Categorized | Call of Shame

CoS – Jul 26, 2013 – Ian Freeman’s DMV Administrative Hearing

Posted on August 13th, 2013 by Calvin

Ian Freeman’s DMV Administrative Hearing [ENHANCED AUDIO] – Jul 26, 2013 [KOPIMI] via Calvin’s YouTube channel.

YouTube Preview Image

———————————

Post-Hearing Motion to Dismiss Filed in Ian’s DMV Case – Aug 6, 2013 | FreeKeene.com

Ian’s DMV Hearing Regarding “Residency” and Suspending Driving “Privileges” – Jul 28, 2013 | FreeKeene.com

              

54 Comments For This Post

  1. Randy Says:

    Marc, when are you going to start asking the questions like who is the injured party or was Mr/Ms. So and So in the State or did Mr/Ms. So and So violate someone else’s legal rights? Can I get a fair hearing if there is a conflict of interest?

    It seems like you are stuck on the one argument that ends up going no where. How about asking WHO owns the car? The State or the Owner? Goes to the heart of what that owner can do with his or her property as long as there is no injury or damage, breach of peace, violation of legal rights, etc … in any use of that property. :)

  2. NonE Says:

    I’m not sure how I feel about this. I think Randy’s comment is worthy of consideration. Marc, I found myself cringing a bit at your continual pounding on the issue of jurisdiction long after your point had been made repeatedly and logged as objected to. I don’t know if that is because I don’t have balls as big as yours or because I think that the man-in-the-moomoo was being somewhat reasonable in dealing with you. I DO admit that he either didn’t understand your point regarding evidence versus (NOT verse!) legal interpretation, or he was specifically twisting the issue to his own advantage. Perhaps if you had gone somewhat along the lines that Randy suggests above you might have been able to “stay in the game” and hence be more effective rather than having the door slammed in your face. I will be looking forward to the additional material and discussions that Calvin (bless his less-than-soon soul) sez he’s going to be posting soon (!). ;-) Just some thoughts off the top of my head, no claim to omniscience or even intelligence. – NonE

  3. NonE Says:

    P.S. Calvin, thanks so much for posting this. I am looking forward to the additional material you’ve said you’re gonna put up. – NonE

  4. Jeff Evans Says:

    Dang MARK!!!!!

    You often tell us not to continue to ask the same questions once we get these a-hole to commit to lying about their own B.S. This clown called a judge was obviously and incompetent idiot and what you might have sealed his fate by asking some of your own questions in your script to solidify the conflict of interest in this proceeding. Man calm down a little. Ian didn’t object to any of the evidence or question and the relevance. I still love you guy’s and the more of this material you give us the better we become. I just wanted to come through the monitor and kick the judge and prosecutor’s butts. Non-violence principle okay-okay!

  5. Jeff Evans Says:

    IAN!

    Why didn’t you ask the cop the questions on Mark’s script? Why did you get in to dialogue
    about the evidence instead of getting responsive answers? Why let these dirtbags solidify the B.S. they put forth and have them contradict themselves. One simple follow up would have been with the voter registration. Question the cop on contracts and if the registration form is a contract or agreement. Then ask him how many elements are in a contract. If the cop doesn’t know then presenting a form does not prove residence for the record.

  6. Jeff Evans Says:

    Mutherbucker Judge said to Mark and Ian that the rules of evidence doesn’t apply in his administrative hearing and read some sh#t out of a book( if he was reading at all!) Now he says the bitch can use the transcript against Ian in another case?

  7. Jeff Evans Says:

    Damn Ian Tighten UP!

  8. Bobby Goodwin Says:

    When will everyone learn that none of these law issues relating to jurisdiction matters to these thugs. Stop arguing and use their own rules against them. Here in Arkansas Rule 31.3 of the Rules Of Criminal Procedure clearly state that “an attorney may waive a JURY trial for his client in cases where only a fine is imposed by the court.” Now consider this, you knucklheads, If a jury trial CAN be waived for an an “Infraction” (i.e. a criminal offense where only a fine is imposed, such as speeding, no insurance, etc., that means a jury trial IS available for infractions if it IS NOT WAIVED! Tell the judge you do not waive your right to a jury trial from the onset (first trial). Make them adhere to their own rules. Force them into giving you a jury trial for your speeding ticket. QUESTION. Do you believe they will do such? They would rather dismiss it. Very simple.

