Categorized | Success Stories, Video

Armando Defeats Michael Scott Law Firm – Congrats

Posted on August 19th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

As reported on the No State Project, Armando defeated the Michael Scott law firm.  A big congrats to Armando for standing up to this notorious law firm and getting that ridiculous complaint thrown out.  He not only did not use an attorney as most would, he had costs awarded.

We stuck to basic issues, no evidence of jurisdiction and no valid contract.  The judge did the right thing and did not rubberstamp the predictable motion for summary judgment.  Most times the banks/credit card companies move for summary judgement and despite factual disputes, they routinely grant them.  Not this time.

We showed there were factual disputed, from the lack of evidence proving jurisdiction to the gaping hole where there was supposed to be evidence of a meeting of the minds.  These lawyers may have been too arrogant for this judge as they claimed they were not required to even allege facts.  I’m glad they have to pay Armando’s costs, it would be icing on the cake if they were all disbarred.

Congrats my friend and thanks for getting me the evidence of the dismissal to post.

dismissal-scott1

              

31 Comments For This Post

  1. Jack Worthington Says:

    Wish I had been there. Judge Rolando Cantu seems to have grasped the truth and conducted himself with honor. I only wish Judge John Mercer, in the Beaverton,Oregon Muni Court had be equally honest instead of acting in a criminal way when I asked him what factual evidence he had that the Oregon vehicle code applied to me. He said the code was the evidence and I was just too ignorant to challenge him with this logical fallacy, i.e. circular logic.

  2. Jack Worthington Says:

    Thank you Armando for standing up, not just for yourself but for We The People (It this gives “Boxer” fits, it is fine with me).

  3. Incubus Says:

    Boxer brings up a good point, tho. What people are you talking about?

    It sounds more like you’re just parroting the words of the retards who wrote the CONstitution. Why?

  4. Jack Worthington Says:

    Do the Venn Diagrams. Those who ask the questions, those who want to ask the questions and those who want answers to the questions blong in one of the Venn circles. Those who don’t want the answeres or don’t care or actually think the politicians, judges, IRS and other bureaucrats don’t have to provide the factual evidence that their constitution and laws apply are in the other Venn circle.

    Your slam on the framers of the constitution were not retards. They were smart men who not only did not sign the constitution but they did not impose their beliefs on future generations to be forced on anyone. The constitution was a guide; the colonists whould not have put their necks or anyone’s under the heel of a tyrannical central government the likes of which they had just dismissed by force.

  5. NonE Says:

    “We showed there were factual disputed,” … uh, whutzat spozed to mean?

    – The Infamous Grammar Nazi

  6. Jack Worthington Says:

    Correction: Your slam on the framers of the constitution as being “retards” is unwarranted. The framers were rather brilliant. Sure they made mistakes. I would rather they had restricted politicians to only gold and silver money and then defined it as ounces of Au or Ag and fractions thereof of fixed weights of 0.999 fine PM. Who had corrected the defects of the constitution? And who have corrupted the intent of the framers of the constitution? Marc is correct, the scoundrel politicians and judges and IRS et.al. have no factual evidence that their constitution and laws apply to me because I am physically present at some geographical location.

  7. Jack Worthington Says:

    Yeah, NonE, I too make grammatical mistakes and I appreciate it when they are pointed out, so that I can attempt to improve. My dad was a HS English teacher and on a few occasions did set me straight but he was not overbearing. I don’t see you as a Grammar Nazi (yes, I know its humorous).

  8. Kurt Says:

    Jack, I think what I would ask the judge if he told me that code = evidence is: “Objection, is the opinion that code = evidence indisputable? Does OPINION = EVIDENCE as well in this courtroom, sir? Am I not allowed in this court to challenge jurisdiction? If you or some other lawyer has the power to declare that you have jurisdiction over me, are you suggesting that it is, in fact, a self evident truth that you or some other lawyer owns me as a piece of human livestock? Aren’t you really suggesting, sir, that slavery never, indeed, ended, it just expanded to everyone? I think he would get the point.

  9. Tigers Fire Says:

    I need some help with a case, I have Fibro and it is hard to make heads or tails of what I need to do to proceed.

