Categorized | Success Stories, Video

Rulon Gets Ticket Dismissed in Texas – Prosecutor Withdraws Again

Posted on November 4th, 2016 by Marc Stevens

Congrats to Rulon in Texas for taking a principled stand against Texas predators and getting charges dismissed.  Rulon filed the motion to dismiss and discovery/Brady request.  Instead of answering the motion and discovery/Brady request, viz., provide the evidence/competent witnesses supporting their claims, the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss:

states-motion-to-dismiss-2

There was no flurry of motions filed, only one and a discovery/Brady request.  Any claims the prosecution was buried and decided to withdraw because Rulon was causing them “too much trouble” are wrong.  All Jessika J. Velasquez (city prosecutor) had to do was provide the evidence proving the constitution and code applied to Rulon because he was physically in Texas, and the witness with personal knowledge of such evidence.

If it’s so easy to prove the constitution applies to Rulon just because he’s physically in Texas, then why didn’t Ms. Velasquez just provide it and the name of her witness?  A paralegal should have been able to, if not, they could call the police officer, who presumably does not have a doctorate degree, and they could have provided the proof.

Unless just having to respond at all is now “too much trouble.”  If that was the case traffic tickets would never get to trial if you file a motion to dismiss.  It’s only too much trouble because the evidence doesn’t exist.

The judge granted the motion and dismissed the charge:

states-motion-to-dismiss-3

I admit that Rulon and I have not spoken with the prosecution and judge, I’m only going based on the circumstantial evidence:

  • the motion and discovery request was filed,
  • the prosecutor filed their own motion to dismiss instead of responding, and;
  • the judge granted it.

If we apply the “but for” test (yes, I know this is used for causation in tort causes), the circumstantial evidence points strongly to it was because of the motion.  Would the prosecutor have moved to dismiss but for Rulon’s challenge to their claims?

We can’t know if the prosecution would have filed the motion to dismiss had Rulon not moved to dismiss for a lack of evidence and asked for the witness with personal knowledge the constitution applied to Rulon because he was physically in Texas.  We only know they chose to dismiss instead of responding to the motion and discovery request.

If all the prosecution has to do is cite their code to “prove” the constitution applied, then they can use a copy and paste template to respond.  The Brady request would also have been very easy to fulfill, just provide the name of the cop who wrote the ticket.

I just see no merit to claims it had nothing to do with the motion.  Imagine the conversation:

Look at this garbage, this guy is asking for proof the constitution applies.  This is an easy conviction that will help me look better as a prosecutor.

Nothing helps our careers like lots of convictions.  So you’re gonna slam this run of the mill anarchist at trial?

No, it’s just way too much trouble to let the judge deny this nonsense, I’m dropping it.

I just don’t buy the claim that prosecutors, who live by getting convictions, who believe their laws apply to everyone, would drop what they think is a slam dunk conviction.  If there were other grounds to dismiss, then why not have a paralegal take a couple of minutes to include them in the motion?

The circumstantial evidence strongly supports the conclusion the prosecution dismissed because of the motion.  Yes, there are other explanations, but they require assumptions and therefore not really as plausible.

Bottom line is Rulon took a principled stand and the predators were not able to steal more from him.  And that is what is really important here.

 

              

19 Comments For This Post

  1. TOM MIXX Says:

    What happened to last weeks show podcast?

  2. Daniel M Furesz Says:

    I just wanted to say that I have received traffic moving violation tickets where the officer writing the ticket wasn’t even a witness to the violation in the Town of River Edge. The best part is when I went to the Prosecutor before court convened and asked to have the Improper Passing ticket dismissed he claimed I had a bad driving record and would not based on my multiple driving while suspended convictions on my NJ drivers abstract. I told the jerk to set the record straight that I had been found guilty yes in a municipal court of law which operated Under Color Of Law and that I appealed those tickets and won my appeal. He called me a liar and says no one ever wins their appeal. So I called his bluff in the mean time the chief of police just happened to be standing next to the prosecutor a real smuck by the way and said to me are you a Veteran. I said listen not only am I a veteran I am a 100% Service Connected Disabled American Decorated Vietnam Combat War Veteran and I am U.S.A.F. Retired and have the Veterans sticker attached to my drivers license. He asked who was the asshole officer who cited you. I said some bimbo named Sanches. He said I told her not to ticket our veterans in trial matters. In the mean time the prosecutor said to me so I guess you are going to want a triat I said unless you dismiss yes. So he marked the paper for trial. By the time I went back into the court room and was called on the calendar the Judge a really cool and nice guy calls my name and says so you want a trial I said yes but your honor before you schedule me I am to be in North Carolina as a material and expert witness to help a friend out of prison who has been wrongfully convicted and spent 15 years behind bars due to the testimony of a lying prosecutor. He said don’t worry about that I want you to understand what I am about to tell you. I am not giving you a return to court date in the near future if you get no news from me or this court please do not call the court wondering when your court date is. Just consider no news is good news do I make myself clear. I said Yes your honor thank you by the way and I walked out of the court with the biggest Cheshire Cat Grin a human could ever have. You can’t make this stuff up. I am Daniel M. Furesz U.S.A.F. Retired W-1 an Air Force of One and will never surrender also I was one of the original flying cowboys in a not too distant war.