  9. Randy Says:

    NonE – :)

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Bobby, thanks for the name calling. Keep in mind most “jurisdictions” do not have jury trials for traffic an minor infractions, California and Arizona are only 2 examples. In those areas where a jury trial is the norm, then I always suggest pushing for the jury.

  11. Bobby Goodwin Says:

    Please forgive me for the name calling. I have watched many of your videos and in my opinion you are one of the sharpest, most knowledgable non-licensed lawyers out there. When I watched the Jul 26, 2013 – Ian Freeman’s DMV Administrative Hearing I was kind of feeling upset that you couldn’t budge the “judge” into following the law, etc. Even as good as you are, people like that judge will not, under any reason, allow a non-licensed attorney to out fox them. It is simply a matter of pride, at the expense of violating their own rules.

    When I mentored under Howard Freeman (Google “Two United States And The Law by Howard Freeman), he always taught that you must first establish a controversy at Law, and demand a judical determination on that law issue before moving to the plea portion of the hearing. All law issues must be settled before moving to the fact issues of a case.

    In the Ian Freeman case I would have set it up as follows (and filed it into the record of the case prior to attending the hearing.)

    “It appears that the prosecutor for the city of _______ has made a conclusion of law that the constitution applies to each and every person charged with violating a law within the city limits of the incorporated city of __?______and that she is not required upon request or demand by the defendant or his councel to present empirial proof that the constitution does, as a fact, apply to any and all defendants who may appear before the administrative judge in the city of ___?___.

    I make a contrary conclusion of law that the constitution does not apply to each and every person etc., etc., etc…

    Now, Marc, there is a controversy at “Lawe” which can only be determined by a judicial judge. If any court moves forward while there is an un-resolved law issue, that is an ERROR on the lower judges part and very appealable. Howard used this very same tactic on a traffic violation in Lusk, Wyoming and took it to the Supreme Court. The Chief justices told him they had never seen such a brief, and asked him if he was looking for case law, or just merely testing a theory? Howard replied “testing a theory”. They told him that he could consider it was win, but if he pressed them for case law, they would rule against him. He ask how they could do such, if he was right, and they told him it was because he used an adjective (one word)in his breif when setting up the controversy. Howard’s brief said “It would be an UNLAWFUL abuse of power to use a Public Police statute as evidence of the law in a crimal action.” He should not have used the word “unlawful”, because that made him act like a judge and therefore make a determination. One of the Chief justices was so impressed that he invited Howard to drop by his chamber (when he wasn’t setting on a case) and they would chat. Howard and the judge became friends and the judge would share information with him. Howard passed away a few years ago. He was the sharpest and most intelligent man I ever met. He knew common law like the back of his hand. You remind me a lot of Howard, with your knowledge in law. Keep up the good work.

  12. Dan Says:

    @Bobby Goodwin, “I have watched many of your videos and in my opinion you are one of the sharpest, most knowledgable non-licensed lawyers out there.”

    Worlds are colliding

    I am fairly sure that if a black robed lawyer, whether in tempe traffic court or the u.s. supreme court, asked Marc if he, Marc, was looking for case law or just testing a theory, Marc might have to say “No, I am looking for facts and evidence and witnesses with personal firsthand knowledge that the constitution, laws, statutes, and codes apply to me or anyone else?”

    Maybe Marc could substantiate my hunch?

  13. Bobby G Says:

    MOCK HEARING:

    JUDGE: “How do you wish to plea today Mr. XXXXX”

    Defendant: “Your honor, I’m not refusing to plea, but before I make any plea, I just have a few questions that I need answered, because when my friend learned that I was appearing in this court they told me that this court didn’t uphold the constitution and that it was operating under some kind of secret jurisdiction. So, just I need to ask you a few questions relating to the nature of this charge against me.

    JUDGE: “Mr. XXXX, I can assure you that this court is not operating under secrecy. This court is operating pursuant to the constitution. Now, what is your question?”

    DEFENDANT: “Thank you your honor. So, this court does recognize the US constitution as being the supreme law of the land?”

    JUDGE: “Yes.”

    DEFENDANT: “So, the court is recognizing the constitution as the supreme law in this action against me. Correct?

    JUDGE: “That is correct.”

    Defendant: Oh, I guess I should ask for the record… is this a criminal action or a civil action?”

    JUDGE” “It’s a criminal action.”

