Categorized | Success Stories, Video

Joe Gets Drug Charge Kicked Out – Prosecution Could Not Prove Jurisdiction

Posted on August 12th, 2016 by Marc Stevens

Another big congrats to Joe in Hawaii for standing up to the predators in Hawaii and getting drug charges dismissed.  And thanks for sending me the documentary proof.  Joe was on the No State Project and reported what happened in detail.

This is more proof that the few critics of my work are dead wrong.  The claims I’ve never helped get anything more than a traffic ticket kicked out are just as baseless as the claim the “laws” apply to us.  Funny how critics dismiss my evidence while holding they don’t need evidence to support their claims.  “What wonderful magic.”

There are still people claiming I’ve never helped get anything dismissed, but those people are not relevant as anyone with a rational mind can see that is false.  Nonetheless, below is more proof.










Joe filed the motion to dismiss and discovery request he got from me.  Contrary to what a few critics claim, the basis of the motion has been spoken about in detail on practically every live broadcast of the No State Project.  The motion is based on the prosecution’s lack of evidence to support their claim the constitution and laws apply just because you’re physically in Hawaii, or wherever.  This is the basis of their jurisdictional claims, which they bear the burden of proof.

We also file a discovery/Brady request asking for proof of their claim and the names of the witnesses with personal knowledge of that proof.  We include requests for information that can be used to impeach the prosecution’s case and witness.

No such evidence exists, so the prosecution must either do the right thing and withdraw the complaint, or move forward hoping his fellow prosecutor in the black robe lets him get away with misconduct and serious ethical violations (usually Rule 3.1 of the attorney ethics rules).  Prosecutorial misconduct is an ingrained part of the court system, some judges have actually publicly spoken about it, saying it is an “epidemic”, wow:

There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land.  And only judges can put a stop to it.  United States v. Olsen.

And some will still claim you can get a fair trial?  A fair trial when there is “an epidemic of Brady violations” and that doesn’t include how common it is for police to lie?  That’s some hardcore denial or arrogance going on there.

Some make the irrational claim that the applicability of the constitution and laws is not an issue of evidence, that such rules have a magical quality and apply because people say so.  They claim their special rules apply because they say so, that those who challenge this are deemed to be idiots worthy of nothing but ridicule.  The real extremists have ordered psychological evaluations for those who dare question this religious dogma.

But, what’s not mentioned is this is an accusation, an accusation that forms the basis of jurisdiction and the only thing that (in their eyes) separates them from common criminals.  Without the sanction of their rules, forcing people to give you money is a crime.  They believe they can prove you violated their rules without having to prove they apply.  This is why they use coercion, guns and prisons.  Because they are criminals.

The critics will claim, again with absolute certainty they are right, that the only possible reason these charges were thrown out was because Joe was “too much trouble”.  Really, no other explanation, consistent with the available evidence could be possible?  It’s amazing how people with no evidence are so certain they are right.  Zealots, especially criminals, will not allow for any other explanation regardless of the facts.

So just making their job difficult is better than hiring an attorney?  You just have to cause them trouble?  I wish that were true, we could put a lot of lawyers out of work.

What trouble though?  It’s really too much trouble to hold the prosecution to their burden of proof and have the judge presume innocence until they do?  So doing their alleged job, by providing due process and fair hearing is just too much trouble?  Does that really sound like the only explanation to you?  Given the fact that judges have explicitly granted the motion to dismiss, this speculation can be dismissed.

The critics have to speculate, refuse to consider an alternative, and ignore the circumstantial evidence to maintain their position.  All I need to do is present the evidence, rational people can then make their own minds up.

[Sorry the video is in two parts, we can thank Jennifer Rubin, the liar from DC for the hit to my channel.]


17 Comments For This Post

  1. Boxer Says:

    Good job, Marc! I am concerned that they dismissed without prejudice. Any particular reason why? Have you seen anything like this brought back to court?

  2. desertspeaks Says:

    um video links not working..

  3. CourtsCopsCRiminals Says:

    Nice job! This makes me want to light one up in celebration! lol

    I doubt the courts will waste their time and tax payers money or embarrass themselves anymore then they have already. It’s rather obvious they can’t prove jurisdiction or they wouldn’t have dismissed it in the first place!

