Categorized | Articles, Success Stories

Another Ticket Kicked out – Standing Not Such a “baseless notion” After All

Posted on May 11th, 2012 by Marc Stevens

I want to thank Lorin for posting the video below.  He was the one from my previous article and video.  Lorin went to court yesterday over a traffic ticket and even though the prosecutor and cop were there, the lawyer with the robe threw the ticket out.

But here’s where things get really weird as you’ll hear in the video, the lawyer with the robe refuses to say what the grounds are to throw the ticket out.  He seems to mock Lorin, he refers to the motion as a “missive”, I thought a formal motion was considered more than a mere letter.  If we can just write letters that would save time.

The judge refuses to provide any grounds for the dismissal, instead telling Lorin to get a background in legal research to understand why he is dismissing it.  Lorin asks for grounds directly and the lawyer refuses.

My first thought when I heard this was: Is the judge seven years old?  Talk about childish behavior.  Could you give me a hint?  Nope.  He forces Lorin to show up and then refuses to disclose why he tossed the ticket out.

Nevertheless, it is another ticket thrown out; the predators only got a little of Lorin’s time.  Well done my friend.

              

35 Comments For This Post

  1. Al Thompson Says:

    This was a good job. What is interesting is that the judge ruled in his favor but refused to disclose the grounds upon why he dismissed it. Then he suggests that the “defendant” go to law school. That’s unbelievable, why go to law school? So even when the jerks rule in the “defendant’s” favor, they still won’t answer questions because they are simply liars. If they answered questions they would not be able to control the proceedings.

    In my view, the one who is asking the questions is the one who is controlling the conversation and the proceeding. He asked the questions in the Motion for Dismissal. Once you stop asking questions and answer theirs, I think there is a lost of control and a loss of the case. There is no reason to answer their questions if they won’t answer ours. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  2. Kel Says:

    Seven years old Marc? That’s very insulting…to seven year olds.

  3. eye2i Says:

    (as posted on the forum):
    Excellent.
    Kudos & appreciation to both Lorin & Marc.

    One possibility regarding the “go to Law School” remark… it gives the delusional Judge a mental escape route, Justifying the Dismissal: he’s recruiting a candidate (see Military Recruiting tactics). Waive a measly traffic charge in hopes of helping a School with a new tuition ($30k and perpetuate the scam)! It’s been said that ignorance is bliss; apparently self-delusion is as well –or perhaps they’re one and the same? (ignore-dance?)

    [lmbo @ Kel’s post. ;^) ]

  4. indio007 Says:

    I guess going to law school gives you telepathic powers!

    What an ass this guy is.

  5. Ivan Says:

    Thanks Lorin, and Marc for the good work ~

  6. Dionysus Says:

    The dirty baboon judge is obviously bluffing. You know he is because he bothered to say the dismissal was “not for the reason you think,” which is clearly an attempt at a smokescreen. And it’s completed by the “spend 30 grand on law school” thing. He wants you to think, “Garsh! He must be much smarterer than me! I better not question his wisdom.” Talk about giving away the store.

  7. aboisjoli Says:

    isnt it a requirement for the judge to give a dissertation on why he dismissed the case? I know in Canada it is. They have to explain themselves “on the record” so there is basis for appeal!?! WTF!

  8. Lyndon Says:

    Good work by Lorin and Marc here. I’m surprised you got an audio out of it. Ignore the judges words and follow the judge’s actions. The motion worked because it was based on sound principles and the judge knew that much at least. The motion was the reason because if the motion had not been filed the case would NOT have been dismissed. The prosecutor is the worst crook here though for forcing Lorin to attend a useless hearing.

  9. eye2i Says:

    @Lyndon: I agree; the motion (points) worked. The judges’ reply was all camouflage (aka CYA). And agreed: the Prosecutor is a huge scum bag (tho possibly indoctrinated to the point of delusion).

    I like too, that Lorin got the bit in about the cop actually being there (if of course, the judge wasn’t lying about that too).

    Damage control… what a way to have to live. But until enough folks recognize you do the time now or you do the time later (and greater) and start challenging The StateUS quo i.e. paying in time now, there’s no incentive for the parasites to go back to the swamp (nor to stop reproducing).
    Another aspect that concerns me is, if ignoring Their Words goes long enough, it easily becomes ‘normal’, acceptable; and thus that much easier for the leeches to rewrite The Word/Code (The Law of The Land) to incorporate the latest-greatest robbery scheme as Letter.

