Categorized | Articles, Video

Plea of Guilty – Tool For Getting Tickets Kicked Out

Posted on November 15th, 2013 by Marc Stevens

Below is a video about a tool I’ve been using for years and it has proven to be very effective.  With the unsigned plea of guilty you’ll be able to get judges  to commit three major fundamental fairness/due process violations at an arraignment in less than three minutes (this does not mean a ticket will always get kicked).  This is evidence the courts are run by criminals.  We can predict their behavior and replicate results regardless of political boundaries.  A template is available for download here.  Please make sure you edit it appropriately if you intend on using it.

By intending on pleading guilty and asking for evidence the prosecutor is supposed to have anyway, we expose the judge for the criminal they are when he/she predictably refuse to address the issue of jurisdiction.  He/she will lie claiming jurisdiction is a trial issue.   Instead of discussing the evidence, in anger they will enter a plea of not guilty over your objection.   The judge may only enter a plea of not guilty when you refuse to plea or when a plea cannot be ascertained.  The unsigned plea of guilty proves he’s lying and just covering up for the prosecutor, his/her accomplice.

The three errors, in addition to his lying about jurisdiction being a trial issue, are:

1.  They lie that you are refusing to plea.

2.  They assume jurisdiction and an essential element of the crime (applicability of the code) on behalf of the prosecutor.

3.  They adamantly refuse to presume innocence.

When the psychopath screams at you to take your pretrial date and leave, you can object, point out his lies and put him in a real bind by asking: Can you please explain how you can assume the laws apply to me at the same time you’re supposed to presume innocence?

You won’t get an answer, probably just a threat of contempt.  By contempt is meant you caught the judge being deliberately unfair and prejudicial to you and he has no defense other then threatening violence.

You can file a motion to disqualify the judge and vacate the plea using the three issues above and the fact he is lying about jurisdiction being a trial error.  I’d use it as a basis for a complaint to the presiding judge, the judicial conduct commission, the supreme court and to the municipality’s insurance carrier.

If you do plan on using this in court, please let me know by email and calling into the show.
YouTube Preview Image

              

124 Comments For This Post

  1. Al Arnold Says:

    Excellent-Clever, thanks.

  2. Gary Helman Says:

    THANKS
    Very excellent information

  3. CHARLES-ROBERT RENAULT© Says:

    Marc, thanks for that little piece of information. When can we get a hard copy, and where? It looked like it is in a legal format. Is that the case? Between you and me your chair needs to be fixed, at least the arm rest. Looks like it has had a lot of use…

  4. Paul Sutherland Says:

    I live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and I’ll be using this in court.

  5. Gene Louis Says:

    I’ve always liked your enthusiasm. I had lost track of you – your emails stopped being sent to me – but I am glad that I found you again.

  6. libertymentor Says:

    The download link is not functioning.

  7. libertymentor Says:

    The download link in the article is not functioning and now it appears the comment/leave a reply feature is also not functioning.

  8. Pete Says:

    Marc: 3:53 “You have to sign it.” I thought it was supposed to be an unsigned pleas of guilty?

    “Everything (the people pretending to be) the State (say) is a lie, and everything (they) have is stolen.” -Friedrich Nietzsche, reified.

  9. Eileen Says:

    These courts are all legislative/administrative. Supreme Court has ruled that judges who enforce codes are acting in an administrative capacity, and not judicially. They also ruled judges only have judicial immunity when acting in a judicial capacity. How then, can any of the judges in an administrative court (which is all we have), ever have judicial immunity?

  10. bill Says:

    Pete Listen to it again Marc reads the unsigned plea of guilt and then says that is what they want to see in such plea and that you sign it i.e. he is saying that is what they want is for you to sign a plea essentially containing what he read. not quite sure how you misinterpreted what you heard.

  11. bill Says:

    Marc I dont comprehend 5:30-:35

  12. John Galt Says:

    Mark:

    Will this technique work against the IRS or a “state owned” alleged taxing authority?

  13. bill Says:

    I meant 6:30-:35

  14. Keith Says:

    In the Land of Oz, written plea of guilty is unheard of. When this was tried last year here in Melbourne, Marc’s prediction came true. Magistrate ignored the plea and entered a plea of Not Guilty. Good to see another short instructional videos. Keep up the good work Marc

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Pete, you don’t sign it, I mean in the video that to be valid and accepted by the judge it was to be signed.

  16. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ John Galt, yes, we always approach in a spirit of resolution. I’m happy to pay this, you do have evidence right?

  17. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Paul, good luck and let us know what happens.

  18. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Bill, making arguments in court that are outside the evidence is prosecutorial misconduct.

  19. bill Says:

    @Eileen Yes I have heard that “ruling”. do you have the cite for that. Also many things have been said that the courts ruled. But to say that the Supreme court has rule for a certainty is that this has to be in the holding or order part of the opinion. I find that in many “quotes” (quote in quotes i like that lol first time I have ever seen that and I am the one to use it)when I look up the case it is not a ruling or holding or even order of the court. They merely state in the opinion part of the case, whatever it is that is allegedly a ruling. It would be more accurate to say the court stated in the opinion thus and so.

  20. bill Says:

    @Marc
    have you considered branching in to how to handle a civil case?

  21. Tirtha Says:

    Marc, brilliant. Did you ever consider being a stand-up comedian? Thanks for the instruction and I will get your book as soon as I know where to order it. One last thing: Is that an “Anarchast” symbol on your T-shirt?

  22. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Tirta, thanks and I would actually prefer to do standup, have not had to time write routines up, but soon. The book is available under the store section. It’s a generic anarchy symbol.

  23. shawn Says:

    Generally, there are three jurisdictional elements: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) jurisdiction over the person or res; and (3) power to render the particular relief awarded. You are questioning personam jurisdiction it cannot be challenged at anytime , you have waived it with your “general appearance” in the court room ,you have to enter a “special appearance”

  24. shawn Says:

    Subject matter jurisdiction exists when the nature of the case falls within a general category of cases the court is empowered, under applicable statutory and constitutional provisions, to adjudicate Subject matter jurisdiction is never presumed and cannot be waived.Personal jurisdiction can certainly be waived when it is not properly contested. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 120a; Texas Ass’n of Business, 852 S.W.2d at 444 n. 5. By failing to file a special appearance,defendant waived the issue of personal jurisdiction. See Liberty Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore Transportation Company, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 570, 571-72 (Tex.1985)(any effort by nonresident to invoke judicial powers of Texas court in an attempt to set aside a default judgment constitutes a general appearance); Bruneio v. Bruneio, 890 S.W.2d 150, 154 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ)(holding that failure to follow special appearance procedure waives the issue of personal jurisdiction).

  25. shawn Says:

    Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a provides the procedure for a party to challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction over his person by sworn motion: “Such special appearance shall be made by sworn motion filed prior to motion to transfer venue or any other plea, pleading or motion; provided, however, that a motion to transfer venue and any other plea, pleading, or motion may be contained in the same instrument or filed subsequent thereto without waiver of such special appearance; and may be amended to cure defects.” Tex.R.Civ.P. 120a(1). The rule specifically requires that “[a]ny motion to challenge the jurisdiction provided for herein shall be heard and determined before a motion to transfer venue or any other plea or pleading may be heard.”

  26. Denny Jackson Says:

    Marc,
    Now I see why I keep hearing a thumping sound on the shows. You need to suspend your mike instead of setting in on the desk top. Every time you put your hand down we all get ‘thumped’ :>)

    Nice explanation of how it really works in court. Keep up the good work.
    Best,
    DJ

  27. shawn Says:

    they gain jurisdiction over your person through “service of process” if they dont have it they can cure the defect easily. : “Most courts hold that where, in judicial procedure or official act, a notice or summons is required to be served `in person’ or `personally’ that such notice or summons must be handed or delivered to the party individually.” But certified letter is good enough, the ticket take your pick, have to read the rules for each state , but they can cure that defect

  28. shawn Says:

    “An appearance is special when its sole purpose is to question the jurisdiction of the court. It is general if the party appearing invokes the power of the court on any question other than that of jurisdiction

  29. shawn Says:

    In Enquist v. Enquist, supra, we said: “When one has filed a special appearance pro se, challenging the jurisdiction of the court, but remains in court and takes part in the trial, he thereby waives the failure of the court to rule on his special appearance, and has made a general appearance.” The same would be true of any general appearance made under a similar situation. So you waive your personam jurisdiction , by asking the court anything you have made a general appearance

  30. shawn Says:

    Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case. Standing is implicit in the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. The standing requirement stems from two limitations on subject matter jurisdiction: the separation of powers doctrine and, in Texas, the open courts provision. Subject matter jurisdiction is never presumed and cannot be waived.One limit on courts’ jurisdiction under both the state and federal constitutions is the separation of powers doctrine. See Tex.Const. art. II, § 1; Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 471-74, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-60, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2204, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); see also, Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 18 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 881, 889 n. 69 (1983) (noting that the dicta of Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 100, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1952, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968), suggesting that standing is unrelated to the separation of powers doctrine has since been disavowed). Under this doctrine, governmental authority vested in one department of government cannot be exercised by another department unless expressly permitted by the constitution. Thus we have construed our separation of powers article to prohibit courts from issuing advisory opinions because such is the function of the executive rather than the judicial department

  31. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ denny, nice to hear from you. Yeah, I need to replace the mic stand, I didn’t notice the thump on the recordings though.

  32. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Shawn, could you put those citations on the AiLL wiki page?

  33. bill Says:

    @calvindewitt what constitutes appearance. If I file a motion pre conference or pretrial is that an “appearance” or does it require a physical appearance in the alleged court. If I ask the court in a filed motion to clarify what type of court it is (in order to determine jurisdiction) will I goof?