    Looks like they did not have enough evidence to prosecute and they will NOT have enough evidence should they try and prosecute again……..

  4. Randall Says:

    NICE and CONGRATS! 😀

  5. Jake Witmer Says:

    Why have the Northern and Southern borders of the USA on your opening animation after the “No State Project” stamp hits? Shouldn’t that cause the borders to instantly vanish, revealing the land mass covered by “Mexico” and “Canada”?

    The No State Project shouldn’t recognize any state boundaries. When the stamp of “No State Project” comes in and hits, it should suddenly just be the entire geography of North America (with Mexico and Canada as well, no borders, just land and bodies of water). Ideally, in full color photo form, the way the Earth really appears, from space.

    I guess it’s OK the way it is, with the US fed-gov map falling down, but I think the way I imagine it is more in keeping with “No States.” After all, the Earth will still be there when we scrub this sociopathic surface infection away, like so many flesh-eating bacteria colonies from a petri dish.

    I’d also like to point out that governance is not inherently bad; only anti-enlightenment, collectivism is bad. Proper elections and proper jury trials are a benevolent form of damage control. Of course, they don’t exist now, but they could exist. True constitutionalism is simply a redirect to common law jury trials. This is why I don’t fight with constitutionalists, even though their views are often hide-bound, and don’t map to the reality that currently exists.

    Also: You should read and/or recommend the book “Daemon” by Daniel Suarez.

    It’s as important as “Atlas Shrugged” and “Unintended Consequences,” etc.

  6. Jake Witmer Says:

    Also, I believe I lack your current cell number. Please call mine if you still have it. I have an update for you.

  7. Jake Witmer Says:

    Subjects: Coercing “Plea Bargains” With Cruel and Unusual Punishments; Who Cares What the Founders Would Have Thought? The False “Anarchy v. Minarchy” Debate Rephrased as the “Radical Enough To Provide Real Change v. Insufficiently Radical” Debate.

    A plea bargain or “deal” is not a deal at all. It’s a man offering you the “deal” of not killing you, but instead, just breaking your leg. Nobody is ever better off after a plea bargain than they would have been had all agents of the state taken a cyanide pill the night before the plea bargain was offered.

    FWIW: The Founding Fathers considered all punishments not fitting the crime to be “cruel and unusual.” Because vices are not crimes (they lack a valid “corpus delicti” with “injury to a specific individual” and “intent to injure the same specific individual”), there is no punishment that fits them. Therefore, if a prosecutor tries to fine you a nickel for selling 50 pounds of marijuana, that punishment is “cruel and unusual,” because there is no “body of the crime.”

    The jury is supposed to find the two elements of the crime, for every “guilty” verdict.

    Because the courts no longer require this, they cannot be considered to be providing a limited government.

    If they did provide a proper jury trial (no licensing of lawyers, no “voir dire,” no illegitimate “jury instructions,” no silencing of defense speech, no threats of cruel and unusual punishments[stick] combined with illegitimate plea bargains[carrot], no government school poisoning of the jury toward Milgram’s obedience to false authority) then the resulting government would trend, long-term, toward proper, legitimate minarchy, or proper legitimate anarchy.

    For the prior reasons, the “anarchy v minarchy” argument is stupid, and encourages libertarians to be lazier(participate less) and therefore weaker than they otherwise would be.

    Political technology is a real thing. Therefore, political relinquishment is an option. It’s a bad option, which leads to less freedom.

    Conclusion: Libertarians who are serious about freedom should do everything possible to restore individual freedom via the existing available pathways, even if they mistakenly believe (as Larken Rose does) that it “legitimizes government.” (Voting against a slave master for a more lenient one is a feedback loop. Feedback loops, replete with their incremental corrections, motions toward a goal, or “improvements” are the strongest principle in systems engineering. To not use such incremental feedback loops is to forever favor a binary “all or nothing” decision that repeatedly returns “nothing.”

    Let’s stop choosing “all or nothing(nothing)” and try for “let’s try to blacken one eye of the tyrant, in this fight, before we try to kill him.”