  3. NonEntity Says:

    God how I detest when people go around beating their chests and waving their gang colors.

  4. NonEntity Says:

    Tom Mixx sed: “What happened to last week[‘]s show podcast?” Have you contributed to Calvin’s support lately? It could be he died off starvation.

  5. Incredulous Says:

    Perhaps you’d rather they waved their chests and “beat their gang colors”?
    Euphemistically speaking, that is.

  6. Boxer Says:

    @Daniel

    All that is missing is a picture of your wanker to go along with your post.

  7. Martin Says:

    @Boxer

    No issue with your sentiment, however a “wanker” is not a piece of the human anatomy.

  8. NonEntity Says:

    Maybe that’s why it didn’t show up in the post? Now Boxer must do peninse for his post.

  9. TOM MIXX Says:

    Starting you see you are a regular Pennis around here Non.

  10. TOM MIXX Says:

    yes Pennis

  11. TOM MIXX Says:

    ever hear of a “pennis wrinkle”?

  12. TOM MIXX Says:

    Sorry Marc. But when I see a wrinkle I need to expose it as stinky as it may be.

  13. stal janski Says:

    Tom, must you spam this place to?..dont’ you have enough spaming NSP chat?… go get a JOB, and be a productive [penis]member of society..now bitcoin Calvin instead of some shmuck pretending to do some sort of fundme wanabe production. Pull up you big boy pants, and donate to Marcs, Clavins and JT’s cause..

  14. i.n.rem Says:

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160715C49/U.S.%20v.%20FURESZ
    U.S. v. FURESZ
    )
    Criminal Action No. 10-398 (PGS).

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL M. FURESZ, Defendant.

    United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

    July 13, 2016.

  15. i.n.rem Says:

    genius level Litigation here …

    PETER SHERIDAN, District Judge

    Whereas this Court denied Defendant Daniel M. Furesz’s pro se motion for bail (ECF No. 28.), on February 22, 2011; and

    Whereas, the Court inadvertently ordered on February 24, 2011 (ECF No. 35.) that such motion was rendered moot by Mr. Furesz’s entrance of a guilty plea on February 24, 2011;

  16. TOM MIXX Says:

    “stal janski Says:
    November 8th, 2016 at 12:34 pm
    Tom, must you spam this place to?..dont’ you have enough spaming NSP chat?… go get a JOB, and be a productive [penis]member of society..now bitcoin Calvin instead of some shmuck pretending to do some sort of fundme wanabe production”

    here is a response to you Stal.

    “Stal is brutal” “It’s obvious he doesn’t recognize the principle of
    Treat others the way you want to be treated”

    Aint that a kick in the pants?

    Funny how everything I say “scares of newbies” OR is “spamming” OR some other made up ad homonym attacks by the righteous know it all’s..SCREW YOU!

  17. TOM MIXX Says:

    Here is another “scared off newbie”.

    “Ha. Who cares what others think. We know what matters. Thats all that counts”.

    and this one

    “Yep! TOM and I had great conversation the other night”.

    So again SCREW YOU righteous know it all’s.

  18. TOM MIXX Says:

    “Sorry Marc. But when I see a wrinkle I need to expose it as stinky as it may be.
    Stinky wrinkles plural…
    Lookin forward to the next live BIG SHOW. (rock)

  19. dan Says:

    @Tom & Stal, You guys break me up.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST Oct 14 we're live from Living Tea Brewing Co in Oceanside, Calif 302 Wisconsin Ave join is for a blues jam after the show : 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 youtube.com. 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