Joe Gets Drug Charge Kicked Out – Prosecution Could Not Prove Jurisdiction

Another big congrats to Joe in Hawaii for standing up to the predators in Hawaii and getting drug charges dismissed. And thanks for sending me the documentary proof. Joe was on the No State Project and reported what happened in detail.

This is more proof that the few critics of my work are dead wrong. The claims I’ve never helped get anything more than a traffic ticket kicked out are just as baseless as the claim the “laws” apply to us. Funny how critics dismiss my evidence while holding they don’t need evidence to support their claims. “What wonderful magic.”

There are still people claiming I’ve never helped get anything dismissed, but those people are not relevant as anyone with a rational mind can see that is false. Nonetheless, the documentary proof is here

Joe filed the motion to dismiss and discovery request he got from me. Contrary to what a few critics claim, the basis of the motion has been spoken about in detail on practically every live broadcast of the No State Project. The motion is based on the prosecution’s lack of evidence to support their claim the constitution and laws apply just because you’re physically in Hawaii, or wherever. This is the basis of their jurisdictional claims, which they bear the burden of proof.

We also file a discovery/Brady request asking for proof of their claim and the names of the witnesses with personal knowledge of that proof. We include requests for information that can be used to impeach the prosecution’s case and witness.

No such evidence exists, so the prosecution must either do the right thing and withdraw the complaint, or move forward hoping his fellow prosecutor in the black robe lets him get away with misconduct and serious ethical violations (usually Rule 3.1 of the attorney ethics rules). Prosecutorial misconduct is an ingrained part of the court system, some judges have actually publicly spoken about it, saying it is an “epidemic”.

And some will still claim you can get a fair trial? A fair trial when there is “an epidemic of Brady violations” and that doesn’t include how common it is for police to lie? That’s some hardcore denial or arrogance going on there.

Some make the irrational claim that the applicability of the constitution and laws is not an issue of evidence, that such rules have a magical quality and apply because people say so. They claim their special rules apply because they say so, that those who challenge this are deemed to be idiots worthy of nothing but ridicule. The real extremists have ordered psychological evaluations for those who dare question this religious dogma.

But, what’s not mentioned is this is an accusation, an accusation that forms the basis of jurisdiction and the only thing that (in their eyes) separates them from common criminals. Without the sanction of their rules, forcing people to give you money is a crime. They believe they can prove you violated their rules without having to prove they apply. This is why they use coercion, guns and prisons. Because they are criminals.

The critics will claim, again with absolute certainty they are right, that the only possible reason these charges were thrown out was because Joe was “too much trouble”. Really, no other explanation, consistent with the available evidence could be possible? It’s amazing how people with no evidence are so certain they are right. Zealots, especially criminals, will not allow for any other explanation regardless of the facts.

So just making their job difficult is better than hiring an attorney? You just have to cause them trouble? I wish that were true, we could put a lot of lawyers out of work.

What trouble though? It’s really too much trouble to hold the prosecution to their burden of proof and have the judge presume innocence until they do? So doing their alleged job, by providing due process and fair hearing is just too much trouble? Does that really sound like the only explanation to you? Given the fact that judges have explicitly granted the motion to dismiss, this speculation can be dismissed.

The critics have to speculate, refuse to consider an alternative, and ignore the circumstantial evidence to maintain their position. All I need to do is present the evidence, rational people can then make their own minds up. Video is here