    Much appreciation again to Lorin and Marc for paying (in time and so much more) now.

  10. Neil Says:

    Well done, Marc. Another saved. =D

    Yet, we are waiting for evidence that you have helped anyone. Evidence that you have helped anyone will be dismissed as “frivolous”. So what evidence have you got “tough guy”?

    All the best to the splendid chap in the video and to Marc for bringing this “Red Coat” the “No State Project” Much appreciated. Next time I go to “America” I will be going to “Arizona”.

    Much love, Neil.

  11. Frank Says:

    Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: “wrong [as or because] prohibited by law”) should apply to this case. Why wouldn’t it apply (aside from the fact that Tennessee law says an injury is required, which makes their law deficient)? I’m not addressing whether or not Lorin ran a red light. I’m talking about reasonable rules (laws) of road. Rules like: It’s wrong to run a red light; it’s wrong to drive 65 in a school zone. A reasonable society does not wait for an injury to occur – e.g. a family getting broadsided in an intersection, or a child getting run over in a cross walk – before jumping into action. If I walk into a crowded park and starting swinging around a baseball bat with my eyes closed, that’s not ok just because I don’t hit anyone.

  12. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ FRank, a reasonable society does not provide “protection” services at the barrel of a gun though. It’s a mistake to assume the “law” was passed with safety in mind.

  13. Dale Eastman Says:

    @ Frank:

    While I understand the logic of your thinking, your error is in not understanding Liberty.

    YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
    Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.

    Thomas Jefferson, 1800’s
    Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

    Dale, 2012:
    Since nobody outranks the Sovereign, nobody can tell the Sovereign he must stop at a stop sign nor can anybody tell the Sovereign he must obey speed signs. The Sovereign’s only duty in such a situation is to not do damage to another Sovereign. Thus the Sovereign has no reason to obey a stop sign unless ignoring such a sign would be instrumental in damaging another Sovereign.

    That said, I ask a rhetorical, hypothetical question: There is a stop sign at an intersection near where I live. The other road has the right of way. When the corn is down, I can see one mile in each direction. Should I be issued a ticket for blowing through that stop sign?

    I will assume by your post that you would answer yes. This is a segue to the question I really would like you to post an answer to:

    You are a juror in a trial. The prosecutor has proven way beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused did in fact, violate the law the accused is accused of violating. In fact, the accused sat on the stand and said, “Yes. I broke that law.”

    My question to you Frank, Would you vote guilty or not guilty?

  14. Dale Eastman Says:

    I’ll try this again, since it looks like Marc changed his ISP and my last post didn’t make it to the new server.

    @ Frank.

    While I understand your logic, your error is in not understanding Liberty.

    Your focus though, is on Malum prohibitum as a good thing. With that understanding of you from your post I have a hypothetical situation that I would like you to answer a question about:

    You are one of twelve jurors on a court case. The prosecutor has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused did in fact and deed, violate the law the accused was accused of violating. During the trial, the accused sat on the witness stand and said, “Yes, I broke that law.”

    My question to you Frank, is will you vote guilty or not guilty?

  15. indio007 Says:

    I’ve notice on alot of these motion to dismisses that are being filed the defendant is having to argue with the judge about it.

    I pretty sure it’s up to the opposing party to rebut a pleading and not the judge.

    Maybe the reason the case was dismissed is the prosecution failed to rebut the answer to the rebuttal

  16. Frank Says:

    @ Marc Stevens

    I agree that protection services should not be provided at the barrel of a gun. I can only guess why any “law” is passed: to generate revenue, to protect selfish interests, for public relations. I’m arguing that: the consequence of bureaucrats pulling a stop-at-red-lights “law” out of their arse – instead of allowing a free-for-all at intersections – is more public safety, not less, in today’s society.

    I’m suggesting that some “laws” are good as we transition from a perverted society to a voluntary society. Maybe there will be no rules of the road in Libertopia, where all children learn respect for people/property, personal responsibility, cooperation etc.

    @ Dale Eastman

    The 3 cites you posted are good ideals to shoot for.

