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.