Jurisdiction-another-view
http://freedom-school.com/Jurisdiction-another-view.pdf
In Personam Jurisdiction
There are various types of jurisdictions which Lawful courts must consider
when weighing the merits of a case and deciding whether or not to prosecute a
criminal action. In personam jurisdiction simply means jurisdiction over a
person. As an American Citizen the federal administrative courts lack natural
jurisdiction to adjudicate any matters involving you. You are a sovereign and
the legislative statutes used by the federal and State governments to prosecute
ignorant individuals do not apply to you, nor were they ever intended to.
"In common usage, term "persons" does not include the sovereign, and
statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." Title 1
United States Code, Section 1, Note 12, United States v United Mine Workers,
330 U.S. 258, 91 L.Ed 884
This is a form of diplomatic immunity. While you are not excused from the
consequences of any legitimate crimes which you may commit against real
parties, in which you cause damage to another man or woman Citizen, as a
sovereign, you cannot be forced to comply with arbitrary administrative
regulations imposed by Congress on "federal" citizens. The courts charged with
adjudicating matters stemming from violations of these administrative
statutes, rules and regulations, lack in personam jurisdiction over sovereign
American men and women Citizens.
The federal and corporate State courts are aware of this 'want of jurisdiction'.
However, they will not freely admit to their lack of authority. This goes to the
heart of judicial corruption in America today and will be addressed in greater
detail in other writings.
It is essential that you understand that in personam jurisdiction must be
challenged or the court will presume it, and may thereafter prosecute the
matter against you. Further, there are many ways for you to waive jurisdiction
and permit the court to proceed. You must be ever diligent and never waive any
of your unalienable rights, regardless of the convenience of doing so. You have
no legal or moral responsibility to waive your right for the convenience of the
courts. Always remember that the court system is supposed to be long and
tedious; due process is supposed to be difficult; don't ever make it easier for the
government to prosecute you.
Once you challenge jurisdiction in a criminal case, the courts have the
burden of proof pursuant to 5 use 556(d)
"It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is
the first in the order of pleading, and that any plea which refers to the
court any other question, is a tacit admission that the court has a right
to judge in the cause, and is a waiver to all exceptions to the
jurisdiction." Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush Ky.8
''Whenever it appears upon the record that the court has no
jurisdiction, nothing which the parties may do or omit to do will give
it; but where the want of jurisdiction may exist consistently with the
record; a plea to the action is a waiver to any exception to the
jurisdiction." Lawrence v. Bassett, 5 Allen 140
It goes directly to the question of whether a given court has the authority to
hear a matter. Unlike in personam jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction
cannot be waived by any party involved in the matter. If a court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction it has no authority to proceed with a case. Subject matter
jurisdiction may be challenged at any time before, during, or after trial. It may
be challenged even if the accused party has already pled guilty, been duly
convicted and sentenced to jail, even if he is currently serving time on a
conviction.A jurisdictional challenge of this type is never limited, since it goes
to the foundation of whether the court had the authority to incarcerate or even
try the individual in the first place.
Now I am going to reveal to you something truly amazing. The federal
administrative .court system lacks subject matter jurisdiction on all criminal
charges used today! In other words, every man and woman Citizen incarcerated
today has a legitimate challenge based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
If enough of them learn how to mount such a challenge, every "law" on the
books can be and will be overturned! Of course, the basic common law crimes
involving injury to another man or woman (i.e. murder, burglary, assault, rape;
arson, etc.) would remain crimes, but the endless stream of regulatory "crimes"
would disappear, as they should.
and the federal Constitution) mandates that an enacting' clause be part of each
and every law properly enacted by the state Legislature. In the case of the four
states and federal government, whose constitutions lack such a mandate, state
and federal Supreme Courts have consistently ruled that an enacting clause is
never the less a requirement of any properly enacted law. These and countless
other Supreme Courts have further ruled that any law which lacks a required
enacting clause is void on its face and need not be obeyed!
An enacting clause is the portion of a law, rule or regulation that identifies the
relationship between the lawgiver and those who are expected to obey the law.
The enacting clause for the Ten Commandments was "1am the Lord thy God,
who brought thee out from bondage in Egypt." Anyone hearing this message
understands that it is God who is laying down this law. I could say "thou shalt
not kill" but who is obligated to obey me? The enacting clause informs the
Citizen of the authority behind the law; if the Citizen is subject to that
authority, then the law which follows has jurisdiction over him/her.
In medieval England, a town crier might have been heard to say, "Hear Ye!
Hear Ye! His Most Royal Highness and Excellent Majesty, Emperor of the Irish
Republic, Lord Duke of Wales, King of England and high King of the British
Isles, does hereby decree ..."·This is an enacting clause. If you are a subject of
this monarch then his decree holds jurisdiction over you; if you are not his
subject, you do not have to obey.
Conversely, if the Citizen is not subject to the authority of a given law, then
that law has no effect upon him/her.
Throughout modem civilization the enacting clause has been used to identify
the authority of Laws. Now here's a shocker. The statutes used to regulate
American Citizens lack enacting clauses! Every State uses its "Revised
Statutes," and the federal government uses the United States Codes, as the
law. Now burn this into your brain:
Neither the United States Codes nor any State's Revised Statutes
contain any enacting clauses whatsoever!!!
If you have been following this material you have begun to see that what I have
just said means that all current federal and State "laws" are void. This is
absolutely true! It means that federal and State administrative courts lack
subject matter jurisdiction to hear any matters based upon the United States
Codes and State Revised Statutes.
Check out the inside cover page of any State Revised Statute or U.S. Code
volume: You will find a copyright notice. You cannot copyright a public law!
