Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10209Re: [tips_and_tricks] Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • JOHN INGRESS
    Feb 17, 2006
      Marshall wrote, "Ok, I have been convinced by reading
      in this forum that jurisdiction is
      the way to try and keep the beast at bay. How do you
      intiate the defense of lack of Jurisdiction? Any and
      all "constructive" help is appreciated."
      ”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 (i.e. a Sovereign) the federal administrative
      courts lack natural jurisdiction to adjudicate any
      matters involving you.
      Subject matter jurisdiction is a different and more
      critical type of jurisdiction. 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 it, it
      has no authority to proceed with a case. It may be
      challenged at any time before, during, or after a
      trial. It may be challenged even if the accused has
      already pled guilty, been convicted, and sentenced to
      jail. 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 something amazing. The
      federal administrative court system lacks subject
      matter jurisdiction on all criminal charges used
      today! In other words, every Citizen incarcerated
      today has a legitimate challenge based upon lack of
      subject matter jurisdiction. If enough of them would
      learn how to mount such a challenge, every “law” on
      the books can and will be overturned! Of course, the
      basic common law crimes involving injury to another
      (i.e. murder, burglary, assault, rape, arson, etc.)
      would remain crimes, but the endless stream or
      regulatory ‘crimes’ would disappear, as they should.”
      (The preceding is from “The American Sovereign”, by
      Brent-Emory..Johnson, www.freedomradio.us On-demand
      podcast available at www.brentjohnsontruth.com)
      Obviously, one can only “initiate the defense of lack
      of jurisdiction” when one has already been hauled into
      court. When Brent capitalizes the “C” in “Citizen”, he
      is referring to one who has asserted his/her status as
      a Sovereign, that is, one who recognizes that “all
      human beings, simply because they are alive, by virtue
      of their Creator…have certain unalienable rights.
      ….They are gifts of your Creator; unless you were
      created by a government, you didn’t get your rights
      from any government, and NO GOVERNMENT CAN EVER TAKE
      YOUR RIGHTS AWAY!” That’s the status you want to apply
      to you, BEFORE you step into court.
      Please, everyone, correct me if I’m wrong, because
      I’m on the verge of following this path laid down by
      Brent. He (and many others) insist it is essential to
      sever ties with the federal corporate state known as
      the US (where I am/we are a “US citizen”) through our
      Social Security Number, which is what gives the IRS
      the “presumptive evidence” to categorize us as
      “taxpayers”, and thereby liable for the income tax.
      (Oversimplification, to be sure.)We then must assert
      our status as a “Citizen of one of the united States”,
      which still operate under the Constitution of the
      united States, as opposed to the federal US. I don't
      see anything wrong with this picture, do you?
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic