Categorized | Success Stories, Video

Two More Tickets Kicked Out in DC

Posted on October 5th, 2016 by Marc Stevens

Congrats to Dale for standing up to the predators in Wash. DC and getting two traffic charges dismissed.  This is three we’re able to post for DC.  Diron’s is here.

This is more direct evidence the motion and what I teach is effective and does get ticket’s dismissed.  Contrary to what critics say, challenging jurisdiction, the claim the constitution applies to you, is the foundation of a very effective defense.  Not being to prove their claim the constitution applies to us, they are not able to prove their rules apply, they cannot prove jurisdiction, cannot prove there is a case or controversy, and cannot prove their rules were violated.

Dale was charged by a predator and forced to participate and defend himself.   The motion to dismiss is based on a lack of evidence proving jurisdiction and a valid cause of action.  As the below document proves, that is why the charges were dismissed.


Are there other explanations?  Could the judge have based his decision on something else the prosecution was lacking?  Yes, but the evidence is clear and we have to speculate or assume another explanation.  Also, traffic courts are run by criminals, they don’t throw tickets out based on a defense not raised.  From the order:

Your request for mail adjudication on the ticket(s) listed above has been reviewed.  Based on your statement and/or evidence or the government’s failure to meet its burden of proof, the ticket was dismissed by a hearing officer.

We argue the prosecution cannot meet their burden of proof, not for the applicability of their magic rules, jurisdiction, not for a valid cause of action, and not for proving wrong doing.  Here, the dismissal was because the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof.

Congrats and thanks to Dale for providing me with documentary proof of the charges being dismissed.  Always fight these criminals, even if you intend on making a deal, challenge the prosecution and get some leverage for a better deal.

If they could prove their magical documents applied to us, then they’d just provide the proof.  They would not argue their rules don’t require evidence or that the evidence is the other people they threw in jail to rot.  They’d just put the evidence on the table.



6 Comments For This Post


    Nice work Dale!For standing up to da man.

  2. Dale Says:

    Thanks Keith…and especially thanks to Marc for providing me with an unbeatable arguing point.
    Next is the IRS who admittedly cannot answer the question, but since they have the whole world afraid of them and a very large “police force” they can continue to operate with impunity.

  3. dan Says:

    Good job Dale, but you’re not really arguing you’re just asking questions. I know it sounds like I may be nit picking. The IRS doesn’t scare me as much as those damn nonentities.

  4. Jake Witmer Says:

    This is beautiful, but sadly, I believe it is not enough to topple the current corrupt system. (At least, however, it shows that there is, among some Americans, a conception of what was once called “Americanism” or “American spirit” …terms now rarely used quasi-synonymously with “individualism” or “individual spirit.”)

    Taking into account the totality of the fraudulently “capitalist” (crony capitalist; protectionist) system we currently have, I believe that philosophical grounding far beyond Konkinism is necessary. I strongly believe that the illegitimate portions of the current system can, and should be, separated from the portions of the system that a majority of voters believe to be legitimate and defensible to their core. Why do I strongly believe this? Because I have seen how ineffectual appeals to anarchism are, and how effective appeals to “proper common law” are.

    Taken to its most basic it is Bastiat’s conception of the law: that the law only properly collectivizes that which an individual has the right to do; the law only collectivizes defensive force. In all areas beyond this, the state (and all its enforcers, interpreters, apologists, bureaucrats, and messengers) are illegitimate. If they only act in areas beyond their legitimate domain, then their jobs and even their lives can be said to be “illegitimate.” This view of reality can bear great fruit, if it is rationally pursued.

    But what about the legitimate portions/pursuits of the state? When the state punishes a Bittaker and Norris, or Ted Bundy, or even a Bernie Madoff, is it acting in a legitimate manner? I (and millions of other Americans) believe it is.

    Those portions of the system, and of the state itself, are small (especially in comparison to the rest of the State), but they do exist. No less an anarchist than Doug Casey has said he “could live with a Night Watchman State.” …Doug rapidly parted company with “anarchists” who were “so anti-state” that they opposed jury nullification of law (to the extent that they said that those whose spirits were merciful or “justice-favoring” should get themselves removed from juries during voir dire, and thus eliminate any chance of justice from the coming trial. Why did Doug disagree with these anarchists? Because he favors the actual outcome of justice above labels of the systems that produce those outcomes. Doug saw that the outcome of jury nullification of law was so benevolent (setting innocent people free from unjust state punishments) that an analogous institution to randomly-selected jury trials would need to be set up in an anarchist society.

    The same is true of the portions of the common law that the state uses to punish actual wrongdoing. (And yes, those too have been corrupted by an overall-corrupted system that has taken on sociopathic “priorities.” And yes, most “anarchist” criticisms of the state are legitimate, to the point that, _if_it_were_possible_ it would be worth destroying the whole state to get rid of the worst portions of it. But that doesn’t change the fact that most people disagree with dissolving the state, in its entirety.)

    Fredrick Douglass’s defense of the Constitution (and, by extension, the common law) and Lysander Spooner’s “The Unconstitutionality of Slavery” are as good and benevolent tools of propaganda as they were when they were released, and anarchist views to the contrary are seen as being just as illegitimate as when Spooner and Douglass were alive.

    Thoreau’s view in “Resistance to Civil Government” remains the most correct, with the exception of Spooner’s “Essay on the Trial by Jury,” which is purely optimal, and purely benevolent. The two essays are easily reconciled, and mutually-inclusive of one another.

    There’s no way to turn a feedback loop at the level of individual conscience into something bad.

  5. NonEntity Says:

    Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

  6. NonEntity Says:

    Jake, Instead of caressing the word “topple” you might consider embracing “supersede.”

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