  10. Boxer Says:

    ” Incubus Says:
    August 20th, 2014 at 10:20 am

    Boxer brings up a good point, tho. What people are you talking about?

    It sounds more like you’re just parroting the words of the retards who wrote the CONstitution. Why?”

    I’m pretty sure he is talking about the Black people in the 18th Century.

  11. Boxer Says:

    Kurt Says:
    August 20th, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Jack, I think what I would ask the judge if he told me that code = evidence is: “Objection, is the opinion that code = evidence indisputable? Does OPINION = EVIDENCE as well in this courtroom, sir? Am I not allowed in this court to challenge jurisdiction? If you or some other lawyer has the power to declare that you have jurisdiction over me, are you suggesting that it is, in fact, a self evident truth that you or some other lawyer owns me as a piece of human livestock? Aren’t you really suggesting, sir, that slavery never, indeed, ended, it just expanded to everyone? I think he would get the point.

    Right, because its not discrimination if slavery applies to everyone.

    “All you Black people are being ridiculous. White people are our slaves, too”

  12. Incubus Says:

    No, they just imposed their beliefs on the generations that existed at that time. They left that job behind when they died.

    Corrupted intent? The intent was corrupt from the start, my man.

  13. NonE Says:

    Jack Worthington Sed:
    Correction: Your slam on the framers of the constitution as being “retards” is unwarranted. The framers were rather brilliant. Sure they made mistakes. I would rather they had…
    ——-
    So Jack, let me get this straight… you believe it is perfectly acceptable for one person, or a group of people, to define the conditions under which other people (people minding their own damned business and not attacking anyone else) must enact their affairs and transact their lives?

    Izzat what you’re saying? Cuz it sure looks like that’s what you’re saying.

    – NoNazi

  14. Jack Worthington Says:

    As usual NonE you are wrong with your assumption. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Of course I do not believe the colonists imposed their beliefs on us and if you read Lysander Spooner’s No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority, then you will understand from whence I come.

    So, your intrepretation of what I am saying is incorrect.

    Those colonists figured as best they could what would work for them but they did not impose their belief on We The People who came later, nor would they have ever done that as it would have been anathema to their core beliefs.

    Those colonists did better than those that came after. Did they have the right to impose that government on people who disagreed? Of course they didn’t but it was better than the English tyranny, if only brief respite. Progress comes in bits as does calamity.

    I do think that had the colonists stuck with the Articles of Confederation, then wars like the American Civil War would either not have happened or would have shortly ended in some form of armistice and almost certainly, that kind of confederacy would not have entered WWI.

  15. Jack Worthington Says:

    Kurt, yes, the first mistake I made was not doing some practice court senarios with Marc. For sure I was not quick enough nor brave enough to stand up to John Mercer. Also, I should have kept my questions directed to Ms. Hoskins, the desk officer who only viewed the video, but was no a first hand witness. I did get her to admit that she was not at the specific location on the night the photo was snapped.

    And yes I know now that I should have questioned Mercer about his OPINION. I should have asked if he had an affidavit of truth on file wherein he asserts that the code is the evidence. Am I your slave probably would have got him goin’ on a contempt charge.

    And yes, the 14th Amendment, if one accepts the constitution, is the faulty basis upon which the judges claim jurisdiction. Most people have grown up incorrectly believing they are somehow subject to politicians and judges and subject to the constitution with which there is no contract. There should be a “whack-a-judge” video game in which facimilies of judges are knocked up side their heads when their decisions are shown to be defective for lack of jurisdiction.

  16. NonE Says:

    Jack, thanks for your reply.

    – NonE

  17. Pete Says:

    Great job, Armando and Marc!

    Let’s all take a break from trolling the comment section (no offense, NonE) and send a link of this video to a few friends and freedom-oriented websites.

  18. Jack Worthington Says:

    Righto Pete. I sent it along my line of friends a few days ago. I suspect very few took the time to listen to Marc, but if even one does, then there exists the probablilty that that link will be passed to ohters and slowly Americans will awake to the truth that the politicians have no authority to use force against us.

  19. WorBlux Says:

    @Jack Worthington

    “Your slam on the framers of the constitution were not retards. They were smart men who not only did not sign the constitution but they did not impose their beliefs on future generations to be forced on anyone. The constitution was a guide; the colonists whould not have put their necks or anyone’s under the heel of a tyrannical central government the likes of which they had just dismissed by force.”

    Umm… the events of the whiskey rebellion prove otherwise. Additionally the States continued of ship forfeiture to enforce import customs point to the same conclusion. It was just the same old crap with a different boss.

  20. Jack Worthington Says:

    Thanks WorBlux for reminding me how quickly those colonists forgot themselves. Indeed Washington of all people should have known better. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. BTW, I learned of another mistake that I had picked up from the WWW: The Consitution was signed, contrary to some other ignorant poster or blogster. So, thank you again for the correction.

  21. Jack Worthington Says:

    WorBlux,one more thing. Those colonists who created the constitution and approved it had no right or power to contract with me or anyone who came later; they had no right or power to compel me or anyone who came later to obey the constitution or to force them into contract giving the politicians the power of masters and overseers on the plantation state.

  22. Chris Says:

    Constitution has signatures sure enough – plain for all to see.
    Right beneath that prominent text that says “In Witness Thereof”
    It was signed in their capacity of witness NOT as a signatory. A crucial difference and not nit picking.
    Do you think that signing a Will (for example) as a witness magically makes you the testator ? Or that being the witness to a (real) crime makes you the victim ?

  23. James Says:

    NonE Says:
    August 20th, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    Jack Worthington Sed:
    Correction: Your slam on the framers of the constitution as being “retards” is unwarranted. The framers were rather brilliant. Sure they made mistakes. I would rather they had…
    ——-
    So Jack, let me get this straight… you believe it is perfectly acceptable for one person, or a group of people, to define the conditions under which other people (people minding their own damned business and not attacking anyone else) must enact their affairs and transact their lives?

    I don’t see the problem with that because that is exactly what parents do to children. Parent is a person and child is another person. One person the parent define conditions under which the other person the child must enact their(child’s) affairs and transact their(child’s) lives. If it is okay for parents to do this to children then it is okay for a person to do this to another person.

  24. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ James, is it ok for parents to force children to give them money?

  25. Jack Worthington Says:

    Thank you Chris for the distinction between signatory and witness. Makes sense to me.

  26. Jack Worthington Says:

    James, there is a difference between a child and an adult. The child in in the care of the parent until he is achieves some level of independence and of course the parent by reason, wants the child to become independent as this is Jehovah God’s will. Now the politicins keeping so called “adults” in a state of stinkin’ naggar slavery is criminal and such enslavement should be terminated.

  27. Jack Worthington Says:

    James, please note that there is a difference between a child and an adult. The child in in the care of the parent until he achieves some level of independence. The parent by reason and logic wants the child to become independent, as this is Jehovah God’s will. Now, politicians keeping so called “adults” in a state of stinkin’ naggar slavery is criminal and such enslavement should be terminated.

    Made some corrections

  28. cynthia Says:

    I wish more would do deeper digging to historical facts before jumping to conclusions and opinion. Technically all ‘government’ are ‘private’ and current are all corporate, even the original was corporate not “organic” in fact. If you really want to be fully free and keep your heart and soul self express and be self determined which is not the same as self reliant. This is not freedom to harm for to harm another unless honest self defense is immoral. Research http://cafr1.Com and do a Dunn and Bradstreet lookup for your city, county, state, us various debt entity official etc you will find it true http://dnb.com implications extensive and international

  29. NonEntity Says:

    “I wish more would do deeper digging to …” actually
    construct grammatical sentences that can be parsed by other human minds. 😉

  30. Dana Says:

    Marc,

    Would like to know what you used to ask for a dismissal in this case “Armando defeats Michael Scott law firm? And… any opportunity to get a copy of text of what he filed and how it was stated? Time is of the essence…

    Would much appreciate!

    Thank you!

  31. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Dana, we discuss it in detail on the show, do a search in the radio archives.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Apr 18, 2015 - Co-host: Calvin - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Armando’s defeat of the Michael J. Scott law firm’s legal attack. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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