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 July 23rd, 2015 by Marc Stevens
Congrats to Jake for standing up to the criminals called “government.” And thanks for sending me the documentary proof the ticket was dismissed.
Jake filed the demurrer which is based on a lack of evidence proving jurisdiction. It appears it was granted as the judge dismissed the ticket. While this may only be traffic, the principles involved are the same and it is great education/training since we are all at risk of being attacked on more serious charges.
Posted on June 3rd, 2015 by Marc Stevens
As reported on on the 31 May 2015 No State Project, below is the documentary proof of the dismissal. This was a traffic ticket in Straffordshire, England. Gary helped Matt by filing an application to dismiss, discovery request and speaking on Matt’s behalf in court. The application is based on the prosecution’s lack of evidence proving jurisdiction.
Rather than continue being pressed for evidence to support their arguments, the prosecutor withdrew; from Gary:
So we get called in to a smiling very friendly court, before they had a chance to say a word, I informed them of Matt’s difficulties and as a result I would be speaking for him (Didn’t wait for their permission). I then informed the court that discovery is required and has not be given, therefore we require a case management hearing before a district judge as we allege a breach of process by the prosecution.
Boom that was it; the prosecutor stood up and said she was not offering any evidence and was withdrawing the complaint on behalf of the crown
In my opinion it was the Motion to dismiss that did the job. They will be posting the dismissal notice to Matt so once he receives it I will send you a copy.
The main issue is always the same: what evidence/witnesses do you rely on to support your argument the laws of the government apply to me just because I’m physically in England? We just ask them to support their argument and they withdraw. Why withdraw when it’s so easy to prove the laws apply to everyone physically in England?
Because it’s a lie, there is no evidence the laws apply to anyone. There are no governments, states, citizens etc., there are just people forcing us to pay them. They are criminals and we need to continue exposing them for the criminals they really are.
Congrats to Matt and Gary for standing up to the predators and thanks for sending me the proof.
Posted on March 26th, 2015 by Marc Stevens
It’s very common for government apologists to use political words to cover the violence of those called government. It’s not an assault with intent to cause bodily injury, no it’s a “routine traffic stop.”
How about NO? No, it’s an assault with intent to cause bodily injury, it’s a crime and the men/women doing the “stops” are criminals. The facts prove this, even under their laws.
The sacred writ classifies assault as:
A person commits assault by…Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury…
Why do we stop our cars when the people called cops put their lights on? Because we know if we don’t, then they will use ever increasing force to get us to comply. We don’t want to die that day.
Putting the lights on intentionally creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury. They will run up to us with their guns pointed at our heads. If we reach for ID they will murder us.
The force continuum is the escalation of violence to make us comply. If we do the same thing to get compliance, then we’re criminals.
Everyone who intentionally creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury to another is a criminal. It doesn’t matter if they have a badge or not.
So keep that in mind and mention it in court if one of those badged criminals gives you a ticket. Then sit back and watch them spew their excuses and disgraceful double standards that no rational adult should accept.