    Moreover: I don’t advocate curtailing any action Stevens suggests. On the contrary, I want to increase the activity level of all the things Stevens suggests. I also want to add to it, such that it finances itself with the tools currently used to finance inept “libertarian” participation in electoral politics.

    Said a different way: There is nothing immoral about voting for a voluntaryist candidate. There is nothing immoral about voting for the lesser of multiple evils, so long as there is some clear good element to that “lesser.” For example: Gary Johnson is clearly better than the two alternatives, if only because a high vote total would grant automatic (and possibly recurring) ballot access for down-ticket Libertarian candidates. Additionally, those working for Gary Johnson are amenable to handing out on their business cards, as I do, and helping dramatically more people than voting for any of the current candidates.

    …And I say this with still printed on those business cards(in addition to, since they were printed before the LP 2016 Orlando convention.

    And, of course, the candidates for State Legislature and Sheriff can do real good by nullifying federal and state laws in their jurisdictions and serving as “expert witnesses” on behalf of defendants to assist in obtaining jury nullifications of law.

    So, there you have it. A more complete strategic approach to expanding freedom in the USSA.

  8. Joe Henry Says:

    Link to video(s)

  9. robert Says:

    i need help in distribution case on Sep 1st that involved an undercover buy. they kicked in my door and found stuff. I just bought the legal land book but dont believe i will have time to read enough of it before Sep. 1st due to work and kids.if anyone could help it will be greatly appreciated.

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ robert, you should set up a phone consult

  11. NonEntity Says:


  12. i.n.rem Says:

    Grammer Nazi is missing a Quotation Mark ..!!

  13. Sarek Says:

    Dismissed without prejudice basically means they’ll pick the case up again at a later date, IF THEY CHOOSE TO.

  14. Nicholas Mackie Says:

    Hi , I just purchased legal land and governments indicted and am reading now ,
    I have a charge in Australia for Growing cannabis and had some waste rubbish in my freezer that they are claiming is 4 kilos of sellable!,
    after hiring a top lawyer he just folded in the end and did nothing but recommend i pleade guilty !
    I am now up in district court on my own and have been threatened by Judges because I dont want to pay 30k for a court prostitute,

    Can you help me in aus is it worth me booking a call ?

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    Happy to help out mate.

  16. Barbara of Grass valley ca Says:

    I was going to a town 40miles away to bail out a friend, I was lost took an exit to stop and get directions. Got back on freeway when sherrif got behind me with his brights on, I couldn’t see so I took the first right to let her go by. He followed me so I pulled over got out of car and walked to his car to ask for directions. I got to the front of his car and said I need directions, he told me to get back in my car then turned his lights on. I went back to my car and came over and sked me for license,reg,and insurance. Then another cop showed up they walked to the back of his car opened the trunk and we’re talking. Then the second cop came over and ask me for a different proof of insurance, told him I didn’t have one. The first cop came over and said he was giving me a ticket for no insurance and no reg. had me sign it then asked me to get out of car I was under arrest for driving on a suspended, cuffed me and put me in cop car. He then got in the car and asked me if he partner could park my car so it didn’t get towed. I said Ok, my purse was dumped out on the passenger seat. The cop put the stuff on the seat into the purse locked my car and gave my purse to the first cop on the passenger side (away from my view) of my car. He walked around my car with my purse,then got in his car and took me to jail. When I got to jail he took me to a stool out side of the jail and had me sit down. He went back to his car got my purse and gave it to a lady cop standing at a table.she started taking things out of my purse, she pulled out a crumpled piece of paper that had a white powder in it. She called the cop back over and he acted excited ran to his car saying I get to play with my chemistry set. He tested the powder and said it was coke. But it wasn’t mine. Then they charged me with bringing drugs into the jail. I took care of the ticket and went to one court appearance and they appointed the public defender. My car broke down and I missed court the judge put a warrant out for me and I’m going to go get put back on calendar, my question is if I challenge standing and jurisdiction, will I still have a long road to o go and do you think I can defend myself ?

  17. Marc Stevens Says:

    You can still defend against that.

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