This means that all of these Codes and Revised Statutes are bodies of private
law or corporate law! If you are not a member of the corporation (as identified
by your possession of a non-required social security taxpayer identification
number), then its laws do not apply to you!
You could overturn any conviction, any proceeding, any action brought against
you by the State or federal government. A motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction cannot be denied by the court, if the law in question lacks
an enacting clause. For a more detailed explanation of enacting clauses,
including a seventeen page Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction, I suggest The Authority of Law by Charles A. Weisman (Weisman
Publications, 11751 W. River Hills Drive #107, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337).
Now that you understand the treachery perpetrated upon the American people
by the United States federal government, you are in a position to decide for
yourself. Are you a federal citizen, for example, a citizen of the State of
California, subject to the whims of Congress, essentially a servant of the federal
government, or are you an American Citizen, for example, a California Citizen,
subject only to the laws of God and superior to both the' state and federal
governments? Only you can make this decision; only you can stand up for your
rights.
Just remember this simple precept of law: if you are outside of a law's
jurisdiction, that law doesn't apply to you and you may ignore and disobey it with impunity
Author unknown .
several errors occurred in copying this document. Let the reader use discernment.
jurisdiction site:www.freedom-school.com - Google Search
1. JURISDICTION by Howard Freeman
- "In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of the contract. If you then refuse to perform as ..."
www.freedom-school.com/law/jurisdiction.htm
- "“Even Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when brought inland, is subject to the Common Law remedy, the same as Equity; and cannot supersede the sovereign ..."
www.freedom-school.com/aware/trust-basics-notes-quotes.html
- "The Secretary of the Treasury can only claim exclusive jurisdiction over this federal zone and citizens of this zone. In particular, the federal enclaves ..."
www.freedom-school.com/today/articles/3US.htm
- "But, the jurisdiction of the United States was limited to the District of Colombia and the territories and the property in this limited jurisdiction was ..."
www.freedom-school.com/money/money.htm
- "action, is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. ... per Court Rule 12 (b) (1) "MOTION TO DISMISS due to lack of jurisdiction. ..."
www.freedom-school.com/peoples-rights-association.pdf
- "I AM NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF!! from Billy-Joe..Mauldin© ... Arkansas - and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - note the word "and", ..."
www.freedom-school.com/truth/NO14th.htm
- "26 Jul 2000 ... In federal trials, the jury must also decide whether the arresting agents were within their jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of federal agents ..."
www.freedom-school.com/today/articles/juror.htm
- "Diego's jurisdiction, beginning at its intersection with Interstate 15, ... road, known as the Pomerado Road Grade, under San Diego's jurisdiction. ..."
www.freedom-school.com/court-cites/city-of-poway-v-city-of-san-diego.pdf
- "An indictment that does not identify a known legal duty to be enforced is not a case "capable of a court acting upon it" that can vest jurisdiction in a ..."
www.freedom-school.com/tax-matters/motion-to-dismiss-indictment-for-failure-to-charge-an-offense.html
- "Therefore, if we want to move from one political jurisdiction to another, we are guaranteed that right - called expatriation. We are guaranteed the right to ..."
www.freedom-school.com/history/usa.htm
- "At common law pleas by which objection is taken to the jurisdiction of the court are ... jurisdiction. They differ at common law from pleas in abatement in ..."
www.freedom-school.com/common-law-abatement.pdf
- "In this act, the jurisdiction and territorial government came to be called the District of Columbia, thus combining the governments of Georgetown, the City ..."
www.freedom-school.com/history/dontcare.htm
- "into foreign jurisdiction. 1 .. . . in gig? /'/./\. 7, J mes-Marlin: Ebert", unrepresented. /J Travis county Texas uSA. 512-443-3103 c/0 Notary Acceptance, ..."
www.freedom-school.com/699540/motion-to-appeal-in-forma-pauperis.pdf
- "jurisdiction by it's denial of due process. I have not violated Yashua's law (Galatians 5:14). I have not caused an injury to another living man or woman. ..."
www.freedom-school.com/699540/allocution-statement-699540.pdf
- "whose jurisdiction and right to petition redress of grievances cannot be abridged by rules binding on professional attorneys in legal practice under ..."
www.freedom-school.com/699540/memo-on-pro-se.pdf
- "It may surprise you to find out that agencies such as FDA, DEA and the EPA all derive their jurisdiction from international treaties. ..."
www.freedom-school.com/tax-matters/why-an-income-tax-is-not-necessary-to-fund-the-government.html
- "In other words the whole thing goes to jurisdiction. They can't put me on post-release control since they did not disclose it to me in sentencing, and they ..."
www.freedom-school.com/keating/keating-and-jack-smith.htm
- "... the attempt to withdraw from the supreme judicial tribunal of the Nation the jurisdiction to examine and decide upon the conformity of their pretended ..."
www.freedom-school.com/history/bc-3.htm
- "Jurisdiction · Law related items · Lewis Mohr · Luis Ewing · Money · Oath related items · Reading Material · Reading Room ..."
www.freedom-school.com/history/spooner.htm
- "But try to pin down a lawyer, any lawyer, on "jurisdiction" or "proximate cause" or "equitable title" --- words which he tosses off with authority and ..."
www.freedom-school.com/law/woe_unto_lawyers.htm
| SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION |
|---|
| SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION 1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th Amendment; also see, Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.) 2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: colorado National Monument Superintendent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law. 3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause. 4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence. 5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk. 6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process. "The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend." Simon v Craft, 182 US 427. "one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951) 7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III judge. Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant's duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, informations are being filed and prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than due process of law. See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.) Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424 [Above found in |
| More resources:
|