    As a juror, I will vote ‘guilty’ if there is a damaged party (human being or derivative property), or I will vote ‘not guilty’ if no damage. In the latter case, “You broke that law, and you’re not guilty.” No damage, no crime.

    Likewise, you should not be issued a ticket for blowing through a stop sign when you can see a mile in each direction.

    I still want to somehow incentivize safe behavior in intersections, though!

    @ Lorin and Marc

    Sincere congratulations for your victory (damage control) in court!

  17. snap Says:

    What I want to know is, where is there a law school that’ll set you back only $30,000? Sound like the Lawyer-in-a-robe is living in fantasy land as well as legal land!

  18. Dale Eastman Says:

    @ Frank, Thank you for your answer. I’ve had many people answer that they would vote guilty because the accused “broke the law”. The don’t even ask what law.

    Did this to a friend who was raised in as a devout, uh, religious believer of an authoritarian religion. I followed her answer by stating I deliberately did not state which law the accused broke. The accused broke the law against aiding and abetting fugitives, like Annie Frank or run-away slaves. The friend then had a mental meltdown as she realized (in my words) that she aided and abetted the state in its anti-human endeavors.

    In other words I was checking to see if you where like my friend who believes we must obey the law, “because it’s the law.” You’ve passed my inquiry.

    My definition of law is, “Law is a politician’s command, backed by threat of force up to, and including, killing you.” What gives the politician the authority or the right to demand one of the people do or not do something with the threat of death if they refuse to comply.

    I’ve been discussing the issue of the “Sovereign” with people. When I ask who is the Sovereign in these states united, the predominant answer is “the president”.

    For what it’s worth, these are my preliminary thoughts on the Sovereign: http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=538.0 I may have to tweak the writing a little bit more.

    So the stop sign “suggestions” (not law, not rule) are to keep one Sovereign from injuring another and lay a foundation to be used in determining who is at fault in a collision in an intersection.

    In my opinion, it’s not so much that those laws must go, it’s more that the people must understand the true nature of those laws as mere suggestion to facilitate traffic safety.

    Thanks for the reply, and I’m outa here.

  19. Dave Says:

    You heartless people are gonna make these poor bureaucrats run out of money to feed themselves and their friends with!

  20. Randy Says:

    I think the reason he wouldn’t say why is that there were other people in the court room and he didn’t want to give the secret away to everyone. I could be wrong.

  21. Jake Witmer Says:

    Excellent! Way to go Lorin!!!! There is only one reason why the judge wouldn’t describe his “legal reasoning.” There was no reasoning! It is simply a naked contest of force.

    The appropriate thing for Lorin to say at that point would have been:

    “Why would I waste tens of thousands of dollars going to law school to tell me what I already know? Clearly, I’m slightly more difficult to steal from than all the people lined up behind me. Since they’ve all bought into your political lies, they don’t know that there’s no chance of justice from this court, and that you’re simply a theif wearing a black robe. They expect objectivity and justice from you, and that makes them easy victims. And, as an unprincipled predator, it doesn’t make sense for you to waste time with the fittest members of the herd, it makes sense for you to prey on those whose gullibility has made them weak and servile.”

    A shorter version of the above:
    “It’s not a question of the law judge, therefore lawschool wouldn’t answer my question. But you’ve answered it for me, with your belligerence. You just let me know that you don’t want to waste your resources stealing from someone who’s capable of expending them. You’d rather prey on the weak and defenseless. …Just like gangbangers and thugs who rob elderly women, rather than risk robbing a man who might defend himself. You can dress robbery and intimidation up in a black robe, but you can’t make it respectable!”

    If you don’t want to make a pronouncement, you can always start a condemning statement out with “I have a theory about why you dismissed my case. Maybe you can tell me if I’m right…” LOL!!!

    Don’t take it badly if you didn’t have strong words on the tip of your tongue, Lorin. LOL!! I didn’t have them ready the first time I won, either. I’m just glad you handed the judge his ass! LOL!!! That said, so long as you don’t curse, they can’t really hold your “theories” against you. I like to have fun calling the bastards by their “true name.”

    LOL 🙂

  22. Jake Witmer Says:

    BTW: Mala prohibita can’t rightfully or legitimately exist in a free society.

  23. MickeyG Says:

    LOL! Yeah, he probably dismisses all the traffic violations that come before him :). He (the judge), in affect, has just basically told the world that all the similar cases that he has tried in the past, were malicious prosecutions.

  24. Vigilance Says:

    The only effect of a crime being classified as malum prohibitum or strict liability is to dispense with the mens rea. Such crimes do not dispense with the corpus delicti. Any attorney arguing to the contrary is breaching their duties as an attorney by failing to obey the law and making false statements to the parties and the court.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ca/narr/CA_NARR_4.HTM#4.1

  25. Andy Says:

    Vigilance, Lawyers lie?! Tell me it isn’t so.

    LAWYER TELLS THE TRUTH! Now THAT would be real news.

  26. Gregory Says:

    “Well Judge, maybe you could save me $30k and educate me in 30 seconds as to why you dismissed it, I’d be very grateful given the state of the economy and the increased rise in education.”

    just sayin…

  27. kt well Says:

    Congratulations! That’s awesome. I am currently reading Marc’s Adventures in Legal Land. Did you have a book and/or materials/recordings/study guides/groups that made you write the motion very intelligently? I am new to this forum. (just joined today.) Got to know Marc via Angela’s website.

  28. JamesIN Says:

    I think the robe actually did give you a hint of It’s basis for dismissing and what to research –

    “…I read with great interest your missive here.”

    From Bouvier’s:
    LETTER missive, Engl. law. After a bill has been filed against a peer or peeress, or lord of parliament, a petition is presented to the lord chancellor for his letter, called a letter missive, which requests the defendant to appear and answer to the bill. A neglect to attend to this, places the defendant, in relation to such suit, on the same ground as other defendants, who are not peers, and a subpoena may then issue. Newl. Pr. 9; 2 Madd. Ch. Pr. 196; Coop. Eq. Pl. 16.

    But, that’s another rabbit trail to figure out exactly what happened.

  29. surfer349 Says:

    Is the Motion shown in the video the same as the templates on this site?

    Also, is it necessary to file that motion right from the beginning, before going to court or can that be made at the trial? Reason I am asking is I’ve currently got a speeding ticket in CA i’m fighting where I had a “motion to dismiss” denied w/o explanation. I made the motion based on a discovery letter to the DA where he responded saying he doesn’t prosecute traffic cases.

    Is it too late to dismiss based on “valid claim”?

  30. surfer349 Says:

    Anybody? Marc, is there any activity on the forums? Also, are you in the Phoenix area? I’ve been trying to get a ticket in Chandler for weeks to no avail…

  31. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ surfer I’ve been out of town, so I had even less time to post on the forum. There are more comments for the articles here than posts on the forum. I am in Mesa; you trying to get a parking ticket for the study?

  32. surfer349 Says:

    Marc,
    I live in Chandler. Yea, trying to get some parking tickets. I feel emboldened after reading and watching all the material. Do you have an email address I can send to or just keep posting on the forum and comments?

  33. Marc Stevens Says:

    my email is marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com

    You can email me and also post on the forum

  34. Andy Says:

    Marc, a thought about sliding the following question between the two questions asked of the cop/witness.

    Was the ticket a valid cause of action?
    Do you have a license to practice law?
    How many elements are there to a valid cause of action?

  35. CloudCobra Says:

    If I had to take a stab in the dark from the info provided, I would wager that the attorney didn’t say “Comes now, the City of Franklin, ‘by their counsel…'” How can a fiction answer for itself without a representative? Either that or the attorney didn’t follow format. It’s hard to tell.

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Marc on Free Talk Live [Mike Dean's "Apology"] – Jul 2, 2012 | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Another Ticket Kicked out – Standing Not Such a “baseless notion” After All […]

  2. Ticket Kicked Out in Indiana – Cop Blows Off Subpoena Twice | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] has been pretty good so far, this is the second time traffic tickets have been kicked in less than two weeks.  I did a video about this attack by local predators back […]

  3. NSP – May 12, 2012 – Co-host: JT | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] NY man wrongfully accused in a FL STATE child support case, IRS attacks, using NLP in litigation, effective damage-control in TN, forced pleas when filing paperwork to verify the complaint, where “benefits” originate […]

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 youtube.com. 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