Are traffic court’s scams run by criminals or are they about administering justice? It’s time to do a formal study, gather evidence and see what the facts tell us. This is for everyone, especially skeptics. For long time listeners, it’ll be more evidence to confirm what we already know. For skeptics and critics, it’s just more evidence they can continue to blissfully ignore.
What I’m looking to do is have people from all over the United States, Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand, get a parking ticket and then go to court to get it kicked out. I’ve picked parking tickets because no violence should be involved, I don’t want any confrontations with police. The same principals apply in a parking ticket as other more serious traffic offenses. We can prove the same thing without risking death on the side of the street.
Just leave your car deliberately in a no parking zone, then come back and get the ticket off the window. I want to track each proceeding and compare the results and use them as further proof traffic courts are scams and the criminals are the ones running them.
When we have enough people who want to participate (I’d like at least 20), we’ll pick a week for everyone to get a ticket. I’ll post them here on marcstevens.net and then start tracking relevant items. I’ll also help by providing a motion to dismiss template and a motion for more definite statement, because we don’t know what type of civil proceeding it is, contract or tort. So far I’ve never gotten an answer to this. We’ll be discussing individual proceedings on the radio show; those participating may call into the show with updates and questions. At least once a week we’ll also be engaging in role-playing sessions online to help prepare everyone for court.
After we get the tickets, we start the process by filing the two motions. As shown in my standing cross reference, courts are limited to only cases and a case always requires an injury to be pled. An injury is the violation of a legal right and must be pled or there is no case and courts have no subject matter jurisdiction. You can do a simple search on the interwebs for “injuria et damnum” to further confirm. This makes sense as the American, Australian, Canadian, English and New Zealand courts are adversarial systems.
Parking tickets, same as other traffic tickets, drug and tax charges, contain no allegations of injury; no allegations the plaintiff’s legal rights have been violated. i.e., no actual wrong. No violation of a legal right, there’s no case and therefore, no subject matter jurisdiction. We’ll be tracking how each judge decides. This is the primary evidence against them.
As a member of the media, I’ll also contact each judge, prosecutor (if there is one) and the ticketing agent. Though they usually never speak to the media, I’ll offer each one an opportunity to explain and support their decisions.
We’re testing both the sacredness of the law and the adherence to it by those claiming to be judges. My position is: the evidence proves beyond doubt traffic courts, like all governments, are violent scams. As I’ve said before, whether a traffic judge grants or denies the motion, they’re proving traffic courts are scams run by criminals. The compulsory support (taxation) is evidence governments are criminals.
By granting the motion, the judge is agreeing there must be a case and then has to explain why he does not throw out every other complaint that doesn’t present a case. If he denies the motion, he’s proving the written law (PR) is meaningless to him and he’s got no problem proceeding without jurisdiction.
We’ll be tracking what percentage of the ticketing agents show up: about seventy-five percent of the time the motion is filed, the ticketing agent doesn’t show up for trial. Despite this, they have been reported as being in the court for other trials. We’re going to make sure we get copies of the docket from the court to prove the cop was there. This is strong circumstantial evidence the cop is avoiding trial with us because of the issues raised in the motion.
For the proceedings where the ticketing agent shows up, we’ll be able to track the number of times the agent is declared incompetent, cross-examination is then stopped and the defendant is denied a defense. This usually happens every time. It’s easy to predict how these black robed crooks will respond, whether in Phoenix, Toronto or Brisbane. We get the judge to declare the witness incompetent by asking only two questions. The judge has probably denied the motion already insisting there is a valid cause of action; so these are particularly relevant questions to ask:
- Did you file a valid cause of action against me?
- How many elements in a valid cause of action?
Once declared incompetent, we move to have his legal opinions stricken from the record (the ticketing agent wrote the complaint containing legal opinions). This usually enrages judges and they will predictably stop the trial. They’re just too arrogant to realize this has all been planned. There’s no more cross-examination and the defendant is denied the opportunity to put on a defense. Remember, both parties are supposed to put on a “case” before a decision is made.
It’s going to be real interesting to see judges declare witnesses incompetent and take the testimony anyway and that it crosses imaginary international lines. Of course judges are welcome, as well as their apologists, to come on my radio show, the No State Project, and dispute the evidence publicly.
By showing how consistent the predicted results are (throughout the US, Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand), it’ll be more evidence of the deliberate criminal nature, that it’s not just a few bad apples who refuse to comply with the “law”.
And if anyone thinks this is not a big deal, keep in mind traffic courts are a multi-billion dollar racket and the principals of jurisdiction, fair trial and cross-examination are the same as with more serious offenses.
