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 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.
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.
Posted on August 17th, 2013 by Marc Stevens
Congrats to Pete in Wisconsin for standing up to the bullies in Sauk county. And a big thanks for sending this evidence over.
As mentioned on the No State Project last week, the ticket against Pete was thrown out. That was two traffic tickets kicked out because the prosecutors withdrew. Both times a motion to dismiss was filed with a discovery request; all based on a lack of evidence the constitution and laws of the plaintiff state apply.
Rather than try to do the impossible by trying to provide evidence the laws apply, the prosecutors withdrew. If you look, Linda Hoffman filed to withdraw on 7 August 2013 and the other lawyer, Patrick Taggart granted it the next day 8 August 2013. Below is the order:
If anyone would like to prove the constitution and laws of a so-called state do apply to me and others just because of our physical location, they are encouraged to call into the No State Project and offer their evidence. The only prosecutor who called into the show was unable to and the one politician only had opinions regarding “opting in” and the 600,000+ people killed in the Civil War.
Posted on March 27th, 2013 by Marc Stevens
Our Australian mates are doing well. I don’t have many details from Keith yet, but there are two successes to report this time.
Keith had a traffic complaint filed against him in Western Australia. He told me a Senior Constable named Sarah Humphreys paid him a visit . Sarah was the one who had issued the fine for ‘insufficient tread’ on my car tire against Keith. Keith reports that Sarah told him the charge was dropped. He asked why and Sarah stated the WA Police Prosecutor declined to prosecute the charge.
Keith will be visiting the Laverton Police Station tomorrow to get the withdrawal of the fine in writing and attempt to get them to state why they are withdrawing the fine.
Also, though not part of the traffic ticket study, Kathy had judicial review with the Supreme Court in Melbourne regarding a massive fine by the Victorian Chinese Medicine Registration Board and was successful. I’ll post details when Keith sends them over.
Congrats to Keith and Kathy for standing up to the man. The newsletter is here
. Right click to save the PDF.
Posted on February 20th, 2013 by Marc Stevens
Congrats to James and thanks for sending me the dismissal order below. James had a cop accuse him of code violations in Kentucky and a complaint was filed into the McCracken district court.
I helped James with a demur to the complaint on the grounds there was no evidence the constitution and code were applicable, no cause of action and no true adversary. Without evidence the code is applicable the court (judges) have no jurisdiction.
The prosecutor filed a notice of “nolle prosequi” which is Latin for “do not prosecute”.
While at this time I can only speculate as the reasons the prosecutor had to not pursue the prosecution, if you look at the typical grounds for a “nolle prosequi” and consider the demur was for a lack of evidence, we’ve got strong circumstantial evidence the prosecutor agreed there was no evidence:
“The declaration may be made because the charges cannot be proved due to evidence too weak to carry the burden of proof, because the evidence is fatally flawed in light of the claims brought,or may be made if the prosecutor becomes doubtful the accused is guilty or the defendant’s innocence is proved…” (Quoted form the wikipedia page)
Maybe it’s me, but I’m not aware of a “nolle prosequi” or other dismissal because the alleged defendant filed a nonsensical demur or motion to dismiss. A former prosecutor, now wearing the black robe, signed the order of dismissal. Apparently the judge agreed there was no evidence proving the code applied to James.
This is certainly more evidence of how effective it is just to challenge prosecutors on the facts and not accepting any sacred cows and other generalizations.
I have written and mentioned in videos recently that this will be marginalized because it’s “just traffic” or that traffic courts are not “real courts”. But, I’ve been wrong so far. I’ve not seen any criticism in the past few months regarding the tax assessments and traffic tickets kicked out.
Congrats James for doing what so many others are not willing to do, even if just traffic court; standing up to these professional predators.
Posted on February 13th, 2013 by Marc Stevens
Congrats to Scott in Portland, Scott called the show Feb. 9 2013 and gave up an update of the psychopathic circus he was ordered to attend on Monday. A cop accused Scott of the heinous crime of not having some registration and not complying with the whims of psychopaths. These whims are commonly known as “law” among certain people.
Just as has happened so many other times, when we file the motion to dismiss and provide a copy to the cop who wrote the ticket, seventy-five percent of the time the cop doesn’t bother showing up. Because as we all know, why comply with a subpoena to defend against a motion without any merit? Even when the motion has been summarily denied the cops still don’t show up? Why?
Why not collect the easy overtime knowing the judge has already dismissed the motion as “garbage”, “legalistic gibberish” and “nonsense”? After all, let’s not forget the other hearings/trials the cop is probably there for that day. We’ve had reports the cop is there for other trials. Why not show up for our trials when they get a copy of the motion to dismiss?
Regardless of any criticism and ad hominen attacks against me, there is no evidence the constitution and codes apply.
Congrats Scott for standing up for yourself and not just paying or worse, paying a lawyer to do “whatever is necessary to avoid going to jail”.
Posted on January 5th, 2013 by Marc Stevens
Adam is the man, he’s had several tickets kicked out in California, this is the latest. So far we’ve got a good record of having tickets thrown out in the NSP parking ticket study, so we have evidence there is obvious merit to the tactic of challenging the facts the code is applicable. This is also evidence, despite the harsh criticism in the past, there’s merit to challenging government attacks on standing, cause of action and lack of a true adversary.
But when you look at the critics, they at best, are giving a free pass to those men/women calling themselves governments. As with standing, that is not my rule, that is political public relations, sacred writ called “law”. There are no exceptions to this, either there is a valid cause of action or there isn’t. If there isn’t, there is no jurisdiction. There are no exceptions because the plaintiff is called the “STATE”. This is laid out in detail in my standing cross reference.
And while this may have been “just” a traffic ticket, the same issues apply. The code still has to be applicable, there still needs to be a valid cause of action/case and there still needs to be a true adversary. Anytime the predators don’t get compliance and our money is a good thing.
So congrats again to Adam for not just laying down and taking it. If you’re interested in participating in the No State Project traffic study, feel free to contact me and call the show.