    DEFENDANT: Thank you your honor. Article 3, section 4 of the US constitution authorizes two procedural jurisdictions for criminal actions to be tried under. One is common law and the other is a condition of contract under the criminal aspects of an Admiralty jurisdiction. Can to tell me on the record of this case which procedural jurisdiction this court intends to try this criminal action? Is it Common Law or Admiralty jurisdiction?

    JUDGE: “Mr. XXXXX, this is being tried under a statutory jurisdiction.”

    DEFENDANT: “Your honor, I have never heard of a procedural jurisdiction called statutory jurisdiction, and the constitution doesn’t mention any such jurisdiction, so I presume you mean that you have authority to try statutes, which I am NOT arguing, but I just need to know under which procedural jurisdiction, be it Common Law or Admiralty, does this court intend to try this criminal action which involves a public policy statute?”

    NOTE: Do NOT volunteer to enter a plea until the judge fully informs you of the nature of the charge, because the defense under the common law is different than the defense under Admiralty, and you need to know which one it is in order to properly defend yourself in the criminal action.) The fact is, the court is not trying the criminal action under the common law. Therefore, it has to be tried under Admiralty, OR ELSE… it would be operating under some kind of secret jurisdiction known only to judges and licensed attorneys! Who in their right mind would make a plea to a secret jurisdiction? Hold the judge’s feet to the fire. Don’t make any plea until you are fully informed of the nature of the action.

    If the judge tries to steamroll you, and move forward without answering your jurisdiction question and he offers to enter a plea in your behalf. OBJECT! Tell him that you are appearing “At arms length” (See legal definition) and only you handle your affairs. Ask the judge if he has an affidavit of assignment proving the you gave him power to act as your attorney (only you or your attorney can plead, unless you don’t object to the judge pleading in your behalf).

    DEFENDANT: “Your honor, if you are making a determination that I am not guilty, I will accept that ruling, but I do not accept or consent to you acting as my attorney and entering a plea in my behalf. I have one question your honor.”

    JUDGE: “What is your question?”

    DEFENDANT: “Does pleading perfect jurisdiction?”

    JUDGE: “Yes”

    DEFENDANT: I move this court dismiss all charges against me with prejudice.”

    If the judge is wise, he will dismiss. If not, make a complaint in the nature of a Writ of Error against the judge for violating you garunteed right to be informed of the full nature of the charge, and send your complaint to your state attorney general, his bar association, and the mayor of the city where he is employed as an administrative judge.

  14. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ bobby, this is better for the forum.

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Dan it’s always about the facts. The guys in Tempe are stalling because they think I’m trying to argue or test a theory. I have to keep telling them: I’m investigating you. It’s about the facts and what they tell us.

  16. NonE Says:

    Marc Stevens sed:
    @ bobby, this is better for the forum.
    ————– I agree. Let’s keep these things over here where they belong and not muck up the forum with them! ;-) – NonEventual

  17. Whip Says:

    It’s a Corporate court – laws and constitutions are completely off the table, so too is applicability of laws and constitutions.

  18. James Says:

    I don’t know, having it here makes it a LOT easier than wading through multiple forum layers. Here, it’s timely, focused and easily accessible. Good comments, BTW.

  19. Hunter Says:

    Since this man assumes he has jurisdiction, why hasn’t anyone brought up the fact that the laws in regards to the department of transportation states the definition of driver – someone who drives for hire. If Ian isn’t conducting commerce, he is not liable to the law.

  20. Randy Says:

    @Hunter: Exactly. Look up the word “Transportation” in Blacks Law(Department of Transportation for which the D.M.V. falls under). There’s a guy in CA who recently got Exempt plates for his Mercedes. The pics show his plates and number matching registration. I have never once seen a State e-plated car/pickup pulled over by the cops. It’s like the State exempts itself but not its “citizens”.

  21. RadicalDude Says:

    @Bobby:
    I like the overall idea behind the approach, it seems very similar to the material in the talking frog video on youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa5lBNvaerk

    However, I do take some issues

    1. Why do you want to call the judge “your honor”? Calling him that implies that you consent to him acting as adjudicator.
    2. The way you propose addressing the constitutional issues implies that you accept the constitution as a legitimate, binding legal instrument. Why stipulate to such?

    Sometimes I go to the local court and watch proceedings. Usually in traffic court, the victim(defendant) is called to a podium. The black-robed lawyer usually starts out with something like “Good day sir” or “how are you”?