  34. Calvin Says:

    @Bill: for all practical purposes an appearance is when you report to a judge. You could over telephone and you could by standing before a costumed decider. And its not necessary to file a motion to clarify jurisdiction, it can be done by simply asking, and asking for the evidence of jurisdiction; no evidence of jurisdiction, no justiciability. Its rather binary, in that you either have the evidence or you don’t. Keep it simple to get the most clear answer from the judge or prosecutor, you don’t want to give them much wiggle room with the information you gain from them through good, methodical questioning. ;)

  35. Roy Derksen Says:

    What is the reasoning behind the “I intend to plead guilty, and waive appeal”?

    Why not ask the evidence question without speaking of intention?

  36. LINDA HONE Says:

    Dear Mark, Thanks for sharing. You are a rebel with a genuine cause for the people (we care).
    I have an interesting problem here in NM…Representing my son Oscar of age as POA for false arrest on traffic violations. That doesn’t work. had me handcuffed twice. The judge last Tuesday, Nov 12 conducted a fiasco feretta hearing with Pub Def Prosecutor, and victim. Without a witness, facts, the judge became the attorney and ruled in an order him incompetent and said that the Pub Def would “continue” representing my son. Oscar never contracted with him.
    I am in preponderance as to the Moton to write.
    thanks for any input,, linda

  37. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ roy, it’s to stop the process and automatically setting it for trial without discussion of the evidence.

  38. bill Says:

    @Marc you said @ roy, it’s to stop the process and automatically setting it for trial without discussion of the evidence.

    Should the word “and” be “of” and thus read “to stop the process OF automatically?”

  39. bill Says:

    @ Calvin Some if not most of these things being discussed should apply to civil suit complaints (where the allege plaintiff is not the “government”). This is before any physical or telephonic court appearance as I do not want to appear in court. Prior to trial every thing has to be done by motion or filiing some paperwork. Hence my question. Does the filing of a motion or other document constitute an appearance. I am trying to stay in a special appearance rather than general to avoid waiving the in personam jurisdiction question.See @ Marc

    @Marc One of the key questions you have asked in the past is ” Is there evidence of a complaining party? Do you still use that and would it be applicable in a civil case vs a corporation. The reason I ask is that in 3 cases I am involved with there are attorneys claiming to represent corporations which no such proof as to that representation other than a claim bye said attorneys.

  40. Roy Says:

    OK, So the trial would be all about whether or not the prosecutor produces evidence that you are of a status to be subject to the code.

    Some approach the court with the idea that if they do anything the judge orders or if they answer a question, they are contracting to the jurisdiction.
    example;
    “Call the case of Peter Patriot”
    Stand up out n seats; “I am here for that matter”
    “Is your name peter Patriot”
    “If I answer your question and I contracting with you?”
    “Come up here and sit at the table on the right”.
    “If I do what you ask, am I contracting with you”?
    “Take that gum out of your mouth”.
    “if I do what you say, am I contracting with you?”
    etc.
    Mary Croft says it works, and we are going to try it. the intention to plead guilty could be a plan B.

  41. Al Arnold Says:

    Violations of due process voids court orders as well as judgments. Judgment is void when proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant, Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 301 N.E.2d 39 (1st Dist. 1973), or where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules, Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill.2d 245, 249, 218 N.E.2d 706, 708 (1955). The right to notice of accusation is so fundamental a part of procedural due process that the States are required to observe it. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972).
    Now, I have also not been informed as to whether the alleged cause is proceeding in maritime, law, equity, or something else (?), or whether there is an alleged tort or contract in effect. In any case, “No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.” Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859). Further, one does not have a trial by jury in maritime or admiralty, in rem or otherwise, nor a make-believe injured party in law, nor a valid contract, in absentia, excluding tort.

  42. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Al, thanks, can you also post citations on the wiki page?

  43. Jagger Clapp Says:

    Hey there, Im a young woman coming up to a trial for a ticket dispute about not having wearing a seatbelt and not displaying my N. I was planning on pleading guilty to the seatbelt charge but I am just wondering if you have any advice for me if the trial goes through.

  44. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ jagger, I’d file the motion to dismiss and ask for evidence of jurisdiction.

  45. bill Says:

    Marc could you give several examples of what does not and what does constitute evidence of jurisdiction?

    Still waiting on a answer to my “evidence of a complaining party” question

  46. bill Says:

    @ CHARLES-ROBERT RENAULT© still waiting for you to contact me

  47. Clark Says:

    Hi Marc,

    I’m curious as to how to use your defense for a speeding ticket I’m fighting (via Trial by Declaration) here in Los Angeles.

    Thank you

  48. bruce sloane Says:

    @ Roy

    Mary Croft is a patridiot …!!!

  49. Roy Says:

    Enquist v. Enquist, supra, we said: “When one has filed a special appearance pro se, challenging the jurisdiction of the court, but remains in court and takes part in the trial, he thereby waives the failure of the court to rule on his special appearance, and has made a general appearance.”

    My daughter has challenged jurisdiction, and made a special appearance, and at the hearing said she needed counsel, so they postponed. Then, the next hearing date conflicted with an important schooling event, so she informed the court of that and asked for a continuance, which the clerk did.

    The above “…..remains in court and takes part in the trial,…” does not say ” if you ask anything even a continuance”, you waive the jurisdiction question, ;

    Just to clarify the question of “asking anything”. If you challenge Jurisdiction by special appearance, and they say, “well we will have a trial anyway and the jurisdiction question can be taken up later” One should probably stand up, say “I object, as that would constitute me waiving my challenge to the standing and jurisdiction.” and walk out.

    But asking for a continuance, and giving notice you have no counsel but need some, does not waive the jurisdiction question IMHO.

    A friend of mine went to traffic court and said he needed counsel, but couldn’t find adequate counsel yet. The court told him he better have counsel by the next hearing.
    He went to an attorney, handed him a 200 page brief on the right to travel, told him he wanted him to argue the issues in the brief and he had $100 to pay.
    The lawyer said, no, and he asked him to sign a not he had prepared that he declined to represent him, which he took to the next hearing.

    After several short hearings, I think about 10, judge Mozzilla the Gorilla told him, “We are having a trial today, I have a lawyer for you, who is Atty Jones.”
    “OK Judge, I will have to consult with the attorney”.
    “Take it out in the hall and be back in 20 minutes for trial”.

    In the hall, he handed him the brief and said “here is what I want you to argue in court, and if you don’t I will sue you.”

    After looking a few minutes at the brief, and seeing it was well written and had substance but was complicated, Said, “O well, this is more than I want to do, lets go back in court and I will inform the judge I cannot represent you.”
    Judge had an appolixic attack, and then continued.
    The DA contacted him and offed a fine of 50 bucks and no points, after that, which he took so he didn’t have to go to hearings any more.

  50. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Clark, I view a trial by declaration as a plea of guilty. I always suggest against it, file a demur instead.

  51. CHARLES-ROBERT RENAULT© Says:

    Hi all, been looking at the above and found something I think you all should know. First, I noted the terms “appearance” and “appear”. Does anyone have any idea why these terms are used? The thing (rem) named is a fictional character, it don’t exist. Therefore the so-called judge cannot lock it up, nor can he or she see it. The thing named uses all capital letters thus being a corporation sole. Corporations are limited to doing business with like kind entities, and cannot do business with real living people. The so-called courts are simply administrative bodies taking care of company business. I also noted that Shawn had a lot of case “law” and was caught up in their process. These so-called courts do not follow the law, they follow procedures, rules, policies, etc. Back to the “appearance” issue, they con you into believing that the thing named is you, it is not! The coy way they get anyone to comply, and adds nails to the coffin is, the first thing they say is; “state your name for the record please”. Due to the fact that the stenographer only hears the words and is told to capitalize the name when recording it, is in fact part of the con. When articulated the capitalized name sounds exactly like ones given name. In their world of fraud the term used is “idem sonans”, Latin for sound alike. If in fact these so-called courts were indeed American Courts of Law, they would use the English language don’t you think? Due to our sleeping on the job and not paying attention, we have allowed these crooks to run amok. Shawn pointed out clearly the terms “person”, and rem, which means thing, once again verifying what I am talking about. There are many scenarios with which to handle these thieves, liars, and murders. There isn’t enough room here, but I will personally help those who wish to learn how to handle these pirates. Enjoy folks, hope it helps even a little. Simply Chuck…

  52. Stuart Hill Says:

    Hi Mark,
    Great video – thank you. I’m in Shetland, contesting the authority of the UK here. Another trick they pulled on me was insisting I lead after I challenged the jurisdiction of the court. I found this afterwards:
    “The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff.  Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant’s due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction.” and:
    “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” See Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.  “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.”
    http://montgomerymaryland.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/
    On jurisdiction generally, I expect you are aware of Rescue Army v. Municipal Court:
    “A court has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and it must have authority to decide that question in the first instance. …….. When, however, the trial court has heard and determined [28 Cal.2d 465] the jurisdictional challenge, and has decided in favor of its own jurisdiction, and then proceeds to act, that is, to try the case on its merits, the situation is entirely different. It then may be properly claimed that a court without jurisdiction is purporting to exercise it. At this stage, jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction has been exercised, and the higher courts will, in an appropriate case, restrain the lower court from acting in excess of jurisdiction” http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/rescue-army-v-municipal-court-25810
    In my case. the court, although having heard no proof of its jurisdiction, still claimed it and told me I had to wait until I’d been tried and convicted before I could appeal.
    You couldn’t make it up!

  53. Incubus Says:

    “…hope it helps even a little.”

    Chuck, it doesn’t. Because it’s complete malarkey. I don’t doubt that you mean well, but we’ve heard the name-game/”Corporation” mumbo jumbo before. There just isn’t any evidence to support it. If there is, then by all means please present it.

    I think it would serve you well to stick around a while and familiarize yourself with Marc’s work. Soon this delusion you cling to will melt away, as it has for many.

  54. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Stuart, great comment, please post the citations on the wiki. They lied about appealing it, you could do an interlocketory appeal, or a petition for writ when they don’t have jurisdiction.

  55. bruce sloane Says:

    why will this ALL CAPS NAME thingy never go away …??

  56. CHARLES-ROBERT RENAULT© Says:

    Incubus, Thanks for your reply. You asked for “evidence”, the evidence is in your pocket, on every bank statement, alleged “government” ID card, and correspondence addressed to it, the artificial entity. I am sure that you attended grammar school. They call it “grammar school” for a reason. The rules of grammar are the same in every language on the planet that uses our particular symbol system known as the alphabet. Around the fourth grade you were thought that ALL sentences and proper nouns begin with capital letters. Why then have you and so many others not questioned why, what you believe to be your name appears in an all capital letter format? Is it simply fear of rocking the boat? Perhaps you believe that having what you believe to be your name in all capital letters is something of importance, like placing your name in lights. It is neither. Nothing this so-called “government” does is by accident. When spoken, the name sounds exactly like your real and true name, the only way to recognize it is visually. You cannot open a bank account personally, the artificial entity is the only thing that can. Should you further doubt my words, and the size of this game they are playing with us. It will take a very strong microscope to be able to read what appears to be the signature line on your personal checks. You will note that what appears to be a line actually says in micro print “authorized signature” booted together across the entire “line”. Business checks differ in the fact that they clearly stipulate below the signature line the words “Authorized Representative”. The trick bag here is not only the falsification of a simple line, it places the personal check signer in the position of obligation for the entity named at the top left face of the check. The commercial check removes any obligation from the signer, as he or she is merely an agent of the entity. So Incubus, before you start making noise about things being “malarkey/mumbo jumbo”, you should at least educate yourself on the subject before making outrageous comments making yourself look silly. Have a nice day. Simply Chuck…

  57. Incubus Says:

    Chuck, you haven’t provided me with evidence of anything. Suggesting that I reach into my pocket, which is filled with lent and coins, to look at bank statements and the like, isn’t evidence that the name written in all capital letters is an entity separate from myself.

    “Why then have you and so many others not questioned why, what you believe to be your name appears in an all capital letter format? Is it simply fear of rocking the boat?”

    Not at all. I have questioned it. I treaded the same waters you’re in now many, many years ago. And if I were commenting on this 4-5 years ago, I would be right onboard with you and equally as defensive towards anyone who questions it. Luckily, I’ve come out of that delusion and it is due in large part to Marc and his work, which is why I recommend you stick around a while and do the same. I in turn ask, why then do you and so many others swallow this corporation/artificial entity nonsense hook, line, and sinker?

    “You cannot open a bank account personally, the artificial entity is the only thing that can.”

    What level of cognitive dissonance does it take to make a statement like this with such conviction? Is this comparable to me saying, “It’s not YOU who can open a door personally, an artificial entity is the only thing that can”?

    “So Incubus, before you start making noise about things being ‘malarkey/mumbo jumbo’, you should at least educate yourself on the subject before making outrageous comments making yourself look silly.”

    Educate myself? Outrageous comments that make me look silly? Is not this the definition of the pot calling the kettle black?

    I can’t help but notice the irony of your statement, when you spout things as ridiculous and unfounded as you just have, nor do I appreciate the back-handed nature of it. This holier-than-thou attitude is all too common from the freeman/strawman camp.

    But since you like to make snarky comments, may I point out the irony in your condescending remarks about grammar school with this little gem?

    “Around the fourth grade you were thought that ALL sentences and proper nouns begin with capital letters.”

    Is that right? I was THOUGHT that? Do expound. Or is my mind too silly and uneducated to comprehend?

    Bruce, to answer your question, “why will this ALL CAPS NAME thingy never go away …??”

    For the same reason ignorance will never go away. See Chuck for an example.

  58. NonE Says:

    Incubus Sed:
    Chuck, you haven’t provided me with evidence of anything. Suggesting that I reach into my pocket, which is filled with lent and coins… —- What I want to see is evidence you have 40 days (starting from Ash Wednesday) in your pocket (along with the coins, of course!) Do you fold them up, or how is it you get all 40 of them into one pocket? I would imagine it really stretches your jeans ALL out of shape. A real sartorial disaster, I’d imagine! ;) – NonE

  59. Incubus Says:

    NonE, you ignorant slut. Clearly by “pocket”, I meant a pocket of TIME. Surely you’ve used the expression?

    Is a NonEntity anything like an artificial one? If so, could you open a bank account for me? And my door for that matter?

    Thanks.

  60. Al Arnold Says:

    How does a corporate fiction sue a living human being who created the fiction? Or stated another way does my creation have jurisdiction over me?

  61. bill Says:

    @incubus your Nov 23 11:40 am post to chuck . that post makes no sense. is is a post of a conversation of 2 disagreeing? seems so but i cant tell. its seem to be on both sides of the fence.

    Guys please be civil and no name calling. I believe we are all adults. So please please please act as such.

  62. Incubus Says:

    Bill, I guess the best response I could give you is, likewise. Your post makes about as little of sense to me as my prior post apparently does to you.

    Would you point out what exactly doesn’t make sense to you?

  63. NonE Says:

    Incubus Sed:
    NonE, you ignorant slut. Clearly by “pocket”, I meant a pocket of TIME. —-
    Oh. I see. Yes, of course, I use that expression all the time. My bad!

    - igNorRant sluT

  64. libertymentor Says:

    LOL. I find reading these comments amusing but not at all educational or helpful. Sadly there are those who are deliberately hired to post disruptive and/or nonsensical comments in order to disrupt insightful discussion amongst groups such as this. I fear either this group has been hit by that or just attracting to “nuts.” In either case, I’ve got no choice but to unsubscribe due to the off topic and unhelpful comments. Let us know when specific and actionable information in a concise set of instructions is ready for use.

  65. NonE Says:

    libertymentor Sed:
    LOL. …Sadly there are those who are deliberately hired…Let us know when specific and actionable information in a concise set of instructions is ready for use. — DAMN! I didn’t know I could get PAID to enjoy life. COOL! L.M. I think you’re in the wrong place if you want a concise set of actionable instructions. You can find those on your I.R.S. Form 1040, or on the back of your traffic ticket. Clear, concise, actionable. If you want to learn to think you’ll have to expend some effort of your own. I can’t help you out there. I’m not sure there is a clear, concise, actionable set of instructions for that. Sorry.

    - NonByTheNumbers

  66. bill Says:

    @ROY I would have countered the DA’s with I will accept $500 dollar( or what ever you lost by having to appear)or I will proceed to prosecute you for prosecutorial misconduct.

  67. Mark Says:

    hey marc, on the plea of guilty do i print my name on the first line or just leave it blank when i hand it to the judge?

  68. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Mark, you can leave it blank.

  69. stuart Says:

    Hi Mark pretty new to all of this, but loved your vid. I am at court on a speeding charge in Scotland (does your information apply to Scotland)anyway sick of this Crown Corporation, have been fighting them for over 6 months now with the name entity etc. As you correctly say these fictions are psychopaths,i would welcome any new guidance to use when i go back for stage 3 of the mad hatters tea party.

    Keep up the good work,

    Stuart.

  70. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Stuart, we’ve had success in England, so I would say you can in Scotland as well. They think their laws apply just because you are physically in Scotland, what evidence prove that?

  71. RUBY Says:

    I have been reading your material for some time. i would love to be on a live broadcast. although your tactics probably do work, i think there is better ways of going about fighting the courts. number one when the judge asks u to swear to tell the truth…..u need to say immediately, could u and the prosecutor swear to tell the truth nothing but the truth so i can swear to get the truth if get the truth…… my search for truth and justice started on UTUBE. then i turned to the world wide web…and noticed the missing link. i figured out why, yours, theirs, and everybody else, has to come up with new tactics to win. the courts have had centuries to perfect laws enact, hide, prosecute, and punish people. i found their administrative books on how to fight sovereign citizens posted on the net go look it up if u can’t find it write me i will send it to u. it’s just simply advising JUDGES ON HOW TO DEAL WITH SUCH PEOPLE. the missing link is people are so engulfed in fighting the charge they don’t even think outside the box……just opening the constitution in court and quoting a few federalist papers to interpret the meaning and u have the judge stunned…..the pounding out logistics such as jurisdiction is one thing but to quote the constitution and the federalist papers u can win any court case …AFTER THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR SWEAR IN….. if a judge entered an innocent plea for me ….i would say ….are u saying i am innocent and dropping the charges or are u PRETENDING/ACTING TO BE MY ATTORNEY. u are the administrative ajudicator…..your honor it does not matter when and if i come back it will be the same ….i will never plea to any court that does not first prove jurisdiction and freakin just quote the federalist papers interpretation of due process, jury, and on an on…..

