Posted on May 17th, 2016 by Marc Stevens
It’s been a pretty good year getting complaints dismissed, this is another from New York. Congrats to Lee for defending himself successfully against the government gangsters. And thanks for giving me the proof.
Regardless of the claims from the critics, such as this youtube troll:
Plenty of complaints have been dismissed or kicked out, and yes, the motion has been granted, though the critics can’t stand it. What they cannot do, just the bureaucrats can’t, is provide relevant facts supporting their claims the “laws” apply to us.
When you have no facts to support your claim you just lie and try to distract from the lack of evidence. If you’re being attacked, even if just a traffic ticket, and you’re interesting in learning how to defend yourself, then listen to the No State Project; Government: Indicted has also helped many people learn to effectively defend themselves from these criminals called “government.”
[Update] There are six more charges Lee had kicked out.
Posted on May 13th, 2016 by Marc Stevens
Congrats to Chrisitne for standing up to the predators in Wales, and thanks for sending me the proof. This is our first dismissal in Wales, at least as far as I know.
This was a traffic ticket and Chrisitne filed the application to dismiss he got from me. The application is based on a lack of evidence proving the laws applied just because he is physically in Wales, no jurisdiction and no valid cause of action.
A. Slight, the prosecutor, withdrew his complaint on grounds:
“there is not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.”
Given the application is based on a lack of evidence, it’s easy to see why Slight declined to prosecute. There is no guess work here, though critics will speculate it had nothing to do with the application.
And critics will further dismiss this saying “it’s just a traffic ticket.” A traffic ticket is based on the same claim as more serious charges, that your physical location makes their rules (“laws”) magically apply to us.
It’s no easier to prove the laws apply in a traffic case as it is in a tax or drug case. It’s impossible to do, that is why A. Slight, like so many others, declined to prosecute.
If you think there is evidence proving the laws apply to Chrisitne, evidence the crown prosecutor could not provide, then please call into a live broadcast and present it.
Posted on December 12th, 2014 by Marc Stevens
This is very unusual; as I mention in the video below I’ve never seen this before. Usually a trial by declaration is another form of pleading guilty.
But Al’s wife prevailed. Al got a demur template from me and mailed it to the court. The demur challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the complaint. Because the complaint contains no facts or allegations the constitution and code apply, there is no jurisdiction and there are not enough facts to set forth an offense.
Al did not say there was a response from the cop or prosecutor. Even if they responded, it would not have been with any facts the constitution and code applied and there was jurisdiction. What is comes down to is the argument the laws apply and there is jurisdiction has no factual support. Here the judge did the right thing, though sustaining the demur was more appropriate.
Congrats to Al and his wife, and thanks for providing me with the documentary proof.
Posted on November 19th, 2014 by Marc Stevens
Two new dismissals and one from last year reported below. Everyone filed the motion to dismiss based on a lack of evidence proving the constitution and code applied and there was jurisdiction. While most of the time there are howls of “frivolous” and one word denials, there is never any evidence presented to overcome the motion.
We even have a picture of the judge who dismissed the complaint against Ted, David Ruzumna.
Congrats to Garrett, Ted and Rob for standing up to the psychopaths and getting three more bogus complaints kicked out. And thanks for sending me the documentary proof.
Posted on November 13th, 2014 by Marc Stevens
It was another good week regarding bogus traffic tickets; three tickets kicked out. These are all from the east coast, Maine, New York, and New Jersey. Each filed a motion to dismiss based on a lack of evidence proving the constitution and code apply and there was jurisdiction and no valid cause of action.
None of the accusers were able to provide a single fact proving the constitution and code apply and none of them even tried; though in Maine they did try scaring Scott into not going to trial.
Congrats and thanks to everyone for providing the documentary proof below.
Posted on September 23rd, 2014 by Marc Stevens
A big congrats to Joshua for standing up to the parasites and getting a ticket kicked out. And a big thanks for sending me the evidence posted below.
While critics argue this does not “count” as traffic courts are not “real courts” and that real issues are not raised, they’re wrong. The same issues are raised as would be, and have been raised, in “real” courts that involve felony and misdemeanor charges. Keep in mind critics just can’t accept the truth: there are no governments, just men and women forcing us to give them money; they are criminals despite calling themselves “honorable”.
