Adam Has Another Ticket Kicked in California

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.


18 Comments For This Post

  1. Randy Says:

    Nice job Adam and Marc! I’m a true believer and can drive down the road and accept any bogus citation knowing that I can fight it and win.

  2. Israel Bureaucracy Association Says:

    I don’t know if I can win, but I know that I can fight!
    I don’t try to get tickets, I try to not get tickets… but when I do, and I have 2 right now, and I’m taking them to the central stage – court – and fighting them!

  3. janice Says:

    Talk about a conspiracy.
    The queen is always the plaintiff in a traffic ticket!
    This is really disgusting. Hope it’s not too long but didn’t know where else to post it.

    I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.[3]

    Those required to take the oath

    The following persons must take the Oath of Allegiance before occupying a governmental, military, police, or judicial post. Generally, these individuals are appointed by the monarch or relevant viceroy, meaning they serve at Her Majesty’s pleasure, and are charged with creating or administering the law.
    [edit] Federal
    Governors general of Canada[26]
    Members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada[28]
    Members of parliament[4]
    Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada
    Justices of the Federal Court
    Justices of the Federal Court of Appeal
    Recruits of the Canadian Forces[41]
    New citizens of Canada
    Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
    [edit] Provincial
    Lieutenant governors[42]
    Members of a legislature (MLAs, MPPs, MNAs, and MHAs)[4]
    Justices of the superior courts, appellate courts, and provincial courts
    Staff of the Ontario civil service[43]
    All other Crown appointees in Ontario[44]
    Civil servants in Manitoba
    Members of the Canadian Bar Association
    Lawyers in Alberta[45] and PEI[46]
    [edit] Optional
    Recruits of the Ontario Provincial Police (optional)
    Lawyers in Ontario[47] and Nova Scotia[48]

    Any type of attestation by which an individual signifies that he or she is bound in conscience to perform a particular act truthfully and faithfully; a solemn declaration of truth or obligation.
    An individual’s appeal to God to witness the truth of what he or she is saying or a pledge to do something enforced by the individual’s responsibility to answer to God.
    Similarly an affirmation is a solemn and formal declaration that a statement is true; however, an affirmation includes no reference to God so it can be made by someone who does not believe in God or by an individual who has conscientious objections against swearing to God. Provisions in state statutes or constitutions ordinarily allow affirmations to be made as alternatives to oaths.
    In order for an oath to be legally effective, it must be administered by a public official. The law creating each public office and describing the duties of the official ordinarily indicates who is authorized to administer the oath of office. A spoken oath is generally sufficient; however, a written and signed oath can be required by law.
    The Elements of Conspiracy Agreement
    The essence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons. A single person acting alone cannot be guilty of conspiracy.
    The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
    Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.
    Most jurisdictions have statutes governing extortion that broaden the common-law definition. Under such statutes, any person who takes money or property from another by means of illegal compulsion may be guilty of the offense. When used in this sense, extortion is synonymous with blackmail, which is extortion by a private person. In addition, under some statutes a corporation may be liable for extortion.
    Elements of Offense (Extortion)
    Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim’s friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim’s spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.
    Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim’s business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.
    Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as “willful” or “purposeful” in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.
    Statutes governing extortion by private persons vary in content. Many hold that a threat accompanied by the intent to acquire the victim’s property is sufficient to establish the crime; others require that the property must actually be acquired as a result of the threat. Extortion by officials is treated similarly. Some statutes hold that the crime occurs when there is a meeting of the minds between the officer and the party from whom the money is exacted

  4. Randy Says:

    Love this:

    Since Corporation is the word of the day, maybe we all should follow suit and for our own. Fight fire with fire. Just saying.

    @Israel: I agree.

    @Janice: I think you are missing Marc’s points. There are States/Provinces. All fictions including the Crown. Why would you want to do what you posted? What ever you were going to do with it.

  5. Randy Says:

    Sorry, meant to write: “form our own”

  6. Edgar Says:

    GOD Save The Queen !!

  7. janice Says:

    Randy…just posting the tremendous conflict of interest which is another point that marc has brought up. It’s incidious really. I would love to take this and present it to the court should another ticket come up.

  8. Incubus Says:

    @ janice,

    A kind reminder, there is a forum on the site, suited well for long posts’.

  9. janice Says:

    thanks incubus. Never…lol…realized there was a forum. Of course there would be. Guess I have my hands in too many pies at the moment : p

  10. NonE Says:

    Pies? Did someone mention PIES??? 🙂 I’ll bring the ice cream!

    – NonE

  11. janice Says:

    i make a kick ass pie : p

  12. randy Says:

    @Janice: No, I understand conflict of interest. I agree with Marc completely on this. Just keep your defenses simple, don’t muddy the water with extraneous points. Remember Occam’s razor. Just saying.

  13. janice Says:

    thanks randy…just thought maybe they’ld think twice over ever proceeding or I could just wait all day to have the case heard which is what they typically do.

  14. randy Says:

    @Janice: Your welcome

  15. Chris Says:

    Where can I get/read Adam’s paperwork?docket?

  16. surfer349 Says:

    Adam here.

    @Chris: I’ve been active here for just under a year now, using the documents I’ve received from Marc. Check his store. If you’re smart, I’m sure you can piece together a good Motion-to-Dismiss from all the information on youtube, this website and the forum, BUT it’s so worth it to purchase it in whole from MARC, plus supporting the continuance of this site.

  17. jeg Says:

    Where can I find the document shown in the video to challenge the parking ticket ?

  18. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ jeg the templates are available under the store link on this site.

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Adam Has Another Ticket Kicked in California - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Click here to view the embedded video. […]

  2. NSP – Jan 5, 2013 – Co-host: JT | Says:

    […] Adam Has Another Ticket Kicked in California. […]

  3. NSP – Jan 5, 2013 – Co-host: JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Adam Has Another Ticket Kicked in California. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here