  72. RUBY Says:

    I have been reading your material for some time. i would love to be on a live broadcast. although your tactics probably do work, i think there is better ways of going about fighting the courts. number one when the judge asks u to swear to tell the truth…..u need to say immediately, could u and the prosecutor swear to tell the truth nothing but the truth so i can swear to get the truth if get the truth…… my search for truth and justice started on UTUBE. then i turned to the world wide web…and noticed the missing link. i figured out why, yours, theirs, and everybody else, has to come up with new tactics to win. the courts have had centuries to perfect laws enact, hide, prosecute, and punish people. i found their administrative books on how to fight sovereign citizens posted on the net go look it up if u can’t find it write me i will send it to u. it’s just simply advising JUDGES ON HOW TO DEAL WITH SUCH PEOPLE. the missing link is people are so engulfed in fighting the charge they don’t even think outside the box……just opening the constitution in court and quoting a few federalist papers to interpret the meaning and u have the judge stunned…..the pounding out logistics such as jurisdiction is one thing but to quote the constitution and the federalist papers u can win any court case …AFTER THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR SWEAR IN….. if a judge entered an innocent plea for me ….i would say ….are u saying i am innocent and dropping the charges or are u PRETENDING/ACTING TO BE MY ATTORNEY. u are the administrative ajudicator…..your honor it does not matter when and if i come back it will be the same ….i will never plea to any court that does not first prove jurisdiction and freakin just quote the federalist papers interpretation of due process, jury, and on an on…..i would say….the thousands of dollars u will generate for the courts today will not come from me today tomorrow or forever. thus far no crime has been committed by me or your administrative guppies, i can only hope u entered an innocent plea for me knowing the unconstitutional means of the courts to obtain and extort monies from me FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

  73. Incubus Says:

    Ruby, keep the burden of proof on them. Ask what evidence they rely on to prove the constitution and code are applicable to you. (Hint: there is none!)

    But if pulling out the CONstitution and federalist paper’s makes you giddy, go for it. Let us know how that works out for ya.

  74. RUBY Says:

    @ INCUBUS……..Ruby, keep the burden of proof on them. Ask what evidence they rely on to prove the constitution and code are applicable to you. (Hint: there is none!)

    the problem with keeping the burden of proof on them ….is they do not need to prove it….your not on trial…. they don’t need to prove it they just need to be persistent at their demands….u need to prove they don’t have jurisdiction or they just proceed….once u stand your ground that u know their game of money not punishment for a crime…if u are there for a ticket then it has to be civil in nature or a dispute of some kind….either way the constitution says it all….., any dispute over 20.00,…no trial… no jury..no jurisdiction…. ( i was in north dakota last summer they had a voluntary system to pay tickets u could mail them in (most states was voluntary) they didn’t want u in court to dispute so they kept the tickets constitutional under 20.00 and u went to pay them…..guess what none of their traffic tickets or at least their speeding tickets are not over 20.00)….if u dispute your ticket then it is no longer voluntary….any voluntary system if u think about it is unconstitutional…thats why it is voluntary….when they get u to court and u refuse ….they force it from u…..and if u never argue jurisdiction instead NEVER GIVE IT TO THEM AND BE ABLE TO QUOTE WHY OUT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FED PAPERS….because the minute u argue jurisdiction they take it from u ….they don’t have to prove it….if u never submit to the courts in other wards, u tell them u don’t pay tickets unless u harm someone or committed a crime and they u will never /pay/plea to anything period….YOUR HONOR I HAVE MY OWN PENSION AND PROPERTY TO PROTECT GO EXTORT IT FROM SOME UNKNOWING PERSON….if the judge pleas for u then u can tell them next court date u will repeat the same thing…over and over and over….what can they do but fine u and take your license and u can tell him to do whatever u don’t need a license to drive….what is a fine but to take your freedom….sorry….

  75. RUBY Says:

    all i am saying is skip the jurisdiction fight….once u open your mouth in protest for them to prove it …u just put yourself in their jurisdiction…u have to come back again….i say just inform the judge u make no pleas or submit to any jurisdiction but to your GOD and the person u have deprived of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness….if your pursuit of happiness is to get me to plea/pay is not going to happen today tomorrow or next month NEVER. and if he makes a plea which he will then simply tell him u will be back and repeat the same thing over and over till u die….u make no pleas or submit to any jurisdiction but to your GOD and the person u have deprived of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness….if his life liberty and pursuit of happiness depends on a plea/pay…..then sorry about your luck….u have your own to worry about….i say cut to the chase the constitution and fed papers….the constitution says it all…..

  76. Hardmoneyal Says:

    If you or your automobile are not In Transportation the state’s statutes do Not apply to you, and your car or truck.
    However, if you have a driver’s license and registration you are presumed to be In Commerce and Transportation ready, i.e. subject to the ‘Transportation Code’ of ‘this state’:

    The essential characteristics (nature) of Transportation is the movement of persons and property, for profit and/or commercial compensation (hire), pursuant to rules and regulations, limited to the jurisdiction of the government (defacto) ‘in this state’.
    (Learned Common Sense and supported by many case holdings)

    The essential characteristics (nature) of Travel is the freedom to move and/or go from one place to another as one chooses, without trespass, by common conveyance as one is capable of using in a common manner, whether by foot or locomotion, upon the common way.
    (Supported by Common Sense, learned from the instinct to be free)

    From a states’ statute (and they are all the same, essentially):
    (14) “Driver” means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

    ['Driver' is a person who is licensed, i.e. drives by privilege in this state [why licensed?]to act commercially in transportation]
    [‘Vehicle’ is a commercial conveyance (specifically a ‘motor’ vehicle), used upon the roadway to transport passengers or property (cargo), from one location to another, for profit or commercial compensation (hire), which is licensed (registered) in this state [why registered?] to act commercially].

    This STATE is defacto because state uses Federal Reserve Notes for commerce (fees and/or taxes).
    Constitutional Money is: one ounce gold ($20.00); one once silver ($1.00) [defacto money is one ounce gold = 1200+/- Federal Reserve Notes (2013)]

    The issue/agrument that can be won is: if you have the right to contract/agree in commercial Transportation, you must have the right not to contract, least you be a slave, compelled into Involuntary Servitude for commercial purposes and taxpayer compliance(s), by being compelled to meet commercial requirements just to travel by the common conveyance of the day, in, or on, the common way.

    Driving is this states granted ‘privilege’ to act commercially in transportation; state has jurisdiction over commerce and transportation. They probably win if you are transportation ready, save procedure.

    This is the way to make travel a right. You win this because states’ first responsibility is to protect your freedom, you must first declare your freedom.
    Slavery is a condition of the mind: so is freedom. Check it out.

    This requires some thought and honest apraisal of the meaning of the words and semantics.

    Your comments please.
    Later

  77. Incubus Says:

    Hardmoneyal, the statutes do not apply to you regardless of whether you’re in or out of a vehicle, driving or not driving, or doing so for business related reasons or not. There is no evidence the statutes apply at all.

    Instead of taking on all sorts of unnecessary presumptions and burdens, just stick to the facts and keep the burden of proof on them. Ask them for evidence the constitution and applies to you. They have none. Only opinions.

  78. Hardmoneyal Says:

    Thank you Incubus, for drawing attention to the facts and evidence.
    Statutes apply to those they were made for, agreed? The statutes apply to Transportation specifically, and Commerce generally, agreed?
    Drive, Operate, Vehicle and Motor Vehicle are words of art used exclusively in the states’ Transportation Industry. Yet, they are used against you when you appear in commerce, and virtually everyone is in commerce when it comes to money, agreed? No one uses Constitutional Money, agreed? Just read the constitution(s). The constitutions apply to governments. But, you already know that. Rights apply to the People, not the corporate govenment, agreed?

    Look up the word license in any dictionary.
    If you are licensed you have a [state] granted privilege to do some kind of employment (work) that would be illegal and against ‘some’ statute to do without that license. To Drive is to be Licensed in Transportation for hire. And that’s Transportation, commercial Transportation for fiat money. And they gotcha with a License to Drive a vehicle and Registration to Operate a Motor Vehicle. Read the statutes and constitutions. The Feds got the money angle covered as far as commerce, and the states got the transportation angle covered as far as Licensing to Drive, even your car is Licensed. A solid prima facie case is made against you, complete with facts and evidence, and you don’t even know it. The real deal is all paperwork & evidence you signed on to. Admissions of License, Registration, Insurance. Take some responsibility for your part in the game they got you playing with them. You ask for the license and registration, and you can’t get the insurance or the registration without the license. What a scam, and we’re all party to it, until we stop arguing with them and change something?

    If you have a License to Drive, you applied for it. By applying, asking for a license, (and giving a ssn), you ‘implied’ transportation employment and taxpayer status on that employment, and waived jurisdiction because state has jurisdiction over Transportation by License on the roadway as a business for economic gain or profit. Yes, it’s only prima facie. REAL ID requires a SSN today in most states and that has become semantic to Taxpayer ID, which is prima facie that you are employed, and presumed, by License and Registration, to be employed in Transportation. Yes, they know this on the high bench, but the judge can not practice law from the bench on your behalf and defy the state the revenue from the scam, judges get ‘de-benched’ for not being for sale at the top, that’s how they got there. A Judge doesn’t need more evidence you are in transportation. You and your ‘vehicle’ are absolutely transportation ready. Guilty. Next case, the court only has evidence you are in transportation, acting in commerce and you have nothing to deny that with. Your Licenses waived your argument against the rules and regulations made for transportation, whether you now realize it or not, Driving is In Transportation (state issued), and Transportation is Commercial (fed fiat money). State has state constitutional jurisdiction over Transportation (you read your state constitution) and the Federal Constitution has exclusive jurisdiction over Money for commerce, although it’s fiat money for now. You can’t tell a judge s/he doesn’t have jurisdiction over you and your vehicle if you have a License to Drive a Registered Motor Vehicle. Gotcha, the judge says, and you won’t win on appeal, just read the cases. Plus each jury member would have a Motor-Voter License, and be fooled to agree that ‘everyone’ must have a license to use states’ roads. Yea, it’s that ole problem and belief that gubbermint is god, or that maybe we are after all else fails?

    But, if enough People with knowledge and courage, stopped Licensed Driving in Commercially Registered Vehicles and Motor Vehicles, we can restore our right to travel, for our private and personal interest, on our roads, in our automobiles, cars and trucks. Driving is a privilege; Traveling is a right, maybe, if you’re but willing to be self-governing in this ‘no state project’, this problem will solve itself. It’ll take time though to learn what you must to be free of government. Now read my previous statement again and this might make a little more sense.

    Stop arguing the problems and learn the solutions, it’s the only solution, learning it can work. Divided is where they want us, as usual. But remember it took over a hundred years to get to where we are today. People are the only ones who can change this now, it’s working better than ever for the state. It’s their biggest dollar scam, yet Transportation, as an industry, still has to have rules and regulations, after the facts and evidence are in, and People still have to be responsible for their actions and damage to others, whether in Transportation or not. This is not opinion, my friend.

  79. Andy Says:

    @Hardmoneyal …The answers are mostly irrelevant so long as people are asking the wrong questions. Is a person free to use the roads without a license? Do men and women calling themselves government use violence and threats of violence to force people to get licenses to use the roads… and many other activities they proclaim require license? Ditto for vehicle registrations.

    Other than coercion, threats of violence, is there any evidence their code and constitution is applicable to anyone?

  80. Roy Says:

    I would like to know, ruby, what part of the constitution you would quote and what you would quote from the Federalist papers.

    Also, where can I find the instructions to the judges on how to deal with patriots?

    Have you done this in court with success?

    Has anyone here tried the Mary Croft approach,

    Judge calls the case of Mary Croft
    “I am here for that matter”, without going through the gate,

    “Are you Mary Croft”
    “If I answer your question, am I contracting with you?”

    “If you are Mary Croft, you can come and sit at the table here”.

    “If I do what you say am I contracting with you”?

    “Do you have an attorney”?

    “If I answer your question, am I contracting with you?”

    “Come up here and sit down so we can proceed with your case”.


    If I do what you demand am I contracting with you”?

    “Sit down, we will hold your case till the end”.

    “If I sit down at your demand, am I making some type of agreement with you that is unspoken or secret”?

    mover 92 at gmail

  81. Andy Says:

    @Roy, the always present gun hidden in the room renders your (Mary’s?) questions mostly irrelevant. The only relevance that I perceive is that they get people asking the wrong questions.

    “Don’t quote [contract] laws to us. We carry swords.” -Pompeius Magnus.

    They’re psychopaths and/or criminals. They’re certainly not honorable. …So don’t treat them as such by asking the wrong questions. Wrong questions lend a sense of credibility to them. They proclaim legitimacy. Asking the right questions has them walk into self-exposure traps exposing their illegitimacy/reality/criminality — true colors/gun-in-the-room.

    Example: Does the prosecutor have evidence the _______ State code and constitution applicable to me?

    KISS

  82. Incubus Says:

    “Statutes apply to those they were made for, agreed?”

    No. Not agreed. Statutes do not apply to anyone. There is no evidence they do.

    Arguing a delusion is not the only solution, or even a reasonable solution. Sticking to the facts and keeping the burden on them is. Maintaining your delusion is only fueling the problem, not resolving it.

    Asking questions is not the same as arguing. Ask them for evidence the constitution and code are applicable. They have none. Only opinions.

    “Rights apply to the People, not the corporate [sic] govenment, agreed? ”

    No. Not agreed. Rights do not exist. They’re an idea. A figment of the imagination.

  83. Roy Says:

    So I guess nobody has used the “Mary” questions concerning contract with success?

    We filed a rescission of signature, and an affidavit of status, as well as demands for dismissal, for insufficient complaint, not being informed of the nature and cause, and for no jurisdiction. Have a hearing on Tuesday, driving after rev. facing up to 30 days in jail for no Breathalyzer installed. (previously convicted of a DUI)

  84. Roy Says:

    What has happened in court when you ask;
    “can you confirm that the prosecution has presented evidence proving the constitution, laws, and/or codes apply and that there’s jurisdiction?”

    Would the questions in this form be better or worse?
    Judge, is there any evidence on the record proving the constitution, laws and codes apply to me in this case?
    Judge is there any evidence on the record proving the elements of personam jurisdiction over me?
    Judge, is there any evidence on the record proving the elements of subject matter jurisdiction in this case

  85. Andy Says:

    @Roy, I think it’s best to make it clear the prosecutor has the burden of proof, not the judge. Ask the judge if the prosecutor has shown evidence the code and constitution are applicable to the defendant and thus jurisdiction.

    The more wiggle room given by the question the more likely the judge will use it to his/her advantage to avoid giving a responsive answer. Typically a non responsive answer intended to obfuscate the issue so as to move *their* process along.

    For example: personam jurisdiction: “You’re here, aren’t you?
    subject matter jurisdiction: “You were given a traffic ticket, right?”

    Granted, placing the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor is certainly no guarantee of getting a responsive answer. E.g. The code is applicable because the code says the code is applicable.

  86. Roy Says:

    Ok, I see your point, and it is a good one.

    If the judge acts as a prosecutor in response, then, maybe we should ask him if he is prosecuting from the bench, or conspiring with the prosecutor, doing his work for him.

    Thank you, R

  87. Roy Says:

    The question regarding the statutory crime is a good bullet to have ready.

    “You have not informed me of the nature and cause, but allude that it is a statutory crime. Please tell me where the rule of statutory criminal proceedures are found, as I need them to defend myself in this case.”

  88. Andy Says:

    If the man or woman in the black robe is also pretending to be a prosecutor:
    Am I presumed innocent?
    Can I get a fair trial?
    Can I get a fair trial of there’s a conflict of interest?
    Who do you represent?
    Has the prosecutor shown evidence the code and constitution are applicable and thus jurisdiction?
    Is the court withholding evidence of jurisdiction?

  89. Hardmoneyal Says:

    Andy Says:
    January 12th, 2014 at 5:01 am
    @Hardmoneyal …The answers are mostly irrelevant so long as people are asking the wrong questions. Is a person free to use the roads without a license? Ditto for vehicle registrations.
    Answer to: are the roads free to use without a license? My question is: What is the definition of ‘license’ and ‘use’? All dictionary’s say license is permission to do something which without a license it is illegal to do, often referring to operating a ‘business’ or ‘driving’… so logic says to drive can be likened to a business. The roads are accessible by both private ‘automobiles’ to travel on, and commercial ‘vehicles’ to drive on. To not have a meeting of the minds is like ‘right is might’ and they win. It is all about agreement, and government nor anyone else can force another to agree with them. If you don’t know how the game is played, you loss. What is advocated is that you learn how to beat them at their own game, and it is a serious game and they can be proven wrong, but you must prove yourself right. Although it is believed by most that driving is what you’re doing, it isn’t unless you agree to it. Learn to think, ‘I do not consent’. Ditto for vehicle registrations. It’s too tough for most to be a real winner in the game, but when they break all the rules, it’s much easier to win.
    The federal constitution was made for the states has real jurisdiction over real Money; and fiat jurisdiction over fiat money, both real and fiat money accommodate business, and state’s constitution, allegedly made for the People, has jurisdiction over licensed business and transportation.
    Incubus Says:
    January 12th, 2014 at 1:00 pm
    “Statutes apply to those they were made for, agreed?” No. Not agreed. Statutes do not apply to anyone. There is no evidence they do.

    Question: Do you have a license for anything? Then statutes apply, or else no would have License for anything. If you have a License to Drive, you ask for and ‘paid’ for it, and put yourself in business under the ‘transportation code’ of the state. (see above)
    Also, I’m not questioning you, but you too could be a little delusional like the rest of us.
    The only fact that counts, do you have a license to drive? Then you are in agreement with the statutes, or you are delusional. Welcome to the U.S. reality. It’s all a figment of the imagination, an illusion. Want them to leave you alone? Stop agreeing with them and learn to argue the truth of the matter if you want to win. Yes, it requires a different approach.

  90. Hardmoneyal Says:

    Maxim of Life: It ain’t what you don’t know, but what you do know that ain’t so. Will Rogers

    Government’s not Broke; It’s Fixed… another Will

    The beginning of knowledge is the definition of words.

  91. Andy Says:

    @hardmoneyal, Most people wouldn’t get licenses if there wasn’t “government” threatening violence against them for not having the license while engaging in acts the “government” proclaims requires a license. It seems you have chosen to obfuscate the gun in the room. The initiation of violence and threat of violence by the gang of killers, thieves and liars obliterates the opportunity to consent.

  92. Hardmoneyal Says:

    @Andy, Good luck friend, you go your way, I’ll choose mine, it’s working better ever now. If everyone who doesn’t choose to be in their jurisdiction, statutorily, took their tag and license and gave it back today the problem would be gone overnight. We are getting what we choose to get. If you choose to be in that jurisdiction and apply for it, without knowing who and what you are, you ask the results of your actions.
    No, I don’t obfuscate a gun in the room, nor am I intimidated by it, yet that’s what they are made to do when delusional threat is apparent. They have the same problem with you ‘learning’ the truth of the matter. One day I’ll be dead and will have lived my life for my purpose by agreement. Guns don’t kill, ignorant people do. Self defense is not ignorance, but if you choosen to fight with guns, you have choosen to die by the gun.
    The only fact of the matter, is the Use of the Road for Business is that you must have a permit to do that and it is a License to Drive for the Person and Registered Vehicle to Operate; this is the Consent they are Enforcing to the letter of the statute [law? agreement?].
    Later,

  93. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Hardmoneyal, there is no evidence the constitution and laws apply to anyone, doesn’t matter if you use the streets for a business or not.

  94. Hardmoneyal Says:

    @Marc Stevens…”there is no evidence the constitution and laws apply to anyone, doesn’t matter if you use the streets for a business or not.” OK?
    Who is the constutition for? Those elected to govern. Who governs? Each of us? Who do I govern? Probably few if any, but I do attempt to govern myself; if I can’t govern myself, I can govern no one.
    How do those elected, govern? By consent of the People? Why do they govern the way they govern? We let them, by tacit agreement, until we learn how to change. “Government’s not broke – It’s FIXED.” – Crazy Wil

    Do you believe that a society of people with such great diversity as is on the ‘civilized’ planet, in this country, or of ‘this STATE’, can and does govern itself to the benefit of everyone and each other? That the planet, country, STATE, county, city, town can just stop having limits on people because each will always do what is best for everyone else, as well as themselves? The problem is probably lack of self-goverance and personal discipline, and that’s what this is all about, problems we have with each other, as people. We are free to agree, and we are free to disagree. We people, as people, have agreements with each other all the way from one of a pair sharing the land, to a room together as mates, to the family unit of three or more, to the community in a city, to the STATE at large, etc. At every level we have differences, because each is unique and individual. Even when we’re the same, we are different. That’s the fable of Adam & Eve. People differ in every imaginable way: looks, age, sex, size, thought, IQ, and don’t forget people of color, the difference that we won’t let go away? Who among us does unto others as we would have them do unto us? If it is to ever exists it will be by agreement. Constitutions limits those who can govern, by consent, or agreement, supposedly of the people who are govern in this country, USA?. The theroy is, I believe, the Federal is under the authority of the States, and the States are under the authority of the People, and that the People are a Free and Self-governing Sovereignty? But at each level, sovereignty is limited so the other level can exist freely within it’s limitation. It doesn’t work perfectly by a long shot, but we have been programmed to be economic slaves to the credit barons, and lose more of Our People power everyday; to the other PERSON. We perhaps elect those people who become thugs, parading as our servants, I’m not sure how they get there. Perhaps the REAL problem is really US: me, myself, and I. If I’m not the problem then maybe I don’t have a solution.
    People who expect to be free and ignorant, expect something that never was and never will be – T. JEFFERSON.
    Anarchy does work well either for organized society, it failed before they all killed each other. What’s your program? It has to be an improvement.

  95. CHARLES-ROBERT RENAULT© Says:

    Once again I must put my two-cents in. A statutory instrument is anything a statute is written on. Correct? Kindly read the definition of statutory instrument in Black’s law dictionary, seventh edition, page 1424, lower left of the page. “A British administrative regulation or order”. Well now, I have been led to believe that “we” won that war. While you are at it, in that same book, check out page 1727. I ask now why does an American “law” book have such trash in it. Why should we care about anything to do with so-called royalty? Could it be that these barbarians still run things here?
    The Constitution is merely a contract between “we the people” and our employees. Unfortunately, today we have no employees, not one “government” seat is occupied. What we do have is actors playing a part, impersonating government officials, complete with titles.
    When Lincoln sent the military out to round up all the Senators and Congressmen who walked out during session, in 1861, Mr. Lincoln not only abolished the Congressional body, but he removed his own office. This being Robert’s Rules of Professional Etiquette.
    So what we’re dealing with is equal to a counter person at McDonald’s, or a clerk in a store. They are all merely corporate employees following orders. Of course under threat of losing their jobs if they fail to follow the directives issued by those “above” them.
    This is the reason one cannot use constitutional issues in their administrative dungeons of doom. They are not “government” employees.
    For a corporation to have any authority over anyone, they must have a valid contract, or the entity must in fact be an employee, also under contract via their job application. Corporations may only deal with like kind artificial entities, nonexistent creatures of law.
    The Constitution does NOT give rights to anyone, it does however, give guidelines to those the contract was issued, as to what or what not to do. It binds its employees to certain obligatory functions. Once again, there are no government employees, only corporate flunkies pretending to be “officials”. This is true of the lowest policy-men to the grand daddy of officialdom. All of this crap has been brainwashed into our minds, to make us “believe”, by those who believe that they are doing the right thing by spreading rumors and rhetoric that they themselves were led to believe as truth. These story tellers are merely reciting what they firmly believe. The words believe and trust are in fact synonymous.
    Marc is right, the constitutions do not apply to any of us, as we were not a part of the initial contract. What does apply to us is our own agreements, contracts, and following orders issued by some contracted employee. Stop following orders, stand up on your own two feet, and above all, take responsibility for your own actions and reactions.
    One last thing I must add is, stop arguing, the only way they can have their administrative proceedings is by controversy. When there is no controversy, there can be no trial. Remember these clowns with and without robes, go to school to learn how to argue, and the cumulative years behind them make it almost impossible to fight. So by agreeing with whatever they attempt to throw at you, you have taken them completely off course. Even the “good book” says, “agree with your enemies quickly”. Thanks for reading my two-cents worth. Simply Chuck…

  96. Incubus Says:

    The CONstitution is nothing more than four pieces of paper, scribbled with jibberish, that nobody ever signed. In what possible way can you contrive it as a contract to begin with?

  97. Incubus Says:

    I do believe I’m beginning to grasp the logic being espoused by some. It’s like Orwell wrote in 1984:

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    And now! COERCION IS CONSENT

    Cool! Makes perfect sense.

  98. Hardmoneyal Says:

    @Incubus- yea, you got it, it’s an illusion; and if we believe it, we are delusional, and they are, for the most part, if we don’t. Aren’t we really on the same page?

    Just the FACTS:
    It appears that the first Definition of Vehicle (as used in statutes) came out at the time of formation of the alleged DMVs’ is: “as defined in the Tariff Act (1930), it has a much broader meaning, and includes any sort of conveyance used in the transportation of passengers and merchandise either by land or by water or through the air. Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. P.&S. M. Ry. Co., 11 F.(2d) 332, 334, 56 App. D.C. 160.” (Black’s 3rd, (1933), p1802). PASSENGER. “A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry…” (Black’s 3rd, p1334). CARRIER. “…Carriers are either common or private…” (Black’s 3rd, p282).

    GATT (General AGREEMENT on Tariffs and Trade) was formed at the end of WWII in 1947, and has now become part of WTO (World Trade Organization).
    Why do travelers in their own cars, on their own roads, join in a United Nations Agreement and get entingled in international ‘Tariff’s In Transit’, when they only want to travel on their roads?
    The ssn/tin is an international maritime agreement, the date of birth is in the State Birth Certificate. It’s by those to items you agree to be Identified as one of those in agreement. Strange? Don’t you give both now just to get a License to Drive? Can you Register a vehicle or get the Driver/Vehicle Insurance without a License to Drive, i.e. Driver License? Check it out. Most states impose that now. It’s maritime, too.

    When the SSN/TIN is asked for, and you give it, you admit to being in an International agreement. When the date of birth is ask for, and you give it, you admit to being a STATE Subject/citizen (somewhere). What does the date of birth have to do with anything when you are of the ‘age of majority’? At that point you are responsible for your own actions, aren’t you? You can sue and be sued, can’t you? Or, are you game for dueling?

    Free People don’t need a license to travel on their own roads inside of their own state. Private/Personal Cars and Trucks don’t need registration to travel on the common roadways of a free society or state. But Vehicles and motor vehicles must be Registered, just as drivers must Licensed, if they are Operating in Commerce in the Corporate USoA and ‘this state’. That’s an Internation Agreement for ‘funny money use’ just about everywhere on the planet (including the FED and their agent/bank). The Feds supply funny money (intrastate) and the states regulate commerce and transportation (interstate). They only use Federal Reserve Notes, just you and me mostly. You got a License, Registeration, funny money, and admit you are driving, they probably win, if you don’t know procedure and remedies. Just the facts.

    Only Vehicles in the act of transportation need registration, and drivers of those vehicles need licenses for the privilege of Transportating Passengers and Cargo on the people’s roads for funny money. If the license and registration displayed you have traded your right to travel for the privilege to drive in commerce. Does anybody know that as a fact??? Ignorance is no excuse if it applies to you; ignorance is okay if it don’t apply to you. They probably gotcha either way, and they know that because ‘traffic court’ exists because of that, is the humble opinion of the Supreme Court(s). Nobody knows how to get out of the trap? Scary? Ingorance of the facts and procedure do not win anything, most of the time.

    Or, have we given our right(s) to the corporate STATE including our PERSON?
    “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  99. Andy Says:

    @Hardmoneyal, please present evidence that the constitution and laws are applicable to anyone. The four elements of a contract are 1) offer 2) meeting of the minds 3) consideration 4) agreement.

    No prosecutor has put forth evidence the constitution and code/laws are applicable and thus have jurisdiction. If you can do what none of them can you could become very wealthy in record time selling your evidence to them.

    That said, I think you are posting here with malicious intent; to cloud and confuse. What part of “pay the tax or go to jail” do you not understand? taxation is robbery. Government is criminals — men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. Everything after that which the government spends the money on is irrelevant. Their code, laws and constitution are irrelevant.

  100. Incubus Says:

    “Aren’t we really on the same page?”

    Unfortunately, I dont think we are.

  101. Hardmoneyal Says:

    What could be termed as a common law contract (4 elements) has become a trust agreement with three elements (settlor, trustee, beneficiary).
    We have rights because we exercise them. We don’t have to agree on anything, but when we ‘apply’ to be in something, even if we don’t know what we are in, we have agreed to be in it.
    That is fundamental. Sorry if that’s confusing. Check it out and see if that’s not the only page ‘they as trustee’ are on.

  102. Andy Says:

    Hardmoneyal Says: “What could be termed as a common law contract (4 elements) has become a trust agreement with three elements (settlor, trustee, beneficiary).”

    First, please show evidence/FACTS of the alleged common law contract and then show evidence of how the alleged contract was transformed/became an alleged trust and then show evidence of the alleged trust.

  103. Andy Says:

    @Hardmoneyal, So since your arguments supporting a contract failed you change gears and claim there’s a trust. You’re moving an invisible goalpost.

  104. Hardmoneyal Says:

    @Andy Jan 25th and 27th Thanks for observations, but,…First, I don’t perceive, you are willing to admit, that what you perceive, isn’t correct. For that I’ll quote Will Rogers (credited) again, and offer this to the good of us all: “It’s not what you Don’t Know, but what you Do Know that ain’t so.”

    Second, to allege that I said it was a contract isn’t exactly true. I’ve said repeatedly it’s an agreement, and that’s an alleged agreement at best. Fraudulent too. (Don’t ask for proof, you wouldn’t believe it.)

    Third, I said three elements to a trust, that’s an error on my part, there are eight elements to a trust, and there are three (3) entities/parties to a trust ((1) settler/grantor, (2) trustee, (3) beneficiary). http://home.pon.net/jmt/law/twol/wt/novwt.htm

    Now to attempt to answer your question: This “agreement” is often called a “Quasi-Contract”, if the argument is made for ‘contract’ as in specific performance, I don’t see a end in that battle, because a prosecutor can’t win the argument, and doesn’t need to if you have a Driver’s License. You applied, and by your application agreed to the “definitions” used that mandate a Drivers License. Do a thorough study on the words: Vehicle, Motor Vehicle, Driving and Operating; include the history of the DMVs, the Tariff and Trade Acts and Treaties, hint: ‘tariff’s in transit’; and, include the Road and Highway Statutes of you state and you may learn that the definitions may control it all. Also see the latest S.Ct. holding: Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, an admiralty case concerning “transportation” to get an insight that a vessel on water, can be likened to a vehicle on land, when it comes to transportation, regarding a boat vs. vessel. The holding was ‘intent’ of the ‘owner’. If you have a License to Drive you are in Commerce (US/FRN money) in the Transportation (this state) of moving persons or property, from here to there, for hire by intent; and by your own admission are in a no-win (legally) when it comes to the Statutes, because you asked for the privilege. This License to Drive commercially and in transportation, you must “register” your car as a “vehicle” to “operate” in the States regulated Transportation jurisdiction. If you are to do that, you’re required to insure your privilege and vehicle to protect other privileged persons and property from harm as a “Driver” operating in Transportation. Yes, it’s a damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. This applies to the Driver’s License privilege; the rest is because you have been granted that privilege. Any answers how to get out of this mess, without learning. If there’s a silver bullet holder, you’ll get rich quick.

    The best example of a trust relationship is the registration of an automobile as a ‘vehicle’. First is how this came about? If one purchased a new car, with no Bankers lien, there was a Manufacturers Statement of Origin (MSO–from GM as an example). GM Manufactured the automobile and the MSO is the ‘absolute ownership document’. The Dealer has Business License from the state, and is more than likely “required” as a ‘fiduciary requirement’ to register this new car for you as a “Vehicle” with the state, and send the state the MSO. It goes directly to the state and is probably destroyed? I’m not sure, nor if it matters? State will send you a tag and Certificate of Title along with documentation of registration. State holds Title and has autonomous absolute control over you as a driver and your new vehicle, now in the Public Trust. The STATE is the Trustee, you are the beneficiary with certain fiduciary requirements (taxes and tag, insurance, statutes, inspections or whatever they demand) of the trust res (vehicle). You cannot sell that vehicle to anyone without their approval by way of Transfer of Title, all you have is an equity interest for as long as you think you ‘own’ it. Is this all theory? Check it out. Is there another remedy other than restoring the right to travel in one’s personal car, and be responsible for that Right we each have? So much for now… Thanks, Later

  105. Andy Says:

    @Hardmoneyal, been there done that years ago. Not interested in regurgitating all that I learned. Whatever instruments they do uses, their use is rooted in fraud. When I had a driver’s license it was an act of self defence to protect against men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun — government.

    First, do no harm to others. Those six words expose government for what it is — a gang of killers, thieves and liars.

  106. SusanA Says:

    If one is claiming there is no evidence that the Constitution or statutes apply, why would anyone even presume for a second that the Court / Judge is operating under any way than fake theater?

    It is pretty clear that the judge & prosecutor are operating under a secret set of rules known only to Bar attorneys. It seems they only pay lip service to due process and your other “rights”.

    They are more likely operating under the “secret” twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the Private Bar Guilds, which, if left unchallenged, stand as Truth in Commerce. If anyone examines these encounters with judges, it becomes pretty clear what is really going on. The Bar members are hoping you never figure this out.

    Under these 12 presumptions, you are already presumed guilty, incompetent, willing to accept jurisdiction, wanting to resolve this in “private”, etc. etc.

    It seems also that you lose if you have to go to an appeal. In this state, appeals lose about 95% of the time. Not great odds. Judges defend other judges. Perhaps it is better to realize the secret rules that you are being abused with and deal with them?

  107. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ SusanA what I can see is that they make it up as they go along.

  108. Malinson Says:

    Marc, apart from an established legal system, when we look at the natural world itself, no evidence exists to support the idea that a natural right to own anything exists. All that can be revealed is that we come to possess by might not by right.

    In this light Marc, you cannot position yourself to argue that people of government are thieves without yourself prescribing to the theory of natural rights. Only a natural right of possession can establish the validity of theft apart from a governmental system. I therefore challenge your belief that government is stealing from anyone by providing evidence that what they are doing they have no right to do.

  109. RUBY Says:

    @ roy……if u KNOW AND CAN PROVE BY QUOTING THE CONSTITUTION AND BACKING IT UP BY IT’S INTERPRETATION the fed papers…….(the constitution and fed papers are legal law)by u asking me how i am going to prove it tells me u have never read or studied the papers….but they hold more clout than the FBI, PRESIDENT, IRS, SOCIAL SERVICE COMBINED….the federalist papers/anti fed papers/and articles of confed are legal contracts signed by those who sit and judge which are still active, legal and binding……..if u stay away from codes/laws/and statues/ unconstitutionally applied to force u to do something then u will win every time….there could only be a few reasons why anyone shows up for court without being in chains….either they are afraid and believe they can argue their case, plea and pay, the person dose not realize going is implied consent and at this point u have to prove it…or to give the judge a sword in side and prove it in front of the courts or for u tube… thinking they will never return….wrong…anyone that gets a letter from IRS OR A TICKET….or any notice from any dept from fed, state, local to appear anywhere u give implied consent …but if u never show instead write a legal document by filing with the court u never give up anything…it is the same concept ….if u get a legal notice/summons and u do not show for court(ticket) or answer the letter it is implied consent….that u agree to pay the fine or u are guilty of the IRS CRIME for example…..if u write a demure and prove through the constitution/fed papers and refuse to show the courts will write back and demand u show if u write back and request proof they have jurisdiction they have to or ignore your letter …if u do not hear back then they have dropped your case ..if u hear back then reply …the replies can go on forever but more than likely they will drop it…..FOR INSTANCE….the constitution says ..any dispute over 20.00 u are entitled to a jury period…also the government cannot emit bill of attainers…to states or citizens…states cannot emit bills of credit or bills of attainers…because the federalist clearly states the reason why the constitution was drawn up…to stop the federal,states, or local governments from requesting requisitions or quotas from each other and from citizens….the second reasons the constitution was drawn up to put troops into the feds control to stop states from sending troops into cities forcing states and cities to meet state and federal requisitions and quotas….the idea was to put troops into fed control and set up courts….to stop tyranny…cops are not allowed to act for or with the fed state local authorities as troops unless outlined in constitution…if u fight a a law with a law or a statue with a law or statue with statue u will loose either your home, mind and quality life….it is put there to get u to, submit, or argue, or prove they are acting unconstitutional….by fighting a law your implied consent is all they need…but your cut throat proof cutting to the chase with the contract they signed….the u.s. constitution is federal,,,,the state constitution is state ….protecting u….the federal government is not allowed to petition u unless u work or contracted with them….period so never show up at an office or court only reply by legal paperwork…only show up in chains…period…when those chains are removed ….never show up in court until u are in chains…reply by letter only…never ignore a summons/but never voluntarily show up at any fed state or local office or court….when i read such childish gibberish i know most have not done their homework ….every now and then i read a few comments that tells me some have…..but most have not….get out the fed anti fed…articles of confed….and constitution out and discuss what u learned and found out and give each other proof ….

  110. RUBY Says:

    my point being …..jurisdiction is either by consent or implied….if u are summoned/petitioned to appear office/court u have a choice…to show or write…u have to do one of the two….writing a legal reply is your lack of implied or voluntary consent….ignoring a summons/petition is an implied or voluntary compliance and gives them jurisdiction they can come after u warrant or civil….the difference between the reply and non reply …by not replying u are agreeing to guilt or their demands…implied….i am not sure how many times u can banter back and forth before court date…..the courts are just as obligated to reply and the same goes to them.. if u do not hear from them before the court date then more than likely u can call and find out where the case stands….more than likely your astute reply will determine if they drop it….prosecutor does not want to go toe to toe with someone who can beat them at their game….and it will not more than likely be with a statue/law and blacks dictionary …i can’t stress it enough …and my prayer one day that i will visit this site and i read marc and his followers defending themselves using the constitution and fed papers…if u want to fight the IRS GO TO THE FED PAPERS 30-36…FED PAPERS 1-14…there is 85 essays that are completely legal to use in court…the fed papers/articles of confederation/constitution is not patriotic papers they are legal documents//contracts and the interpretation thereof…..the anti fed papers can be used ….all legal documents present and past are not void but carried forward…the article of confed still remains today…the constitution is just articles and amendments added to….i have read and watched marcs legal arguments all he can do is beg for proof…i can point out 50 ways they don’t have proof or permission or authority to tax, or plunder your earned money…why not point it out if u don’t point it out they will take u to the cleaners….u have to prove they are fake frauds…

  111. Hardmoneyal Says:

    Andy Says:
    January 29th, 2014 at 11:19 pm
    Reply to: “Whatever instruments they do uses, their use is rooted in fraud. When I had a driver’s license it was an act of self defence to protect against men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun — government.”
    Was it self-defence you used? Or was it the licence, to do what they are doing, you gave? The agreements you made with them are being used against you.

