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 October 15th, 2014 by Marc Stevens
Congrats to Mike in Houston, Texas for not backing down and getting a traffic ticket dismissed for a lack of evidence. And thanks for providing the documentary proof.
While this was a seat-belt charge, we make the same challenges, raise the same issues, we would in a felony possession or tax case. The foundation of every bureaucrat attack is the argument: if you’re physically in Texas (or where ever) then the constitution and laws of the “state” apply. So instead of giving them a pass and treat this argument as a sacred cow, we challenge the factual basis for the argument.
The cop did not show for over two hours and the prosecutor said the motion had no merit and the judge routinely denies such motions. Yes, judges routinely deny motions pointing out the prosecution has failed to present facts supporting their arguments the code applies, there is jurisdiction and a valid cause of action. They also routinely fail to provide the facts the prosecutor presented to support the arguments. We call that an arbitrary ruling, the courts call it a denial of due process and permitting prosecutorial misconduct.
After the cop did show up, he spoke with the prosecutor and left the court. The prosecutor moved to dismiss for a lack of evidence, but that had nothing to do with Mike’s motion to dismiss for a lack of evidence. The proof is below so you can make up your own mind.
Either way, the parasites didn’t get a dime from Mike. Good job. And if you think you have the evidence the prosecutor didn’t, please call into the No State Project and provide it.
Posted on April 18th, 2014 by Marc Stevens
A big congrats to Diron for standing up to the traffic psychos in DC and getting another bogus ticket kicked out. And thanks for sending me the proof.
Diron filed the motion to dismiss I have available; the motion basically points out the accuser has not presented any facts proving jurisdiction. It also points out the essential elements of a valid cause of action are not pled.
As shown below, the ticket was kicked out. It looks like a form letter to me, but it does point out the reasons why it was thrown out. I think I can say with certainty it was kicked out because of the motion, the accuser could not meet their burden of proof on jurisdiction.
Nov. 7, 2014 UPDATE: I dedicated the first hour of the 1 Nov 2014 show to addressing Jake’s criticisms below. Youtube is still limiting my account to 15 minutes, so I have to do it in 4 parts.
Posted on January 25th, 2014 by Marc Stevens
Congrats to Brett for standing up to the traffic predators and getting a ticket kicked out. We spoke about this on the show for 25 January 2014. Another example showing how effective it is to just challenge the arguments these parasites use to cover their crimes. If there was evidence proving the “laws” of the “state” applied, then they would put it on the table. Instead we have another parasite failing to show up to a hearing he caused to be set up.
Keep in mind this exposes the double standard so prevalent with these criminals: the predator responsible is not charged with a crime for failure to appear. Had Brett not shown up you can guarantee he would be charged. Not the hired guns of the “state” though.
Congrats Brett and to critics: if you have evidence the constitution and laws of the “state” of California apply to Brett or anyone else just because they are physically in California, then call into the show with your facts.
Posted on November 20th, 2013 by Marc Stevens
A big congrats to our friend Paul in Toronto for getting another bogus ticket kicked out. Same game plan: challenge them on the evidence the constitution and laws apply and there is jurisdiction. We also throw in there is no standing, valid case and no true adversary. And yes, the Canadian court system is advertised as being adversarial.
While there are those who dismiss these as “just traffic”, the issues we raise are basic to every attack for an alleged code violation. If there was evidence the code applied, then they would provide it. But there isn’t; that is why government apologists dismiss such evidence with “it’s just traffic” and “the cop just couldn’t be bothered.”
What they won’t do is provide the evidence the constitution and laws of Canada apply just because you’re physically in Canada. As I say in the video, the No State Project is an open forum for dissent, if you have evidence the code applies, then call into the show and present it.