Whether you love or just can’t stand traffic courts, this is a chance to get your hands dirty and participate. If you think courts are administering justice, this is a great , low-risk opportunity to see first-hand that courts, as part of a much larger scam, are not what they what you to think they are.
To participate, you don’t even need to get a parking ticket; you can be a media rep for the No State Project. You can attend the hearing with the one who got the ticket and report what happens on the show.
I will also inform each judge they are the subject of a global study being done on judicial misconduct and that a participant in the study has a traffic ticket filed into his court. We won’t tell them who it is though. Should help make it more interesting, especially when a media rep announces his presence to a bailiff on the day of trial. We may also be able to convince a few of the judges to permit recordings.
Are traffic courts violent scams run by criminals? Get a parking ticket with us and find out for yourself. Nothing teaches us like personal experience.
August 27th, 2011 at 10:30 am
I’M IN!! I can get a parking ticket easily but I’m not even sure if they go to court around here…? I’m in British Columbia, Canada.
Here’s one for you, Mark. I was pulled over about 2 weeks ago by a cop who issued me a Vehicle Inspection Notice because my tail light was out and because my turn signals didn’t meet DOT requirements. So no trial, just a $200 bill from a local shop for paperwork that had to be completed so I can renew my insurance. What can you do about that?
August 27th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
The standing argument is not going to work because in the case of parking violations there is standing. In fact, standing appears more clear in parking violations than in most other instances.
The problem is that standing does not require a physical injury, it only requires violation of a legal interest. As you are probably well aware, a legal interest may be created by law. For example, if a corporation began polluting a lake, it would be difficult to sue the corporation unless you could show some kind of interest in the lake, like an ownership interest in the lake or perhaps frequent use of the lake for drinking water. However, if a law was passed that stated any individual may file a suit to prevent a corporation from polluting lakes, a legal interest would be created, allowing all of us to sue the corporation if we desired. A law was passed that essentially stated we all have standing to sue in this particular instance.
In the case of parking violations, the right to regulate parking is almost always given to Cities by State law. State law also provides the Cities with the ability to prosecute violations of regulatory laws. Any law that gives a city or state the authority to regulate and prosecute violations will also be giving that city or state standing to sue in court.
If there is a law that states the city or state may regulate parking and prosecute parking violations, then standing will clearly be present.
August 27th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Actually skinny, the “law” gives them grounds for a “hearing”. Then they have to prove standing to complain. The lake scenario would be covered under a tort claim very clearly. We don’t need all the stupid laws to protect our “rights”.
August 27th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Actually the lake scenario would not be covered clearly by tort law. Tort law generally only relates to physical loss or injury to your body or your property. Unless you actually own the lake, you probably wouldn’t have standing to sue for a tort.
Regardless, any law that gives a state or city the ability to regulate parking will also provide the standing to sue, so proving this in court would be fairly simple. Marc’s own standing cross reference page clearly indicates that the injury requirement can be satisfied if there is a violation of a legal interest. When a law gives a state or city the ability to regulate parking, it also creates a legal interest. Parking where you’re not supposed to violates that interest, which results in valid standing to prosecute.
I understand your view about superfluous laws and I agree for the most part, but that’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m making is simply that if Marc wants to try to play by the courts own “standing” rules in order to show the court is contradicting itself, he’s going to lose, because the court has standing according to Marc’s own cross references, so there’s nothing to contradict.
It’s kind of funny because in actuality, the court is following Marc’s statements about standing. It’s Marc who will be contradicting his own information.
August 27th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
I just went to see the clerk a few days ago, and see what judge signed the supposed bench warrants they want me to pay off. The statute says warrants have to be written, typewritten or printed, all of which imply paper. Also says they shall be signed by a magistrate. Here in Las Vegass bench warrants are issued by an automated computer system, not a judge. I have this on audio. I could not see the “judge” without id. I no longer carry it. Was a great, empowering experience. If they do not respect their own rules, why should I? They are not MY ideals. How am I, or anyone else, even obliged to acknowledge a fiction in the first place, let alone be subject to it?
August 28th, 2011 at 12:06 am
Hey RealSkinny:
Why don’t you accept Marc Steven’s invitation to call into the No State Project radio show any Saturday afternoon and have a friendly discussion regarding standing or any other “legal” issues?
I think it would be a fascinating debate!
August 28th, 2011 at 4:05 am
Because then Skinny would get royally owned by Marc. And really who wants to be bitch slapped that hard?
August 28th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Ok…. So polluting your lake wouldn’t be harm to your property?? In the words of Tom Jackson, “C’mon man!!”. The same thing would apply to public property because supposedly everybody owns it. Don’t try to fish in it after hours though as you will find out who really think they own it (and everything contained therein).