    “Federal” means “federal,” as in “by agreement,” and this is a statement of “mechanism” by which all “government” at all levels functions.

    “When the defense of liberty becomes a crime, tyranny is already in force. At that point, failure to defend liberty makes slavery a certainty”. Are we there yet? We’ll never get out until we learn the way. Look and listen to see and hear – “What’s going on”. It’s not what we don’t know, rather what what we do know, that ain’t so”… It’s all a grant of power we have given them to govern us. Is it beyond our reach to take it back? We have become servant to our servant/master quite by agreement. That’s the truth of the matter…
    It’s not them that must change; it is us. It was so easy to get here, yet so very difficult to get back to Liberty. Are they the problem or is it us?
    The task of change is great, but to ‘now’ stay the course is greater.
    http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Home.html

  112. Andy Says:

    ““Federal” means “federal,” as in “by agreement,” and this is a statement of “mechanism” by which all “government” at all levels functions.”

    Are you a lawyer or do you just like pretending to be one? First, do no harm to others. Those six words expose government for what it is — a gang of killers, thieves and liars.

  113. bruce sloane Says:

    ” federal ” comes from Harman
    doesn’t it Andy .. :)

  114. Hardmoneyal Says:

    @bruce sloane Says:
    January 31st, 2014 at 4:27 pm ”federal” comes from Harman doesn’t it Andy ..
    Yes, it does come from ‘Legal Reality’; I think Harmon is the ‘original’ for that one. He stays on point and appears better than most at understanding how we got to where we find ourselves today in these traffic matters. He doesn’t play the blame game either. Traffic matters are in a world of their own, but not so umlike many other so-called ‘compulsory tax’ matters.
    The problem becomes more volatile the longer and harder we play the blame game. Check out the legal reality perspective to the problem, from a solution oriented approach.

    @Andy Says: Are you a lawyer…
    No, not an attorney either, it’s almost insulting to be thought of as one so inclined as to pretend to be one, though there are some lawyers enlightened to the legal reality of the presence of the pro se community having honestly improved itself. I strive to be of that class.
    Do no harm to others is a two way street. I too choose not to harm, but not to the degree yet as to allow others to harm me. If that’s all they intend, to harm others, then it is our duty to inhibit that, and sound reason to limit such authority, again by agreement?

  115. Diadin Says:

    Should I use this for a parking ticket, or just use the motion to dismiss?

  116. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Diadin, you can use both, if they deny the motion without explanation, then offer to plea guilty or responsible, you just want to know if there is evidence proving jurisdiction.

  117. RUBY Says:

    WHY GO TO COURT AT ALL….IF BEFORE U GO U KNOW THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION….never walk into a court to argue anything ….not even for a divorce/ticket/taxes…nothing…….u write the court with A demure or a law suit….period….U BETTER BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY IN YOUR PLEADINGS….the courts/states/legislators have had a few hundred years of unconstitutional laws on the books…that hundreds of folks never bulk at and that believe they/your breaking the law when u get a ticket/or don’t file income tax/or pay court ordered child support….when u file a law suit against someone u don’t go to their house and argue with them….u see them in court….well if the courts have an issue with u and they invite u to their house why would u go without proof the issue applies to u….thats my million dollar question…could only be for a few reasons…u tube…or show off…other wise if u know the law then write and tell them how full of crap they are …how fraudulent they are…one of the guys i think andy pointed out …we are the problem…not the courts…the federal papers provides common sense on how to avoid such abuse…the constitutions are not for your/our benefit it is for theirs the state/federal contract they have with each other…the citizens get the benefits of the contracts according to how courts rule in favor/against their contract…….on the other hand …if u want to use the federalist papers to interpret their contracts go for it…it’s there ….u have the full complete law book…..constitutional contracts are what they are….contracts have clauses not statues/laws….laws and statues are detractors put in place in violation of their contract/constitution….if it wasn’t they wouldn’t need it to enforce their contract….my hope one day is to see someone win an income tax violation with the federalist papers…i only know one person who represented himself win against the IRS….he has lucky he got a jury that ruled in his favor….he used the same question…prove to me i am supposed to pay and i will…

  118. RUBY Says:

    just a quick comment on statues and laws unconstitutional ones….which most are ….concerning drivers license….the different ratings on drivers lic. INFORMS an officer/DMV/COURTS/ if your a traveler or commerce….SO if u break a statue driving or traveling what does that mean….probably not a lot unless u wreck….IF u know before u leave home licensed/non-licensed u have a chance to get pulled over….why not avoid the hassle…if u want to give up your lic and get an ID then do it….if u want to relinquish your lic. file a pleading with DMV OR COURTS…..giving up your lic. before all the confusion begins…explain why if it’s a legal document they have to respond….file legal paper work with the courts….contact your local representative/legislator/ if u constitutionally can travel on the roads without a lic. just to see if he tells the truth. if he does file it as proof. if u rather have a judge sign off approving u driving without a class whatever lic. then so be it….it seems to me most everyone on this site agrees the justice system is screwed up….and to avoid DWL ticket and car tow and court dates just file with the courts that u are giving up your lic. or contract with the state and choose to travel….instead hold a lic to travel….a lic to travel no matter what class it states is a legal binding contract….now does it give u permission to break what they say is the law…fighting a lic. charge and a moving violation is two different issues….btw…THE COURTS DO NOT KNOW WHERE U ARE GOING….u could be traveling one second and the next delivering weed….not everyone traveling or driving is just doing one or the other it is usually both…the moving violation is a separate issue….which a civil matter…

  119. Hardmoneyal Says:

    It appears from the statutes and commercial transportation history that Driving is an occupational endeavor. It is not by chance the license is called a Drivers License. Next comes the registration of the automobile, truck, or other conveyance (Vehicle/Motor Vehicle/Carrier) to be used in Transportation, i.e. moving persons or property from here to there for hire. Registration cannot be done without the Drivers License and Insurance.
    Once all that is done it appears the Vehicle is in Public Trust. You have become a corporate PERSON (Licensed as a Driver), and the Legal Title to the Vehicle is vested in the Corporate STATE. You can use the vehicle for Driving in Transportation or traveling; ‘this state’ only see the privilege commercial activity of Transportation.
    Tha attached video is on Public and Private Trust and gave me a better understanding of the facts which I established by my ill-gotten belief on property and how ‘they’ might have jurisdiction, treating me like a slave and perhaps offers remedy to my problem. You then can perhaps figure out how to get out of their jurisdiction.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp-mnivAPTM

  120. mitchell moffett Says:

    ha marc I have a dui trial in show low az on 3\7\2014.i got a lawer for 1500 bucks.the day befor the first jury trile he tells me I have to shit 1400 more ro he cant show up.i tell him I have 25 bucks to get me thrue the end of the month.i show up at trile erly to do the jury thing.the lawer shows up.we do the trile it ends in a hung jury.i just went to a new hering for the next trile without my lawer.with a new judge thay called in espeshuly for me.real expensev sute lol.i think I may be in over my head.could use some help I think.now I have a bill from my x lawer for 3018.50 for something.got a jury trile coming up.what now.eny help would be fantastic.thanks much fite the good fite.

  121. mitchell moffett Says:

    as you can probably tell im not good at this computer thing.i don’t know that this will even get to you.if it does be chance.i have until the 21 to get eny motions in to the court.jury trile is on 3/7/14.hope you get this thanks much.

  122. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ mitchell, contact me by email marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com

  123. mitchell moffett Says:

    by the way.the dui is to the slitest degree its a misdemener.the cop was camping the bar I was at.i just want my rites back.thanks much

  124. Dan Gould Says:

    Road trip Marc?

5 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Plea of Guilty – Tool For Getting Tickets Kicked Out - Unofficial Network Says:

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

  2. Page not found | Earth Freedom News Says:

    […] Plea of Guilty – Tool For Getting Tickets Kicked Out […]

  3. NSP - Nov 23, 2013 - [UPDATED PODCAST] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] the unsigned plea of guilty as an effective tool to ask questions of evidence to effectively stop the proceeding due to a lack […]

  4. NSP - Jan 25, 2014 - Co-host: JT | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] an unsigned plea of guilt so the judge cannot say you were “refusing to plea” when you ask questions concerning […]

  5. NSP - Feb 8, 2014 - Co-host: JT and Guest: Bradley from London, England | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] How to use the unsigned plea of guilty. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturdays, 4-7pm EST: NSP radio LIVE. Tune-in as we discuss the general topics of tickets, tyrants, assessments, and bringing about a voluntary society. The NSP is not live April 19, 2014, but is new recorded material so we will not be taking calls @ (218) 632-9399.



Click here to find out how to call-in with your questions and comments, join the Skype group-chat, tune-in to terrestrial and digital broadcasts, use the phone-in listen line, subscribe to the iTunes archive feed, and much more.

Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6













Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6




Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here