    Personally I think something like this approach makes sense:

    VILLAIN:Good day sir.
    HERO: Has jurisdiction been alleged?
    VILLAIN: This court has jurisdiction.
    HERO: Objection, non-responsive. Yes or no, has jurisdiction been alleged?

    Usually these traffic tickets don’t even contain a palpable ALLEGATION OF JURISDICTION.
    Just show up at the arraignment and ask if any party to the case has even made an allegation of jurisdiction.
    If the judge tries to assert his OWN jurisdiction, say
    “Point of clarification: Are you engaging in judicial misconduct by prosecuting this from the bench?”

    It is, under the court rules, the responsibility of the moving party to allege jurisdiction. The court is not supposed to just assert its own jurisdiction.

  22. David m Says:

    resident, n. (15c) 1. A person who lives in a particular place. 2. A person who has a home in a particular place. ● In sense 2, a resident is not necessarily either a citizen or a domiciliary. Cf. CITIZEN (1); DOMICILIARY.

    The focus wether Ian is resident or domiciliary is moot. Being a resident does not make you a citizen.

    citizen, n. (14c) 1. A person who, by either birth or naturalization, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to the community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections; a member of the civil state, entitled to all its privileges. Cf. RESIDENT; DOMICILIARY. [Cases: Aliens, Immigration, and Citizenship 652.]

    He is, only through birth or naturalization, a citezen. Since it is impossible to be born within an imaginary entity (state), and there is no evidence Ian has applied for citezenship in any state, it is hard to deduce that he is in fact a citezen. Residence plays no role in determining citizenship.

    I do commend Ian Freeman for standing up. He is doing far better than I had in my first round about with the state. I have learned quite a bit from watching this hearing and am looking forward to updates.

    @mark: you definitely stick to your guns as advertised. Great work and thanks for all you do. I have you to thank for my current level of reality. Also looking forward to obtaining a copy of government indicted.

  23. Bobby G Says:

    RadicalDude. I would address the judge as ‘your honor’ (especially on the record) to establish non-contempt. You offered some very interesting sugestions (asking for alleged juri8sdiction), but i’m sure that isn’t the so-called “silver bullet”. In the Ian Freeman case, I thought Marc’s question was workable, and it should have been, but the judge’s ego wouldn’t let something like law get in the way, and letting a non-licensed attorney clean his clock was just too much for his ego, So, he moved forward with a red face and showing his ass! I believe that every so often a judge will let one of “us” win, maybe out of pity, but I doubt if it’s because they are honest and upright. Think about it.

  24. Arnie Says:

    @ Bobby

    Article III Section 2 discusses jurisdiction. There is no Article III Section 4.

  25. Keith Says:

    The countdown was sooo funny….LMAO

  26. Gary Lee Says:

    Randy, (and others, if it will help : ), what do you do when the GOVCO, in this case California DMV and CHP, take your property illegally (impound) in spite of the fact that contracts with the DMV have been cancelled (by certified, witnessed letters multiple times), property returned (plates, tags and license), and the DMV continues to act as if you have never sent them a single letter?

    I have copied correspondence to the governor, attorney general, director of the DMV and the DMV itself, but the DMV blatantly refuses to remove me from their computer, now claiming to have ‘suspended’ my license and ‘revoked my privilege to drive’, so they have taken my car. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to get my car back (without having to give in to the extortion of license/registration) and get the DMV to remove me from their system? I am just complying with California law, but the STATE (as usual) refuses to follow their own laws…..sound familiar?

  27. Randy Says:

    @Gary: Ever heard of Charles Sprinkle’s case there in CA? I would research that.

  28. RadicalDude Says:

    The California DMV are one of the worst bureaucracies in Murica, I’m thinking about suing them in federal court.
    @Gary:
    I think you might have to file a writ of Replevin/Mandamus in Federal court.

  29. Randy Says:

    @RadicalDude: Excellent idea. (Writ of Mandamus)

  30. Eplo Says:

    where on the website do i find a copy of the letter to the police officer? and the motion to dismiss? have no licence ,insurance case in 10 days thanks

  31. NonE Says:

    Explo – Marc has various motions and stuff for sale in the STORE portion of the website. You will need to pay using the “Donation” button which works thru PayPal and let Marc know what you are buying and where you plan to use it (i.e. what state and what country) I don’t work here, I’m just trying to be helpful. If you can’t figure out what you need then contact Marc directly: marcstevens AT mail DOT com

    – NonE

  32. Gary Lee Says:

    Randy, Radical Dude, I apologize for sounding a little dumb here, but what is a Replevin/Writ of Mandamus, and wh federal court? I have done a lot of research (including Charlie and “Lawyerdude” Doug), but always on the law end of things, i.e., what I need to follow, rather than the court end, which usually comes after GOVCO breaks and violates it’s own laws.