Even my 5 year old understands ‘do no harm’, so why is it so hard for adults?
August 29th, 2011 at 8:37 am
Chazzy: I’ll just respond by quoting my last comment: “Unless you actually own the lake, you probably wouldn’t have standing to sue for a tort.”
And as for public property… If it is the property of the public, who put you in charge of deciding how it gets used? Shouldn’t decisions about use of public property be made by the public?
Pete: Perhaps I will in the near future, but I’m not really sure what there is to debate. Marc has an entire page that clearly indicates standing is acquired when a “legal interest” is violated. If the law of a state declares a “legal interest” in regulating parking, then why wouldn’t there be standing for a parking ticket?
August 29th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Quoting from the link in the above article: “a case always requires an injury to be pled”. An essential element of a valid cause of action is loss or damage to a person. Beside there being no loss or harm to a person regards a parking violation, neither a city or state is a person.
“Damage without wrong. Loss or harm resulting to a person which is not the result of the violation violation of a legal duty.”
“Damnum et injuria. Loss and wrong, the two elements which must exist as essentials of a cause of action.”
August 29th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
What is a law, factually?
August 29th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
RealSkinny: “not really sure what there is to debate?” You mean you’re not sure that you and Marc disagree about anything? Or you mean you think you’ve already proven him wrong? I think you two have a LOT of unresolved, fascinating disagreements, and it would be a pleasure to hear your polite discussion. Let us know ahead of time when you’re calling-in so we won’t miss this debate!
I’ll answer your traffic ticket question from what I believe to be Steven’s position (Marc, please correct me if I’ve mischaracterised your stance):
There wouldn’t be standing for the state to sue for a parking ticket because no individual rights were violated and no damages were caused. According to the state’s own rule book, the state is created by free, independent men to protect their individual rights. Since the courts are part of the state and share the state’s reason for existence, any actions brought before the court must be within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. For this to be, there must be a justiciable case or controversy. If there are no alleged damages or violations of individual legal rights, the court has no business hearing the case.
RealSkinny, you seem to be saying that any group of politicians voted into office by at least 51% of the voters (51% of voters can easily equal less than 10% of the population) have the ability to declare new “legal interests” that supercede the individual rights the government was supposedly created to protect? This gets really interesting when legislatures enact 3,000+ page laws without even reading them. How can the government be operating with the “consent of the governed” when those governed have no idea what the government is even doing, and neither do the legislators?
August 29th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Zonsb: Violation of a legal interest can itself be an injury. Trespassing is a great example. It’s possible for a person to enter your home in the middle of the night, have a walk around the place, and leave quietly without causing any damage or injury to you or your home. Despite the complete lack of physical injury to yourself or your property, you will still have standing to sue because you have a well defined legal interest in keeping your property free from the intrusion of others. Even if the individual has caused no injury during their intrusion, you may still sue that individual for trespassing and successfully prove injury for standing based on the violation of a legal interest in the property.
Pete: Your point is well taken. I’ll call in the show. Does Marc by any chance have an expert on standing coming on the show soon so we can really end this matter once and for all?
And just to clarify, I’m not stating I agree with the law or I believe majority consent should create unanimous regulation, I just believe Marc is going about the matter in the wrong way. He’s trying to use their laws to beat them in court, and I don’t think it’s going to work.
August 29th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
I thought the idea was to get them to state what the “law” is (in their opinion) and then get them to contradict themselves to the point where its easier to just drop it and maintain their pretense than to reveal their violent nature. Marc never argues the law, he just questions their position and asks for evidence to substantiate their claims and watches it fall apart. Or atleast that is how I took it.
August 30th, 2011 at 12:13 am
Trespass is injury. A violation of a right and loss of 100% control of the property. And, RealSkinny, you ignore the FACT that neither a city or state are a person.
Please do call into The No State Project. Your appeal to authority on standing is noted that you’d rather rely on someone else than use your own arguments in discussion/challenge to Marc’s arguments and the clear language of the law on standing. Many judges have handed down rulings that are consistent with the written law on standing. So there’s some experts on standing. And they agree with Marc.
Marc and others have used their laws to beat them in court. It already has worked. That fact has been pointed out to you several times on the forum.
The bottom line question is: Should government provide services at the barrel of a gun?
August 30th, 2011 at 3:44 am
Sutter: The problem I generally find with Marc’s tactics are with misinterpretation. Marc gets a law from a case, but then he comes up with his own interpretation of what the law means, and it is usually in contradiction with the court or legislator’s own definition of the law. Then Marc believes the Court is contradicting itself if the judge doesn’t follow Marc’s interpretation, even if the court has already interpreted the law in a completely different way.
