Categorized | Success Stories, Video

Motion Granted Again – Dismissal With Prejudice

Posted on January 26th, 2017 by Marc Stevens

A big congrats to Gadsen Viper for not backing down, even after a sham trial, and getting a dismissal with prejudice.  And thanks for not only sending me the documentary proof, but calling into the show to report what happened.  This is a principled stand against criminals the critics just cannot appreciate.  Hear is report about what happened here.

As he reported on the show, there was a trial where no evidence of jurisdiction and an element of the charge was presented.  There was also no witness with personal knowledge the constitution and code applied just because they were physically in West Virginia.

After the judgment of guilty, they filed a motion to dismiss/vacate on grounds there was no evidence proving jurisdiction and an essential element of the charge.  You can’t prove a rule was violated if you have no evidence it applies in the first place.  You have to wonder about those who claim they don’t have to prove the rules apply, it goes like this:

Standard of proof the rule applies: Because we said so.

Standard of proof rule was violated: Beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence and competent witnesses subject to cross-examination.

Yeah, that looks legit doesn’t it?  Keep mind that both are elements of the charge, essential elements.  Looks like a standard logical fallacy the critics love, the ol’ double standard, or special pleading.

Contrary to what a few critics claim, the motion has been granted many times, this is just additional proof for them to deny.  Not only was the motion granted, it dismissed the charges with prejudice.  That’s two significant points; it was after a sham trial and it’s with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought back, it’s a decision on the merits.  The prosecution did not have evidence to prove jurisdiction (and an essential element of charge) and cannot bring the same charge against them, it’s now res judicata.

A few will claim granting the motion does not mean the judge agreed with the motion.  Go ahead, laugh, I’m not making that up, it’s been publicly stated many times, even by critics claiming to be prosecutors, several are confirmed to be attorneys.  I think it’s best to go based on the evidence and not speculate like my critics have to do.

While some will still lie claiming the motion has never been granted, the more sophisticated critics will marginalize it with the usual:

Everything the critics say is just to avoid having to be honest and admit there’s merit to my work.  But this dismissal is significant because one of the most common criticisms is that we get so many dismissals only because we cause “too much trouble” so they just kick the ticket out.  This was after a pretended “trial”.  There was no obligation for the prosecution to respond and all the judge had to do was tell a clerk to mark it DENIED.  Just a one word response.  That is “too much trouble”?

There are also the critics, knowing there is undeniable evidence the motion has been granted, have to desperately try to discredit my work by lying:

Again, not true as the evidence proves; there have been drug charges dismissed and many tax assessments.

But what these false claims do is allow the critics to avoid the fact they cannot prove the rules they revere so much actually apply to us.  That is why they have to lie or try to marginalize the proof.

I’m not saying critics should be ignored and I don’t ban them, I’m not afraid of criticism.  I just hope people will look at the claims being made and see what is most likely because of the evidence.  What’s important is, what does the evidence say?

An honest look at the evidence shows the motion has been granted, it was granted with prejudice and after a trial.  Without speculation, the judge agreed the prosecution failed to meet their burden.  It’s not because we’re causing “too much trouble”, it’s not because the judge is angry at the prosecution, it’s because the prosecution has failed to meet their burden of proof.

If you disagree, then provide the evidence, not excuses, not logical fallacies, not argument, provide actual evidence that proves a written instrument from 1787 applies to me today just because I’m physically in the United States.  Where is the proof there are states?  Where is the evidence proving there are reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection?  And no, claiming I’m an idiot because no evidence is necessary is not proof.  That is just a proof by assertion fallacy typically followed by a fallacious appeal to authority and tradition; as well as lying the “people” consented.



26 Comments For This Post

  1. Ed Says:

    Nice Marc!.
    Does it screw things up if the judge at arraignment asks the defendant if he or she is a citizen and the defendant says yes?

  2. Marc Stevens Says:

    Typically answering any questions is bad. If one asks if you are a so-called “citizen” you should object and ask if the prosecution has presented such evidence.

  3. Boxer Says:


    This is where they want you to take on the burden of proof for them. The assumption being you pretend to know what a citizen is. Ask them every step of the way what their words mean.

    “What, factually, is a citizen?”

  4. TOM MIXX Says:

    “Typically answering any questions is bad”.
    Keep in mind we are NOT here to testify…almost ANY time you are asked a question , Objection I am NOT here to testify at this time….USE IT..stop being afraid .

  5. TOM MIXX Says:

    What would you say if the judge asks you after you have challenged “jurisdiction” “what do YOU man by jurisdiction sir”?

  6. TOM MIXX Says:

    “Objection I am NOT here to testify at this time” I am here to get clarification to what the persecutor is claiming.

  7. TOM MIXX Says:

    and with NO hesitation lead right into a question…BAM and what would that question be?

  8. TOM MIXX Says:

    22 min in and a suicide by a fuckin pussy attacked by the IRS…no sympathy.