    I woulld love to do a Charlie Sprinkle lawsuit, all the way from the issuing cop to Guv Brown, but I have no idea how to do it, and Charlie and Doug are both gone (both great inspirations, though), and Marc is the only person I have found doing anything even close. I need to find someone really knowledgeable on the court end of things to help with it, though, Suggestions? I don’t know if Marc goes as far as suing STATE DMVs. Thank you!

  33. Randy Says:

    @Gary: From what I understand a Writ of Mandamus orders a public official to perform a duty whether it is to respond or act on your requests through the courts.

    If you want to learn how to file court cases, order Jurisdictionary, it helped me although I still have a lot more to learn. lol

  34. Randy Says:

    @Gary: Have you written letters to your DMV asking them for evidence the code applies to you? (i.e., are you engaged in commercial activity) If they haven’t answered you, then you could file for a Writ of Mandamus and force them to answer.

  35. Gary Lee Says:

    Randy, I have written a dozen letters to George Valverde, DMV Director, copied to Guv Brown, AG Kamala Harris, SoS Debra Bowen, TRAFFIC Commisioner Anthony Wheeldin (COUNTY OF SONOMA TRAFFIC DIV) and DMV.

    Never a response form any of them. I ask for proof that the have jurisdiction, do they have to follow the Constitution (after all, it applies to them, not me)do they have to observe doctrine of Stair Decisis, but they NEVER reply back.

    I have jurisdictionary, but still difficult so far to know what to do next and how to do it. I have all of Charlie’s docs from Doug Papaschaqs website Lawyerdude, but I haven’t been able to wrap my brain around organizing the court end of it yet.

    I think I am in need of a mentor! lol!
    Thank you!

  36. Randy Says:

    @Gary: Yeah, I think in your situation a Writ of Mandamus would be a necessary next step. I have filed two cases recently against my student loan servicer, but I made some mistakes in my complaint so I had to dismiss them. (Still a newbie) They were good learning experiences though.

    You might study the F.R.C.P. (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) which is a good way to learn how to proceed with a lawsuit. Definitely study F.R.E.(Federal Rules of Evidence) too, very important. And your local court rules.

  37. NonE Says:

    Randy, The references you’ve given to Gary sound as though they would be valuable items for inclusion in the Adventures in Legal Land WIKI. http://marcstevensadventuresinlegalland.wikispaces.com/ This WIKI is by all and for all and is intended to be a central repository for all of the helpful materials and ideas that support Marc’s ideas. Your participation would appear to be an asset. – NonE

  38. RadicalDude Says:

    I’ve filed 2 lawsuits in Federal court. One was against the police which resulted in a settlement(if I had it to do over I would probably take it to trial knowing what I know now rather than settle). The other one is still in the preliminaries and it is vs 3 Border Patrol agents. Basically, you come up with the facts that tell the story your case is based on and then you formulate a legal theory that is based on that set of facts. Where was your car parked? Did they take it out of your driveway or did you have it parked in the street or what? I’m also thinking of suing the DMV in california fed court because they put a lein on my car on behalf of a private company(ACS/PRWT).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=palTkrWustY

    I did some investigations which the video links relate to. Interested if anyone has any opinions, videos haven’t gotten many views, I guess they’re kinda boring. I still have the car, it is in storage though (no registration).

  39. RadicalDude Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xaz_XSHPVQ

  40. Randy Says:

    @NonE: Oh okay, I will post it on there, thanks.

  41. Gary Lee Says:

    Radical Dude, obviously you know how to file a lawsuit ( I wish I did) and if CHP doesn’t release my illegally-impounded car today (no reg plates or drivers license), I am going to have to file a suit against DMV, as well as officer, his sargeant, Guv Brown, DMV Director George Valverde, etc in their personal capacities (ala Charlie Sprinkle) for operating outside the authority of their office under color of law.

    can you assist me in writing the suit? I do enormous research on the law itself, but know nothing about the court procedures. I foolishly (what was I thinking???) believed the cops and courts would follow well-established California laws. What a maroon…… ; )

    I have all Charlie’s papers that Doug (lawyerdude) had available whrn he expired, but I am not sure everything Charlie and Doug did is there.

