Re: [tips_and_tricks] Jurisdiction
- b1 wrote:
Thursday 1 February 2007
--- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, "mn_chicago wrote:.>
>I understand the need to eliminate the attorney by demanding alicense
>and oath be produced, and same for the one leading the event. Giventhe
>that, if one were to proceed otherwise, wouldn't it be sufficient
>to object to the process of lack of jurisdiction because there is
>no complaining witness?
>Certainly, the attorney cannot act as a witness in place of a
>complaining party, and the "copies" can be objected to as hearsay
>and lacking substance, and evidence ain't a witness, as a start.
>Does one have to identify themselves in such a procedure if there is
>no complaining witness making an accusation? I am not clear on that
>as to how to be in command with certainty in one's stance against
>proceeding. It may seem like a small issue, but it is important inIt's a great issue and on point.
>having confidence as a belligerent.
An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court.
He is either an attorney or a witness.
(Trinsey v Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647)
"Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before
This applies both with FRE and State Rules of Evidence....there
must be a competent first hand witness(a body). Their has to be a
real person making the complaint and bringing evidence before the
court. Corporations are paper and can't testify.
After I had submitted several affidavits(paper, not person) into a
case the apposing parties attorney objected and said,
"affidavits" can't be cross examined. (I didn't have the people
there to testify) The affidavits were inadmissible.
This doesn't mean that the judge wont allow it if you don't object.
In Michigans' District Courts, they allow it even if you object.
Which isn't great, but when its on the record it stands forever as a
voidable case which can be overturned at any time.
my two bits,
- mn_chicago [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:
> I understand the need to eliminate the attorney by demanding a licenseBack in the old days of honest judges it might have been okay, but why
> and oath be produced, and same for the one leading the event. Given
> that, if one were to proceed otherwise, wouldn't it be sufficient
> to object to the process of lack of jurisdiction because there is
> no complaining witness?
let a liar and cheat have any part of anything to do with you today?
Here's what I discovered when in court for years on end: dishonest
scumbags will do the wrong thing in front of tons of witnesses and then
require that YOU "appeal" their bad rulings. So, I came to the
conclusion that "no rulings" was a better outcome than "bad rulings".
> Certainly, the attorney cannot act as a witness in place of aBut they act like witnesses in front of juries - are you betting your
> complaining party,
jury is smart enough not to be fooled? A bad bet today...
> Does one have to identify themselves in such a procedure if there isShow me a law where one is "required" to identify oneself, anywhere. I
> no complaining witness making an accusation?
haven't carried ID for over 25 years. One may "have to" identify
themselves to receive a benefit or privilege. Applying for benefits and
privileges is voluntary and not mandatory.
In court, one who wishes to avoid prosecution might wait to be
identified by the injured party or a witness.
> I am not clear on thatIf you're really "against the proceeding" you won't be caught acting in
> as to how to be in command with certainty in one's stance against the
it. If you're against the people initiating the proceeding, you might
try to disqualify them before they can act.
> It may seem like a small issue, but it is important inI won most of my cases the wrong way. Every time I went to court, I
> having confidence as a belligerant.
> To be effective, one has to act with the belligerent confidence
> (or is it confident belligerence?) of Frog Farmer, and know that what
> is being claimed/challenged/demanded has no weak link.
learned that I could have done better if I had prepared better
beforehand. I don't see any benefit to moving forward if it can be
prevented. George Gordon taught me not to move forward voluntarily.
Skipping stages at which one could make valid objections is the same as
voluntarily moving forward and cooperating in one's own prosecution.
> > What standing does a judge have in an action that hasNothing is sufficient anymore. You never know what to expect, even
> > not been commenced?
> ...which addresses the issues I raised above. Are they sufficient
> to preclude going forward, at that point, with the issue of license
> or oath not a part of the discussion?
though the law pretty much spells out how stuff is "supposed" to go, I
felt that every time I made the mistake of pointing out a new law for
public servants to follow, they'd react immediately by violating the law
I pointed out. Government actors are flagrantly violating the law
everywhere, so why think they will suddenly follow the law for YOU?
Yes, a case may be won at almost any stage of the proceedings, but why
invite more chances to fail by experiencing more stages than absolutely
necessary? Why not get the most out of your forced court education by
doing the very best you can to win at every single stage you reach?
[Bear, I'm really not trying to do Socratic teaching by asking these
questions - it's just the way I think, so, to show you, I'm going to try
to convert them into statements, now that they are committed to writing
and I won't forget them. If I were to take the time to try to convert
all my questions to statements in "real time" I'd forget what I was
going to say. So now I'll try to prove I'm not attempting "Socratic
Teaching Method". Let's take my questions one at a time and see if I
can get the idea across without a question mark at the end:
1. Government actors are flagrantly violating the law everywhere, so why
think they will suddenly follow the law for YOU?