  9. TOM MIXX Says:

    I cant wait…suicide aint on the plate..I look forward to my “Sophie tittle”

  10. TOM MIXX Says:


  11. TOM MIXX Says:

    The persecutor, judge acknowledging that they are indeed robbing me as a common criminal. I will give them every op to digress and retreat. Suicide IS NOT an option.

  12. TOM MIXX Says:
    just in case yer new and don’t know whom “Sophie” is. I cant wait to meet her in hell.

  13. TOM MIXX Says:

    42:50 plus I have never said your complaint will be thrown out or you will go to jail for contempt” that is true you have never said that but yer NSP 101 crew thrives on it…”fight or go to jail” SEEMS to be their motto ..shit they even banned Vin James for objecting.. I thought Vin was yer right hand man in the UK? please explain…is “damage control” NOT the goal any mo?

  14. EdD Says:

    Marc, if one claims to not be a citizen, that there are no states or government, and that the constitution and codes don’t apply then how can such a person claim any of the protections, privileges and immunities afforded citizens under the constitution and laws of the states and United States? What is the condition of a person who asserts such a claim?

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    An anarchist probably. Such condition means we don’t seek out such “protections” and only use the system when all other remedies have been denied to us.

  16. RNC216 Says:

    How do you challenge jurisdiction if you are the defendant and the burden is on defendant to prove? Is point out the defects that void a judgment good enough or is there a Marc steven’s method of doing this? I know how to do it when the burden is on the GOV, but since I petitioned the court I’m the one that has the burden to prove it. Any tips will be appreciated!

  17. Marc Stevens Says:

    Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. If you petition the court as plaintiff you have no standing to challenge jurisdiction. If you need to prove it, then that is a problem. You should call the show about this.

  18. EdD Says:

    Thanks for your reply, Marc. I agree with you that such a person would be an anarchist. As to the constitutional protections applying to the anarchist, I believe that such protections are afforded by Supreme Court decisions as entitlements to non citizens, as well as to those who claim citizenship. So, in the case where an anarchist is brought into court at the point of a gun, all of the same protections that are afforded citizens must be afforded non citizens in criminal cases…including the prosecutor’s burden to prove every element of the charge.

  19. Pete Says:

    Marc: regarding your answer to RNC216 that burden of proof is on accuser, have you ever considered initiating a fake “pro wrestling” type trial in a local court as plaintiff? For example, you could sue Calvin in civil court for some breach of contract. During the trial, defendant Calvin could demand that you show evidence that any laws apply to him. At some point the judge would have to jump in and take your side, even if you agree with Calvin that there is no evidence.

    Not sure it would accomplish much, but it would make great courtroom comedy, and a funny youtube video!

  20. NonEntity Says:

    Sue Calvin! Sue Calvin! Sue Calvin! (Come on people, join in…) Sue Calvin! Sue Calvin! Sue Calvin!

  21. RNC216 Says:

    The judge denied my motion to vacate the other day despite having State and federal case law even from the Supreme court regarding lack of subject matter because of the defects in the complaint making it void. When asked for the facts findings and conclusion he just said it’s so ordered and ran off the bench. LO L ”It’s so ordered” is what he wrote on the journal entry also. When I brought up jurisdictional defects in the complaint and asked does the prosecution have evidence that jurisdiction was properly before the court besides her allegations she just said I was informed of the charges and that I did not appeal within 30 days and demanded the judge to deny my motion. Now I am appealing into the 11th circuit court which I know it will be reversed and is what I wanted anyway.

    Their fraud has been exposed and the judge kept smirking every time I brought up jurisdiction and allowed the prosecutor to answer though she indirectly answered by talking about pleas or untimely appeals. They conspired together and did not want me to make the record and they rushed the hearing though I was able to get the most important thing on record if they haven’t edited the damn thing. lol A void judgment is always a void judgment, the municipal courts are inferior for a reason. This is a judgment made against me for traffic i plead no contest to before I found out about Marc Stevens.

  22. RNC216 Says:

    What is the number to the show? I never see you put it out there.

  23. spooky2th Says:

    All phone numbers and contact info is on the right side of the web site’s page. Look in the “Upcoming Events” section.

  24. Steve Says:

    Dear Marc,

    your work is so well appreciated here in the UK, we are having huge success here at not only with traffic tickets (PCN) but also all motoring so called offences, even with speeding points removed from licences using the socratic methods employed by you, carry on the good work.


  25. juan galt Says:

    Just got copies of the Motion to Strike/Dismiss in the case of Ms. Leeson referenced above. NOWHERE in her Motion is jurisdiction challenged OR is it stated that the laws don’t apply to her. Nor was there any assertion of a Rule 602 violation. The Motion was granted due to an error of an assistant to the Magistrate – NOT anything Marc claims. No wonder he never shows the reasons behind dismissals on his “success” pages.

    Juan “the only practicing anarchist in this thread” Galt

  26. ahjuma Says:

    Just a quick thought:
    If it’s so blithely assumed that the Constitution and codes apply, why the formality of swearing an oath to uphold them (expressly by those who see fit to flagrantly violate that oath)?

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