    Randy, Radical Dude, your posts have been a lot of help here. Thank you! Thank you Marc for your continued dedication!

  42. Randy Says:

    @Gary Lee: You are welcome. : )

  43. RadicalDude Says:

    Like I said, start with the facts and the legal theory. The rest is technicalities. Basically what happened, and how did it impact your rights? That is where you start. If you put your email on here I can send the template I used for the captions and stuff on Microsoft word. Look up some complaints written by lawyers to get an idea what a federal complaint looks like. I think actually having a model to learn from helps alot. You can read the FRCP but until you have actually seen a well-written complaint you are kind of guessing what one would actually look like.
    radicalawesomedude@gmail.com

  44. Randy Says:

    @RadicalDude: Yeah, that is what I should have done. Oh well, no harm, no foul. I’ll do better next time.

  45. Gary Lee Says:

    Radical Dude,

    My email is applessence@gmail.com . Can you send me your templates? I don’t know the first thing about filing lawsuits or complaints (I don’t even know where you get the form or format; how pathetic is that?), but it cost me $1400 to get my car out of CHP’s illegal impound today, and I want my money back and my name removed from their system, so I am going after DMV.

    After I write up complaint/lawsuit (whatever it is) can I copy it to you for criticism? I have read several, but I am unsure about which points made will win, and which the POS judge will just throw out, and I am running out of patience for any more extortion BS.

    You guys are doing a great job! I may have to ask Marc for help with this, but it has to, and will be done, either way.

    Thanks to all who take the time to write on Marc’s blog!

  46. RudlyAwoke Says:

    Marc, is correct in his points. The problem with the “law” is that it’s only as valid as it’s understanding. Other words, if the judge chooses to dismiss or ignore the statute, then it will not matter. Whether it’s right or not. It’s like money, it’s only worth something if people believe in its value. It sucks, and it’s not right, but what do you do? Certianly not argue with that judge, because you never will convience them. You’ll only succeed and making them hate you more, and inturn they’ll make you pay whether you’re right or wrong, the judge has made his verdict the second he decided you’ve annoyed him. The real fight is trying to find a way to make the “law” become absolute and not up for inturpetation by the judge. I don’t see how that will ever become the case though. So until then I guess you need to kiss ass and some how get the judge to like you and make the law that you want to enforce, the judges idea. Like you do when you mention that the judge works for the state and there for impossible to get a fair trial. You don’t come out and say that, but you lure him into trapping themselves into discovering that realization.

  47. RadicalDude Says:

    @Gary Lee
    template sent

  48. RadicalDude Says:

    Just, I would start with just typing out the facts and legal theory, don’t worry about getting it formatted to the template till later, first just get your story written out with all the details and then get the legal theory of how it impacted your rights, and what you want the court to do about it. Just my opinion of what makes sense to me.

  49. RadicalDude Says:

    By the way I’m not a lawyer and I don’t give legal advice, it’s just my opinion of what someone could do to assert their rights (for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes).

  50. RadicalDude Says:

    But ya I can have a look at it

  51. dsaint Says:

    @Gary, theres this guy named Rich Iverson that has studied and practiced the same thing you are going through/asking about. His website is http://www.section520.org maybe if you combine his methods, with Marc’s then you can get some success. He did two call also on this subject which can be found here

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=765424&cmd=apop

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=772524&cmd=apop

    I am going through something similar myself. My horseless carriage (car) was booted and impounded. I sat in my car and refused to get out. The impound guy called the police to come and force me out. I called the police too. I reported that I was being threatened buy someone wanting to take my car and force me out of it. The police arrived and asked did I report a car jacking I said yes. Then he went on to say I can’t make false reports and that I can be arrested. there were like 15 cops that came out. I figured I would not just let them take my car without a fight.

    I eventually got out the car after the other cop threatened me. I recorded it all too. I wasn’t as sharp as I wanted to be in my argument to him since it was my first time standing up to those thugs. Yet if felt good doing it. I want to sue the Metropolitan Police Department and the Towing agency, but like you, I don’t know how to do so.

    Reading your posts, I see you know alot more than I do about these things. Can I have a copy of the document that Radical Dude sent you? Maybe you can help me out a bit too. My worry is that since I do have those products from the MVA store that I signed, I have blindly consented to their codes. Even though they have committed fraud. I have a lot to learn.

