Categorized | Featured, Success Stories, Video

Corey Gets Dismissal in California – Cop Blows off Summons to Appear

Posted on June 22nd, 2017 by Marc Stevens

Congrats to Corey in California for taking a principled stand against the predators in Blythe, California and getting a dismissal.  Despite a criminal trial set, the police officer who wrote the ticket decided to not show up.  No motion or notice to the court or Corey.

And thanks for Corey for sending me the documentary proof so I could post:






I’m already aware that tickets are dismissed and cops blow off criminal trials for a variety of reasons.  What cannot be reasonably disputed is the cop was incapable of making an actual case and proving jurisdiction against Corey.

This was a criminal proceeding instituted by the cop who just didn’t show.  If Corey did that the judge would charge him with failure to appear and issue a warrant for his arrest.  Good thing there are different rules for the King’s men.

At no time has the cop, despite almost a year to do so, provide any proof of his claims against Corey, that is, facts proving the constitution and code apply to Corey just because he’s physically in California.  This goes to proving jurisdiction, personal and subject matter.

Critics will claim the cop doesn’t have to prove this claim.  Sure, that is true in practice because they’re criminals.  It’s obviously a rigged game when one party (on the same team as the judge) gets to argue without evidence.  Not only that, but have the argument treated as irrefutable, no defense permitted.

If arguing without evidence was not dishonest, then why can’t we do so?  Why is only one side permitted to do so?  Because they are the side with a prison system at their disposal.

If one of the road pirates charges you, fight them tooth and nail, hold them to their burden of proof and expose them as the criminals they are.



14 Comments For This Post

  1. Dave Beaulieu Says:

    Not sure if you’re not getting my emails or if you just ignore them? I was recently screwed by Delavan Township in Wisconsin and fined over $1400.00!

    I understand that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. Is this true, Can it be challenged AFTER found guilty by these criminal courts?

    Please respond.

    Thank you


  2. Andy Says:

    @Dave, If I recall correctly, I think Marc said after a conviction a challenge to jurisdiction can be brought in on the first appeal.

  3. NonEntity Says:

    Also note, Dave, that you can purchase telephone consultation time with Marc in the store section of the site. This might very well be a small price to pay considering your current circumstances and besides, Marc deserves all the support we can give him for all he does. Just something for your consideration.

  4. Andy Says:

    I’ve posted a new thread on the forum — — titled: NSP – Jun 17, 2017 — Marc Stevens debunks Juan Galts legal “reasoning”

  5. Andy Says:

    The above comment is my bad — I posted it to the wrong article. Calvin, if it’s possible, can you delete this and my above post/comment? Please and thank you.

  6. Dave Beaulieu Says:

    I filled out my appeal papers and went to township to deliver them. No clerk. was given the run around by lady behind clerk counter who vehemently told me she did not work for clerks office. She informed me clerk was only available part time. Told me to go to attached police station. Cop refused to take my appeal motion or any money, but sent me to a window where a girl accepted forms, but refused Jury fee. I was then notified that my appeal was denied due to not paying the fee and failure to file within time limitations. I was a full day early!

  7. NonEntity Says:

    Dave, video evidence might be something for you to consider for your next engagement with the sociopaths. If you have a smart phone it probably shoots video.

  8. desertspeaks Says:

    Many people have had judges over rule or deny motions and never explain how and why they came to that decision.. Well this is something EVERYONE should do “if you get a judge that cannot and will not explain themselves!”


    Not requesting a statement of decision (non-jury trials/ie bench trials)
    After a court trial, there are no jury instructions to review to make sure the trial court followed the law, and no special verdict form or special interrogatories to make sure the trial court correctly decided all of the necessary ultimate facts. Instead, if one of the parties makes the proper request, the trial court is required to issue a statement of decision. The statement of decision, which gives the trial court’s reasoning on particular disputed issues, helps the court of appeal determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by the evidence and the law.

    If no statement is requested, the court of appeal will presume the trial court made all of the factual findings necessary to support the judgment for which substantial evidence exists in the record. In other words, the appeal will often be reduced simply to a substantial evidence review. The same holds true where the trial court does issue a statement of decision, but the statement of decision is deficient because it is ambiguous or fails to resolve principal controverted issues. If the appellant fails to specifically and properly object to the deficiencies in the trial court, the defects are waived and it is presumed the trial court made the factual findings necessary to support the judgment.
    One part of preserving the record on appeal in a court trial, therefore, is first to request a statement of decision as to specific issues. If the court issues such a statement, a party claiming deficiencies in the statement must preserve the record by bringing the defects to the trial court’s attention. Also, a tentative decision or memorandum of intended decision by the trial court is not a substitute for a statement of decision unless the trial court expressly deems it to be so. If a trial court refuses to render a statement of decision or refuses to correct a deficient statement of decision, the court’s refusal is reversible error.

  9. NonEntity Says:

    desert, for anyone who might care to pursue this, could you provide a source,a link?

  10. Dave Beaulieu Says:

    Thank you, NonEntity, for responding. I’m pouring over this corrupt systems Jurisdictional arguments endeavoring to ascertain if they mean you can challenge jurisdiction “any time” or “any time during a trial.” I do not want to appeal, nor can I, under THEIR rules, but I’d, nonetheless, like to challenge their authority. I will probably buy some of Marc’s time and pick his brain to see what can be done to put these criminals in their place!

  11. HooliganHoodlum1904 Says:

    desert, you say Statement of Decision. Wouldn’t that also be considered Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, which would be filed in a separate Motion after the first Motion ? And how does the Plaintiff (STATE OF ARIZONA) get away with convening a Grand Jury and have a “witness” testify before 16 people, as to an offense or Statute violation, in which said “witness” was not even present for and is speaking for 2 others officers who were present and labeled “victims” ?

  12. desertspeaks Says:

    @ non,
    2017 California Rules of Court
    Rule 3.1590. Announcement of tentative decision, statement of decision, and judgment

  13. desertspeaks Says:

    @ HooliganHoodlum1904
    I’ll look for a corresponding rule for Az, there should be something similar and as you suggest. Don’t let this stop you or anyone else finding it and posting it for everyone else, before I do!

  14. ahjuma Says:

    Random thought:
    Am I mistaken that hiring a paralegal could be helpful in the proper identification and matching of our intention with it’s attendant paper filing? I’ve yet to find mention of that class of court clerks (autocomplete chose Clergy…synonyms?)
    Can they be persuaded to support common law …with a bit of activism?

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here