Answer: Government actors are flagrantly violating the law everywhere,
and since I became a professional "gambler" (I don't think it's gambling
really, I use data and analyze it for probabilities, and I failed math
in high school too) a few years ago because of my inability to find
enough people to be free and exercise liberty with and trade without
FRNs enough to keep me alive in necessaries, I would not bet that
currently employed paycheck anticipators would buck the trend and apply
the law in your favor. I would bet heavily that they would instead rule
against you and make you perform like a seal jumping through hoops all
the way to see the cherry trees in bloom in Washington D.C. (but don't
blame me if they're not in bloom when you get there.)
2. Yes, a case may be won at almost any stage of the proceedings, but
why invite more chances to fail by experiencing more stages than
Answer: Yes, a case may be won at almost any stage of the proceedings,
and one may decide to invite more chances to fail by experiencing more
stages than absolutely necessary! More chances to win = more chances to
fail. In poker (I was professionally trained to win last year and am
pretty good right now), patience is a virtue. One does better trying to
win a few large pots than a lot of little ones. When you go "all-in"
you'd better "have the nuts" (the best possible hand). It is my own
considered opinion borne out by over 25 years of experience, that it's
easier to beat one person in front of you, in mental gymnastics
("curbside court", "your front door", wherever the IMOC transpires) than
it is to argue with a coordinated trained team of paid professionals in
a setting in which they feel more comfortable.
One question I often ask people is, "was this your idea, or did someone
who may not love you that much put you up to it to see how you handle
me?" "Could someone want you gone from the office for good? Because if
you irritate me, I'm like a bear trap ready to step on, and I'm afraid
you cannot see through the camouflage well enough to keep your ankles
functional as a pants holder."
3. Why not get the most out of your forced court education by doing the
very best you can to win at every single stage you reach?
Answer: I recommend getting the most out of your forced court education
by doing the very best you can to win at every single stage you reach!
That was an easy one, Bear! I think I might be getting the hang of
I admit, in one of my cases I waived a lot because I knew I would win on
appeal, and I was too lazy to fight as hard as I could, as I was
fighting several cases at the same time, and wanted to reduce my
workload. It was a mistake. It cost me a lot more time and effort to
go back and correct errors I could have more easily decided not to make
in the first place. My new theory is, win early, win fast. So, now I
am either trying to win at the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation) or
prior to trial with disqualifications and objections to faulty
arraignments. Counsel is an issue beginning with any in-custody
interrogation, per Miranda, and applies at every meaningful stage of the
proceedings. I think many people choose to waive one issue or another,
banking on one they think is an obvious winner, but like I said above,
it seems if you point out a law, they'll break it. They don't appear to
honor Supreme Court decisions. In my case, I think I sent the message
that I'm not economically worth messing with. George Gordon taught us
how to run up the bill on them, in their own paycheck anticipation
system. It can be fun if one has nothing better to do. I think all my
cases probably cost them at least 5,000 "USD" each. One (the longest
biggest fight, to appeal) was over $14 I refused to pay for a dog
license. That was the case I cut my teeth on. For someone trembling in
fear over going to court, picking a case where one can afford to lose
might be worth the losses, but even better if one tries to win it. Once
you realize (I guess only if you're in California??) that they need so
many pieces of the puzzle to fall into place to convict you, and that
most people put those pieces into place FOR THEM (out of na�ve
ignorance??), you can decide to refrain from pointing out pieces, and
from putting them in place for your opponents. Just doing that would
increase wins by hundreds of percent.
> > The law tells us what is a sufficient accusatory instrument.True, but how many people go in with the conviction that they can tell
> > Either those elements are in the record of the court or they are
> > not. It's black or white.
night from day without "asking the judge"? Darn, there I go again!!
Okay, If you ask me, hardly ANYONE can tell black from white because
they never take the time or make the effort to crack open the book and
spend an hour or two researching their own cases. I know The Handyman
cracks the books, and Bear does, and a lot of others on this specialized
list of law hobbyists, but most people on the freeway out there won't do
it. They'll call a lawyer and feel smug about it.
> > If those elements are not in theAnd so one needs to be able to recognize a real from a fake, on every
> > record, the jurisdiction of the court has not been invoked,
level, with every thing, starting with the first verbal or written claim
ever made (the IMOC). Going next to the one making the claim. And next
to his accomplices. And next to compiling a file of evidence for each
co-conspirator. It's a lot of work to fight to win. Or I should say,
it can be. Winning can also be surprisingly easy, where you don't see
it coming and suddenly they've capitulated. Victory!