    Thanks in advance..

  52. Notsure7 Says:

    It is fun to listen to Marc GIVE Jurisdiction on one hand while asking for it on the other.

    He seems so focused on what he assumes is the issue that he ignores what the Judge is saying.

    Do you understand that I can silence/disconnect you if I want? says the Judge..

    Marc does NOT ask him what he means in fact he says he DOES understand.

    SO I ask if he really questions everything or has an idea, which may or may not be true and ignorance, is ignorant of everything else.

    What does the Judge mean by understand?

    I do not understand/comprehend.

    He is there playing the game of asking if he is required to play the game.

    I am her to defend my right to not have to defend anything.

  53. Notsure7 Says:

    He actually quotes their rules in an attempt to make the point that their rules do not apply?

    Oh My!

    Am I the only one who sees this as complete nonsense?

    May all fools please step forward and claim you are not a fool.

  54. shimshams Says:

    man acting as an officer(administrator): “I don’t need evidence I have statutes”

    lol derp!

13 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. CoS – Jul 26, 2013 – Ian Freeman’s DMV Administrative Hearing - Unofficial Network Says:

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

  2. NSP – Aug 17, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Sam – [UPDATED PODCAST] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Using other people’s hearings where they are questioning the evidence as a template to help develop your court procedure more effectively. […]

  3. NSP - Aug 17, 2013 - Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Sam - [UPDATED PODCAST] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Using other people’s hearings where they are questioning the evidence as a template to help develop your court procedure more effectively. […]

  4. NSP - Dec 28, 2013 - Co-hosts: Calvin and JT - [DRAFT VERSION] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Prosecutor Jean Killham relies on the judge to bail her out and do her litigating for her at Ian Freeman’s DMV hearing. […]

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

    […] real court proceedings to build a template for yourself to effectively exercise damage […]

  6. NSP - Mar 29, 2014 - Co-host: JT and Guest: John from MN | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Greg from CO: the system has inherent vulnerabilities <> media-rep needed in the Denver, CO area this coming Monday at 11am [post here on the forum Greg] <> challenging the prosecutor’s evidence that they’re required to produce to meet their burden-of-proof <> the judge says the prosecutor “better” provide evidence of jurisdiction <> and Marc’s assertive objections made during Ian Freeman’s DMV administrative hearing. […]

  7. NSP - Apr 12, 2014 - Co-host: JT - [LRN.fm Broadcast Version] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Michael King’s authoritarian statement; “I don’t need evidence, I have a statute!&… […]

  8. NSP - May 24, 2014 - Co-host: Calvin and Guests: NonEntity & Andreas Antonopoulos | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] The psychopath Michael King snaps at Marc; “I don’t need evidence, I have a statute!” […]

  9. NSP - Jul 26, 2014 - Co-host: JT - [UPDATED: FULL PODCAST] | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] required factual elements of 1) the violation of legal rights, and 2) actual damage <> using Ian Freeman’s administrative DMV hearing as a guide on how to litigate in the lion’s den <> walking through a rather lengthy and […]

  10. NSP - Aug 16, 2014 - [UPDATED: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Ian Freeman’s Administrative DMV hearing as a template on how to deal with hot-head bureaucrats and how to best voice […]

  11. NSP - Aug 23, 2014 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Ted from WA: the judge did not want to rule on the motion to dismiss for a ‘citation for speeding’ hearing <> the judge doubled the fine for challenging the prosecutor’s assertions <> the rubber-stamp company is located across the street from the the courthouse <> scheduling a seminar/workshop in the Seattle area <> filing motions without citing any case law <> losing the element of surprise when filing the paperwork. <> and is there any post-hearing analysis for Ian Freeman’s Administrative DMV hearing? […]

  12. Debunking Dan Evans of Quatloos - Another Invite to Come on Show - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] He never gives the back story and only takes was was reported.  Even when there’s video readily available, such as with Ian Freeman.  Dan Evans deliberately leaves out where King shouted, “I […]

  13. NSP - Sept 6, 2014 - Co-host: Calvin - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Ian Freeman’s DMV Administrative Hearing. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, September 20th 4-7pm EST: Marc will be back broadcasting from deep within the 'fortified compound' for another original LIVE No STATE Project radio show. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can call into the show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. You'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.

Here is a comprehensive list of ways you can interact with the No STATE Project community should you feel compelled to fall even deeper down the rabbit-hole.











Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here