traffic Code that allows a certificate be admitted into evidence in lieu of expert testimony. Unless the prosecution has the SMD expert at trial today to testify, I object."
So the court might say something like they did earlier about the IRLJ being adopted. If the court says that it adopts the IRLJ, then you can object due to the fact that the SMD Certificate is not in "...substantially the [following] form..." as prescribed by IRLJ 6.6.
If that doesn't work, then attack the officer's statement:
I would first argue that the officer indicates that he used pacing, but testifies that he used an SMD.
The next thing I would argue is that the officer's statement was written for a different violation than the ticket was. The ticket was issued on 5/18/11 for a violation that occurred 5/18/11. However, the statement was written and signed two months prior to the violation on 3/18/11. Either the officer had a sixth sense, or the statement describes a different violation. Either way, you must acquit.
You can use this to your advantage, or you can not, but the officer signs the statement under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington. You can go two ways with this argument: 1) because the officer has signed it under penalty of the laws of another jurisdiction and not of the court's jurisdiction, there is no way of affirming if it is actually is truth, or 2) because the officer has signed under the laws of Washington, then all other laws of the State must apply.
Finally, you can argue that the officer said he only used one tuning fork, but clearly, the SMD certificate says that there are two. If he did not test the unit to the manufacturer or the expert's instructions, how can there be certainty in the way that the unit was operated. Make sure you point out that the officer's report says "A tuning fork." Not "both tuning forks." If you want to go one step further, you can say there is no way to definitively prove that the officer used the correct tuning fork as prescribed for the unit because he doesn't indicate where the tuning fork came from. There is no serial number, no certainty.
In any WA State court, you would have a good chance of dismissal. However, you're stuck with their court, their rules, their (for lack of a better term) crap. It's an unfortunate situation, but I wish you the best of luck.