Marc gives you the case with the law, and that’s a great start, but we also need the case with the interpretation of the law if we’re going to contradict the judge. Where’s the case that says Parking where you’re not supposed to can’t be an injury? Where is the case that says a community cannot receive an injury? Where is the case that says a state can’t pass a law creating a legal interest that gives standing? If we had these cases, then it would be really easy to contradict the judge, but we don’t have these cases. They don’t exist. These are all assumptions about the law that Marc has come up with. Unless the court has actually come up with these interpretations, the judge will not be contradicting himself by disagreeing with Marc’s interpretation.
Zonsb: “Trespass is injury. A violation of a right and loss of 100% control of the property.”
Absolutely. In fact, we could probably say that if someone parks their car on your driveway, that is also a trespass and an injury of your legal rights. But what about a public road? If there is a road that belongs to a community, wouldn’t they also have property rights in that road? So why can’t the community pass a law that says no one can park on the road? And if they do pass this law, why wouldn’t it be considered an injury if someone parks on the road? It was an injury when someone parked on your driveway. Where is the distinction?
“you ignore the FACT that neither a city or state are a person.”
We’re trying to use the court’s rules to make them contradict themselves. Where does the court say a state, or city, or corporation cannot bring a suit, or receive an injury, or have standing?
August 30th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
“We’re trying to use the court’s rules to make them contradict themselves. Where does the court say a state, or city, or corporation cannot bring a suit, or receive an injury, or have standing?”
RealSkinny, Marc and others have used their laws and rules to beat them in court. It already has worked. That fact has been pointed out to you several times on the forum.
The bottom line question is: Should government provide services at the barrel of a gun?
August 30th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
“Marc and others have used their laws and rules to beat them in court. It already has worked. That fact has been pointed out to you several times on the forum.”
I actually did note in a post that Marc has provided numerous dismissals, but I also noted that their reliability was severely questionable. Not only did the parties involved often claim that the police officer failed to show up to court, but the existence of the case was often entirely based on anecdotal evidence. Even if we could trust the individual’s own claim that their case had been dismissed without asking for any further proof, dismissal based on a nonappearance by an officer or witness is hardly proof that Marc’s tactics work. I could go to court and make just about any argument I want, and no matter how insane the argument is, if the officer does not show up, the ticket is getting dismissed. It does not follow that my ticket was dismissed because of the validity of my argument.
I am aware that there were also some anecdotes of officer’s showing up to court that refused to take the stand, presumptively because they were afraid of dealing with Marc’s tactics. I noted that these anecdotes are often unreliable. There was a post on the forum (which I believe has unfortunately been lost due to the recent server trouble), where the poster claimed he used Marc’s tactics and had his ticket dismissed, and afterward the 12 people who went after him made the same argument and all had their tickets dismissed. Later on this number was dropped to 6 individuals who had their tickets dismissed. Even later, the poster provided a copy of the court docket for the day, which revealed 6 dismissals, but it also revealed that 3 of those dismissals went before the poster actually had his case heard. At most, according to the posters own evidence, only 2 individuals could have made the same argument. When you also consider that 3 more dismissals occurred on the same day without Marc’s assistance, it makes it appear even less likely that the police officers didn’t show up because they were “afraid” of dealing with Marc’s methods.
What I will point out now is that even though there have been zero court opinions provided where the court agrees with Marc’s conclusions of law, there have been numerous provided where his argument is cleanly and clearly rejected. When you have courts that have no problem dealing with and effectively rejecting Marc’s methods, I find it questionable to assume that every dismissal for a nonappearance is based on the court’s “fear” of addressing Marc’s position.
You’ll have to forgive me for disagreeing with Marc’s conclusions. I know many of you hold him in high respect, but when the evidence to support his methods is so clearly dodgy, I don’t think it’s ridiculous for me to be skeptical.
“Should government provide services at the barrel of a gun?”
Should anyone provide service at the barrel of a gun? I know that many individuals believe a voluntary society eliminates this problem, but at most it only eliminates the government. I think you’ll find that in the true voluntary society, services are still provided at the barrel of a gun, but instead it’s your neighbor with their finger on the trigger.
But this subject is clearly off topic. Perhaps we should save the discussion of the merits of the voluntary society for the forum (if it ever comes back).