The main issue raised in the motion to dismiss/demur is the prosecutor has not presented any evidence the constitution and laws of the plaintiff “state” apply and there is any jurisdiction. This groundless argument (the laws apply to us) is the basis of a traffic ticket and a felony possession charge. So the venue is not important, the same argument is made against you, so it’s logical to attack that same argument. Pay no attention to the critics’ logical fallacies and distractions.
That’s what Joshua did and it resulted in the ticket being kicked out. Another example where someone stood up for himself and didn’t hire an attorney (officer of the court) and argue issues of law hoping the lawyer with the robe agreed with him. No, he stuck to issues of fact and pointed out the prosecution had not presented facts. That cannot just be “denied”, the facts must appear on the record. Yes, the judge can avoid the issue, but that doesn’t make the facts magically appear.
If you are being attacked by those called government, it would be smart and effective for y ou to challenge their arguments, the foundation being: the constitution and laws apply and they have jurisdiction over you.
It is not in your best interest to give the people attacking you a free pass. There are no sacred cows, all arguments are subject to challenge. If you think this argument should not be challenged, please call the show and enlighten us with your reasoning.
Posted on June 5th, 2014 by Marc Stevens
Joey called in the No State Project this past week and related to us what happened when he and his wife went to defend against a bogus traffic ticket. Congrats to Jennie for standing up to these bullies and not just paying and making it easier for the machine.
As pointed out below, even though the prosecutors told the cop the motion would never hold up in court, the cop withdrew the charges. Because the only logical thing to do when a motion with no merit is filed is to quietly withdraw.
But there is a caveat: according to critics and internet gurus, traffic courts are not “real courts” and getting traffic tickets doesn’t count. So take the information, as well as everything, with a healthy dose of skepticism and verify everything for yourself.
Posted on August 6th, 2013 by Marc Stevens
I received an email from Raul in Florida; a friend was fighting a bogus ticket in Florida. Raul helped by filing a motion to dismiss for a lack of evidence proving the constitution and laws of the state of Florida (a fiction) applied. Also there is no valid case or true adversary.
Raul’s friend got a call from the prosecutor who offered a deal, it was rejected and they attended a hearing on the motion to dismiss. When it was their turn, the prosecutor stood up and stated nolle prosequi, that he was not pursuing prosecution. As shown below, the judge signed off of threw the ticket out.
Congrats to Raul and his friend for standing up to predators and calling their bluff. Another example where a prosecutor, despite insisting the laws applied had no evidence to prove it. So he withdrew.
If there was evidence proving the constitution and laws applied, then they would just provide it.
Posted on July 11th, 2012 by Marc Stevens
A big congrats to our mate Keith in Melbourne, Australia. Keith is participating in the NSP parking ticket study and though it took a year, the ticket was essentially kicked out, or dropped whichever you prefer.
Keith got the ticket and was notified by people claiming to be the “City of Melbourne” of an alleged “infringement”. Keith challenged this “summary offense” with six letters asking for evidence. All he got were a few pictures; nothing to prove his presence with the City and jurisdiction.
As the one year deadline to formally lodge the application against Keith has run out, the matter is now closed. While we wanted to confront the people dba the “City of Melbourne” on their many fictions, Keith still got to challenge them on paper and they were of course, unable or unwilling, to provide any facts.
Keith’s newsletter is here Enewsletter no 18-2012 July 10 2012.
Feel free to contact me or Keith if you are interested in participating in the NSP parking study in Australia.
Posted on January 4th, 2016 by Marc Stevens
Congrats to Richard for standing up to the political predators and getting another bogus ticket kicked out. And thanks for providing me with more documentary evidence.
Richard filed the motion to dismiss, stating the complaint should be dismissed for a lack of evidence proving jurisdiction. Jurisdiction being based on the opinion that if one is physically in New Jersey, then the rules (“laws”) created by politicians apply.
This groundless opinion is the basis of all political charges, so it’s not just a parking or traffic ticket. That is only said to marginalize or negate the evidence we defeated yet another ticket/assessment.
Regardless of the charge, we’re always accused of violating political rules created by politicians, their sacred writ called “laws.” If you challenge them by asking why their rules apply, they will always tell you directly that if you’re physically in New Jersey, then our rules apply.
But as those familiar with this site know, there isn’t any evidence to support the argument. Some critics have written, “The evidence is in the handcuffs.” Bureaucrats have also claimed:
That’s all they have, threats of violence and violence; not a shred of evidence or logic to prove their rules apply to us. If attacked, you would do well to challenge their arguments/opinions, demand proof.