Categorized | Articles, Success Stories, Video

Congrats Diron – Ticket Kicked in DC – No Evidence Laws Apply

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.



15 Comments For This Post

  1. Dale Says:

    Nice! How can one obtain this motion to dismiss?

  2. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Dale it’s available under the store link, for a few days the only online transactions I can do is Bitcoin, if you go to the store you’ll see how to order through the mail. I’ll still be able to email the files though.

  3. varlot Says:

    Hi , hope you are doing pretty good, need some help, got a ticket from those land pirates (reckless driving when i was 10mph over the speed limit then when i check the ticket, i found out the date on the ticket was wrong , what to do?)

  4. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ varlot, always start by challenging jurisdiction. Ask for the facts the prosecutor’s arguments are based on.

  5. jake han Says:

    Why do you not point out that you consulted him? Why do you not point out how you consulted him to do it?

    Why is it that every one of the success stories always has some other factor that makes the strategy inconclusive in its effectiveness?

    “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.”

    Great lets take your word for it.

    It’s like a psychic saying they have powers, but it’s always in a concealed room, or not all of the conditions a skeptic would impose are met, and something is always amiss.

    What’s the details of the case?

    Your strategy seems to be “look a dismissed case. Ergo my strategy works!”

  6. jake han Says:

    Are you trying to withhold all the details so that people call in for consultations? That’s fine, but why make it so hard to contact you?

    If you’re not interested in that, then why not put out the actual information that is ACTIONABLE in detail, with contingency strategies for unexpected answers by the other party? Things don’t just go the way you imagine them to. Why not make it more useful, thorough, and logical? No non-sequiturs, No post hoc ergo propter hocs. No rhetoric mixed in with legal advice.

    Why not? It will only up your quality, be more convincing to readers/listeners, and help your cause more effectively.

  7. jake han Says:

    “cause of action” is not a legal term. It’s “probable cause” and the number of points vary for burglaries, burlaries in the night, etc. ONLY IF the cop says “i don’t know, I need legal expertise” do you then get to use your strategy.

    If he doesn’t say that, then you’re screwed. Why not then talk about what to do if they don’t say that? WHY NOT? Any real experienced person will think through these things. A random dude who went through the ordeal went into more detail and contingency and if-then scenarios on youtube than you do. If you’ve done it in so many countries, so many times in AZ, I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to, or want to, or actually go into more detail.

    You talk fast, you’re likable, your philosophical points are on-point, but your big thing is effectiveness in courts of law. Don’t put up an ad for a big sandwich and have customers find out it’s only half the size.

  8. jake han Says:

    The ambiguity is killing me. You keep saying “no evidence” but no evidence for WHAT?

    no evidence for the guilt of the alleged infraction/crime?

    Or no evidence for jurisdiction applying to you?

    How do you leave this HUGE question dangling?

  9. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ jake, really? Asking for evidence proving the constitution and code apply because I’m physically in Arizona is ambiguous? Call the show. please. I’ve been hitting the jurisdiction issue pretty hard for 10 years.

  10. jake han Says:

    And if you filter/moderate these comments away, shame on you. These are real, legit, earnest questions that will improve you either way.

  11. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ jake, the site was down, the host had maintenance. Call the show, it’s easier to address your questions and concerns.

  12. Andy Says:

    To mister statist I say: Government’s SOP — it’s very foundation — rests on, COMPLY OR DIE — the Use of Force Continuum — law enforcement people just doing their jobs, following procedure. It begins softly with police (LEO) presence (step 1) and ends with step five, lethal force.

    “Government” says: If you persist in noncompliance we’ll kill you.

    No person in their right mind would consent to, comply or die.

    If it’s not comply or die, then it’s just a suggestion. Which means a person can decline and be left alone. The notion (delusion?) that government is by the consent of the governed, is utter bullshit — a lie!

    Jake won’t be calling into the NSP show. Like Jeremy, he’ll most likely have some lame-ass rationalization for why he won’t call the show.

  13. Incubus Says:

    @ jake,

    “…’cause of action’ is not a legal term.” Yes, it is.

    And no, it’s not the same as probable cause. Two different things.

  14. eye2i Says:

    notsureJake7eremy ??!

  15. NonEntity Says:

    Anyone desiring that we have a “probable cause of action?” Wait! Maybe that’s what we currently have!

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Nov 1, 2014 - [DRAFT VERSION] - Says:

    […] responds Jake Han’s comments on a recent […]

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 he can 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. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here