August 30th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
this the response i get from a lawyer regarding standing for violation of not wearing seatbelt.o there are two components of legal standing one is right and other is injury.you very well know right but i am defining injury only injury means violation of that right although you may not suffer any harm.now applying your case to this.we live in society if a single person suffer injury than it is ultimately injury to the society.state is the protector of society so here state takes the role of litigant on behalf of society at large.as state is protector so it has right to make rules for the protection of society.now if you violate that rule it is the violation of that right of state i.e. injury to state.now you see both requirements of legal standing fulfilled
can somebody please help how to respond to that.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
It will be interesting to see the results of the traffic study. Let the empirical facts speak for themselves. For example, Marc has said in his experience when a motion to dismiss is filed for a traffic ticket 70% of the time the cop doesn’t show up or the ticket gets “kicked out.” And when it doesn’t, the two questions leads to the judge impeaching the cop/witness. Even if the judge allows the impeached cop/witness testimony, the appeals judge rules in favor of the defendant.
“You’ll have to forgive me for disagreeing with Marc’s conclusions. I know many of you hold him in high respect, but when the evidence to support his methods is so clearly dodgy, I don’t think it’s ridiculous for me to be skeptical.”
Despite your demand, I don’t have to forgive you. I mean, if you’re going to threaten me that’s a different story, for which in that case sure, I’ll forgive you. You have no first hand knowledge of who your mother and father are. I see where you’re coming from. Please do call into The No State Project.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
“Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
August 31st, 2011 at 4:35 am
REALSKINNY: Really appreciate your thoughtful perspective on these issues. Like ancient samurai swords, good ideas should be stressed and tested in every conceivable manner to prove their strength, so i welcome and encourage your arguments.
Do you really disagree that there are countless contradictory “LAWS” that judges chose to acknowledge only when they want? for example, article one, section 10 of u.s. constitution says only gold and silver can be legal tender, yet all judges ignore this “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND” that they swore to uphold.
this being the law, all notes requiring payment in non-redeemable federal reserve notes should be tossed out of court. instead, judges declare this argument to be “FRIVOLOUS” and threaten defendants making this claim with contempt.
why do rely on the arbitrary, fickle opinions of lying, oath-breaking judges to convince you of anything. God gave you the power to reason…use it!
August 31st, 2011 at 9:45 am
Pete: I never claimed I agree with judges or the laws created by Congress. I am well aware of the inadequacies of the justice system. All I am doing is pointing out the fact that Marc’s assumptions about those laws are incorrect. Whether you agree with the laws created by the courts or not, one thing is certain, the courts have not been contradicting themselves on the standing issue. There is plenty of evidence in legal history to support a finding that, according to the rules created by the court, the state has standing to sue for a parking violation.
I can completely agree if you think the state shouldn’t have standing to sue, and I can completely agree if you think ideas like “states” and “law” are silly, but that’s not what Marc is saying. Marc is saying the court is not following their own rules, and with that statement I disagree 100%. It doesn’t matter how much you hate the rules or disagree with them, the court has been following them strictly and there’s not much you can do to show otherwise.
If Marc really wants to show the contradictory nature of the courts, he should pick a topic where they actually contradict themselves. The Supreme Court has frequently contradicted themselves when discussing issues like federal powers under the commerce clause and incorporation of the Bill of Rights, especially as it relates to criminal procedure. These are areas where the court actually contradicts itself, unlike Standing, where the court has been fairly steady in their interpretation since the inception of the United States.
If you want examples of areas where the court contradicts itself, I have plenty, but standing is not one of them. Arguing standing is a complete waste of time and just frustrates the situation for people who actually want to see meaningful change.
You mentioned the power to reason. Let’s both use it. Why is Marc making other people get parking tickets to conduct his study? If Marc’s methods work so great, why doesn’t he go out and get a bunch of parking tickets himself and then get them dismissed? What reasonable explanation can we come up with to explain why Marc is having other people get parking tickets, use his book to get them dismissed, and then call into the radio show? There must be something between the lines we’re missing. Why does he want people to get parking tickets, pay money for his book, and support his radio program?
August 31st, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“Marc is saying the court is not following their own rules, and with that statement I disagree 100%. It doesn’t matter how much you hate the rules or disagree with them, the court has been following them strictly and there’s not much you can do to show otherwise.”
The court actors certainly do not contradict themselves on the most important issue, which is: providing services at the barrel of a gun.
“Arguing standing is a complete waste of time and just frustrates the situation for people who actually want to see meaningful change.”
Hitler, Mao and Stalin caused meaningful change. And what do you have to say about the most important issue for actually creating meaningful change that’s BENEFICIAL to EVERYONE?…
“Should anyone provide service at the barrel of a gun? I know that many individuals believe a voluntary society eliminates this problem, but at most it only eliminates the government. I think you’ll find that in the true voluntary society, services are still provided at the barrel of a gun, but instead it’s your neighbor with their finger on the trigger.
The question required a simple “yes” or “no” responsive answer. Even when you rephrased the question to your liking, you didn’t give a responsive answer to your own question. Behind closed doors and out of sight is the most likely place that one would get a responsive answer. I think we know at least one person who answered “no” to the poll question that was on the front page for years before the website got hacked. One institution, government, acting criminally against virtually everyone dwarfs — to put it mildly — dwarfs the value destruction by petty criminals initiating force. Should a product or service be provided at the barrel of a gun?
Thus the Traffic Study will almost certainly prove with empirical evidence that traffic court’s are scams run by criminals at the barrel of a gun.
August 31st, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“You’ll have to forgive me for disagreeing with Marc’s conclusions.”
What other of your demands must I bow to you on? If I don’t forgive you will you gear up and get violent?
“Why is Marc making other people get parking tickets to conduct his study?”
Marc makes no demands on anyone. I can see how those who make demands of others automatically assume everyone else does it too. The velvet glove hiding the gun is wearing very thin — transparently thin.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Wow, you’re looking worse with every post skinny. I’m not “making other people” do anything. I wrote an article and believe it or not, people are making the adult choice to participate. I’d love to see the facts you rely on proving I am “making” anyone do anything. Just ridiculous.
I have gotten tickets myself (my book contains real accounts) and discussed them on the show, listen to the archives, the last 2 parking tickets were both thrown out and I filed the motion to dismiss. Also, I’m not getting a ticket for the study because I’m conducting the study, it’s not as if I have the time to do consults, write a book, conduct the study and be able to also show up in court. Part of the purpose of the study to help empower people to defend themselves, I don’t need help with that.
I find it hilarious; we’re dealing with courts and you accuse me of “making people” do things.
September 1st, 2011 at 5:24 pm
@Marc Stevens can you please help how to respond to this. the response i get from a lawyer regarding standing for violation of not wearing seatbelt.o there are two components of legal standing one is right and other is injury.you very well know right but i am defining injury only injury means violation of that right although you may not suffer any harm.now applying your case to this.we live in society if a single person suffer injury than it is ultimately injury to the society.state is the protector of society so here state takes the role of litigant on behalf of society at large.as state is protector so it has right to make rules for the protection of society.now if you violate that rule it is the violation of that right of state i.e. injury to state.now you see both requirements of legal standing fulfilled.
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:46 am
An injury is the violation of a legal right/breach of a known legal duty. If they believe there was a violation of a legal right, have them identify it i.e., life, liberty, property etc.
September 6th, 2011 at 7:59 am
What if your parking ticket is first handled adminstratively?
Do you wait to file your motion on appeal after the adminstrative hearings?
I got a ticket for parking in my own driveway. It stated that I was parked in the red. I was not parked in the red, I have several witnesses and pictures showing I was not parked in the red. The address on the ticket was the wrong address.
Had the intitial adminstrative review and was found guilty, but with no explanation of why I was found guilty as required by Ca VC 40215 which was amended in 2009 requiring an explanation.http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40215.htm
My next step is to file an adminstrative appeal, before I can file my court appeal.
I will be intested in particapating in your study of parking tickets.
There is a class action suit filed against the city of Santa Monica for violating cvc 40215, for not following their own rules of giving an explanation of why they are guilty. The pattern has been, they simply reply UPHELD.
I will waiting for your reply
September 6th, 2011 at 8:23 am
In addition, it took them 4 1/2 months to decide I was guilty. The citation wss for a Municipal Code violation, which was very poorly written. I filed the adminstrative appeal and was charged $25 plus had to post 49 as bail to have the right to the hearing, which will be held Oct, 21 2011.
Their is no requirement that the officer that issued the ticket be at the hearing. The hearing officer has no supena power. The only evidence required by the city is the Citation.
How would you suggest I handle this adminstrative appeal.?
September 6th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
If stuck with an admin hearing first, then I would question the hearing officer as if he was the witness. I would still point out the witness is not there and there was no cause of action.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Just wondering. Since Government seems to have standing in parking tickets, do they have standing to force income taxes on us without obeying their own rules? Can they tax us any which way they want because we would be harming the Government and, thereby, the people, if we don’t pay any amount they might arbitrarily decide on? Does this mean that all the Black Letter Law is bogus, simply a form of keeping us in the dark about their true dictatorial powers so that it will be easier for them to control us?
September 15th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Sorry Marc, but if you’re providing legal services in exchange for money, then you’re a lawyer, and I believe I have every right to be skeptical. I bet even you would preach skepticism when dealing with lawyers. Up until recently I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and I’ve been posting under the assumption that the legal advice you’ve been providing was derived from mistaken interpretations of legal opinions and statutes, and not part of some elaborate scheme to steal money from less knowledgeable individuals. However, lately it’s been difficult to continue under this assumption, mainly because of a severe lack of disclosure on your part.
What are people paying you for??? What is it you actually do? Do you get tickets dismissed? Do you get fines reduced?
If I pay you for legal services, what do I get?
September 16th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I know the forum was down until today, it’s back and I have replied there http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread.php?tid=410&page=11 and numerous times on the radio show.
I’m not a lawyer, though you may be as skeptical as you’d like, that doesn’t mean I am going to keep repeating myself. Just because you don’t read my responses or listen to my radio show doesn’t mean I have not repeatedly responded to you. And if you think I’m stealing, then call into the show and present your evidence.
The show is live every Saturday 4-7pm est, 1-4 pst on http://lrn.fm and several affiliates. I don’t screen calls and I have no control over the recording of a live broadcast. I’m also willing to guest on another show and discuss the issues.
October 4th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Ok… I need to get the motion template or whatever because I was stopped this morning. Tge cop stood in the road and waived me over. The only thing I said was, ‘Why did you stop me officer?’. He said i was speeding and showed me the radar gun readout, then asked for license and reg. I didnt say a word. He came back about a minute later and gave me a ticket that looked like a cash register receipt and said I had 30 days to comply and walked away. I didnt even sign anything, hiwever, the ticket has a box checked certifying the cop gave the above named person the ticket. Thus is a $255 ‘compliance’!!! HELP!!!!!!
October 5th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
the template is available under the store link of the site
October 5th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
im having trouble with your website,i cant figure out how to buy your book and other prod.and if your big package is still avalable please let me know.i have been telling lots of people bought your site and i want to learn the whole proces,so we can rid ourselfs of thease theifs.i drive a taxi and talk to lots of people bought your site and people are ready to defend themselves.i drive in big collage town in iowa.
October 6th, 2011 at 6:59 am
I wanted to join the Traffic Study, which you said you would be providing templates for to be used… ? It was my opinion that I wouldn’t be buying templates from your store that were created in 2006?
Thanks.
October 6th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I am providing the templates and support for those participating, the templates have been updated recently
October 6th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Can i join the study? If so, what do i need to do to get this process started? My ticket is now 2 days old….. Thank you.
October 7th, 2011 at 4:21 am
yeah, just scan and send the ticket over, redact the personal info, and email it over
October 7th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Hey Mr. Marc Stevens, I will be in state court October 19th, 2011 for a rolling stop traffic violation. In my schedule date of September 26th, I told the clerk that I plead not guilty, want a public defender and trail by jury. Several Libertarian-leaning and self-governed friends of mines in facebook told me that I should take your approach of attacking the credibility of the judge but more importantly, the police officer in question. Please help me, any legal advise would be nice and I still haven’t found me a defender yet.
October 7th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
next week, wow. You should probably set up a phone consult. I also have a motion template available and script. Sign up for the forum and post under the thread we have about role-playing.
November 1st, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Court today ..
Judge had delayed a month to read the Motions..
His comments
” Dismissed”
“Nice Defense ”
” now … Run, before I change my mind “
November 1st, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Nice job. Could you post some details?
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:26 am
I will get a copy of the Docket soon, Marc
this was the Irondequoit, NY ticket
You have a scan of the Ticket
November 30th, 2011 at 7:36 am
“One who invokes the judicial process does not have ‘standing’ if he, or those whom he properly represents, does not have a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because the actor has neither suffered nor is about to suffer an injury of sufficient magnitude reasonably to assure that all of the relevant facts and issues will be adequately presented.” (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Actions § 73, pp. 132-133.)
“In actions at law, legal damage resulting from some injury to the right of another or from the breach of a duty owing to the other is a necessary element of a cause of action.” (1 Cal. Jur. 3d Actions (2006) § 86, pp. 132-133.)
“An act, however erroneous, which does no injury to a party, cannot be the subject of legal complaint on his part.” (Whipley v. McKune (1859) 12 Cal. 352, 357-358.)
“It is a good defense, or rather a good excuse, that the misconduct of the agent has been followed by no loss or damage whatever to the principal; for then the rule applies that, although there is a wrong, yet it is without any damage, and to maintain an action both must occur; for damnum absque injuria and injuria absque damnum are in general equally objections to any recovery.” (Atkins v. Alexander (1871) 42 Cal. 86, 106.)
“[D]amnum absque injuria. Damage without wrong, the sense of the expression being that there is no cause of action. 1 Am J2d Actions § 78. The phrase applies where an accident occurs and no fault or negligence is chargeable to either of the parties to the occurrence, as where the accident was inevitable or is properly characterized as an act of God. 38 Am J1st Negl § 4. A legal right must be violated in order that an action of tort may be maintained. The mere fact that a complainant may have suffered damage of the kind which the law recognizes is not enough. There must also have been a violation of a duty recognized by law. ‘Damnum’ is not enough; there must also be ‘injuria.’ The maxim comes from the civil law. West Virginia Transp. Co. v Standard Oil Co. 50 W Va 611, 40 SE 591.” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3rd ed. 1969) p. 304.)
“[D]amnum et injuria. Loss and wrong, the two elements which must exist in combination as essentials of a cause of action. 1 Am J2d Actions § 70.” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3rd ed. 1969) p. 304.)
“[D]amnum sine injuria. Loss or damage without the violation or infringement of a legal right. Such damage or loss can impose no liability on a defendant. Kingsley v Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co. 81 NJL 536, 80 A 327.” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3rd ed. 1969) p. 304.)
“[E]x damno absque injuria non oritur actio. From loss or damage, without the violation of a legal right, no action arises.” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3rd ed. 1969) p. 431.)
December 6th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
My husband got a speeding ticket and is in danger of losing at least 3 demerit points which of course will drive up his insurance. So far i’ve only seen marc’s solution as the only viable way to fight these things. There is certainly something wrong with cops being paid as much as 190.00 for showing up in court to witness against someone. Would appreciate any help at all. Been studying too but there is less information available to canadians. I will willingly take part in this research. I’ll have to go with my husband and coach him as he turns into a bowl of jelly in a court room :/ Great work you do marc and thanks!
December 6th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
It took about 86 years, but Keith in Toronto had his ticket thrown out yesterday. Call into the show and we can discuss the Canadian courts.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
the show schedule should be here somewhere and i’ll find it. Will definately call into the show. I would like to know if i could represent him in court. Acting in authority while one is jelly like and sweaty would certainly defeat his cause. Thanks Marc!
December 16th, 2011 at 4:02 am
Is it too late to participate?
December 16th, 2011 at 11:42 am
No, we’re just not including parking tickets in California any longer. The system is so corrupt you don’t get an opportunity to even go to court.
December 18th, 2011 at 10:59 am
“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
[Frederic Bastiat, 1848]
How true it is;
38 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S. ) [Legal Encyclopedia]
“…’government’ has been defined as a body politic, a state; a corporate entity through which the people act;A FICTICIOUS ENTITY created by the people…”
[38 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S. ) [Legal Encyclopedia]]
Government is not real. It is an idea from men. Government does not ‘pass law’ or ‘create law’. Men write statutes, codes, rules, regulations, ordinances. Not law.
Until people understand that God is the lawgiver and God is the one lawmaker people will continue to try to make merchandise of other people.
Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
“When men are not governed by God they will be ruled by tyrants.”
William Penn [To which Pennsylvania is named after]
Change the word ‘government’ to Zues or Athena. Change the word government to Baal or Moloch. It is all the same.A pagan religion made by men who do not want to obey God. Wicked men who deny God as the lawmaker and try to be a ‘lawmaker’ themselves. Were we not commanded and told in the days of old?
Deuteronomy 4:1-2
King James Version (KJV)
Deuteronomy 4
1Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
2YE SHALL NOT ADD UNTO THE WORD which I command you, NEITHER shall ye DIMINISH ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
We are forbidden from legislating. If you doubt it just look around and see if the 60,000 plus statutes has helped anything or given prosperity?
Has their 60,000 plus statutes secured your liberty or enslaved you?
2 Peter 2:19
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
Even in their own maxims of ‘law’ they understand this:
The law is from everlasting.
If ever the law of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the later.
Simply put , any vain imaginations of men that try to usurp the authority of God will fail miserably. How long did it take ‘America’ to be enslaved since its alleged finding /creation? Rome? Germany? Russia? China? When will we learn?
1 Samuel 8:6-7
King James Version (KJV)
6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us[or political ruler]. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: !!!for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.!!!
We will find it very difficult to see real change while continuing to put ‘faith’ in men rather than God. We will find it very difficult to see real change while continuing to rely on our own wisdom and understanding that is not wisdom and understanding at all.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
God tells his people to be separate from them.
2 Corinthians 6:17
Wherefore COME OUT from among them,AND BE YE SEPARATE, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Look at the insanity of ‘voting’. Who in their right mind will ‘elect’ someone to rule over them? Yet millions of people do this. They ‘vote’ to have men/women rule over their lives. They do this while at the same time expecting different results. It is insanity!
1 Corinthians 7:23
King James Version (KJV)
23Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants[slaves] of men.
Does no one see how lost we truly are in our own ‘wisdom’?
Romans 6:16
New King James Version (NKJV)
16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness
The ‘voluntary society’ Marc speaks of is already here! It need not be built but simply searched out. It is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.