> > court is powerless to issue ANY lawful process (summons or warrant)None of my neighbors seem to currently hold this concept in their heads.
> > and any alleged order of a court acting absent jurisdiction is void
> > ab initio.
They tend to think that because things are the way they are right now,
there must be a reason they cannot understand that would excuse it all.
They accept an unelected president. They accept lies and murders. They
aren't ready to stand up and "fight city hall". What a stupid phrase!
There's no cohesion anymore, People! The Rats are deserting the Sinking
> I have been to the law library to research precisely what is aSo, here in California we torpedo the attorneys with Business and
> complaining witness, and I looked up corporations. All it says is
> that a corp has to be represented by an attorney.
Professions Code 6067 et seq. Not too hard to do, if someone has the
power of speech.
> As to witnesses,Yeah, and does even Wikipedia say that if you go out in the rain,
> it goes into issues of being an actual witness, not a complaining
"wetness" is imparted? Some things are just so obvious, for example,
that a complaining party would be a witness to the injury. I guess
there could be cases where he isn't aware of the injury and there were
other witnesses around, but most rights cases involve somebody being put
off enough to complain when their rights are violated. I do get what is
being said about the lack of a complainant though, and that is true.
Remember, there's a step one can put in, where one denies the existence
of the corporate entity claimed to be represented by the attorney who
came to court without his papers being in order. Should we believe him
about anything? I won't. But many people WILL! That is the point.
One has to know both in court and in poker, what one will do when a
situation arises. Will one waive rights in order to look "cooperative"?
When I have been called "uncooperative" in court, I have answered that
"I am not here to cooperate."
> Reading between the lines sometimes appears as invisible to me.I would say, everything is in us, and we should not look to our
> Until I have clarity, I harbor doubt.
oppressors for anything.
> Once I have clarity, you willYou can have it. I'm not in the way! And I'm not a "resident".
> finding me standing right behind the resident Farmer, and even trying
> to push him out of the way so I can get my turn.
- --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
>That I took removing atty for lack of license out of
> But they act like witnesses in front of juries - are
> you betting your
> jury is smart enough not to be fooled? A bad bet
the equation, does not mean I would not use it. I
already sent a letter to a Calif "senior counsel" for
a national lender...one who called my position
"frivolous and irrelevant,"...stating that I wanted to
see hoe relevant she was, and I told her how Calif
requires a very specific oath, which she lacked...no
oath, no office. I warned her not to pose as an atty
against me, and that I could help her find the oath if
That was mid-November '06. Haven't heard back from
In Illinois, the attorney oath is not as clear as in
Calif. It does state that an atty must take an oath
"in the following form substantially..." and that the
oath must then be certified on the license.
The word "substantially" leaves wiggle room.
I received a letter from an attorney saying I had 30
days to request verification, but legal proceedings
not have to wait 30 days.
On the letter head was a list of about 25 attorneys,
each with an asterisk after their name that indicated
they were "licensed" in Illinois.
I sent a Constructive Notice and Demand that each and
every atty listed send me a copy of their license and
oath of office to the Constitution of the United
States and the state of Illinois, giving them 10 days
to respond. That was on 19 January.
I sent a certified letter to the clerk of the Illinois
supreme court asking for a copy of the license for the
head atty, as a test, sending 4 quarters as payment.
The clerk sent me a copy of the statutory oath of
office required to be taken, and a her certified copy
of a certificate from her stating the atty did take
the oath and was put on the Roll, so is a licensed
atty to practice law in Illinois.
She then said that executed oaths of office are not
available to the public.
Two days ago, I sent the group of attys another
letter reminding them I had not received any license
or withdrawal of their otherwise unlawful request,
and then requested a copy of their insurance company
name that covers them or their bond, giving them 3
days to respond.
Now, I get to ask the supreme clerk court why she
didn't send me a copy of the license with the
certified oath inscribed on the license, citing the
statute and telling her that is the copy I want, not
her certified certificate.
Plus, I will ask her for the specific statute that
exempts attys from having to comply with the law.
So, it ain't as though I am not pursuing the
elimination of anyone who chooses to tangle with me.
As to the alleged "Lender," I have a file folder two
inches thick with my correspondence demanding that
they prove they made an actual loan of money, and
proof that they are the holder in due course, entitled
I have sent letters to the CEO, CFO, and Senior Dept
Manager, all certified, all in the form of Notice and
Demand, and all properly Notary Protest complete for
My file on the Servicing agent is half as thick, but
growing, as I warn them about what they are trying to
do without providing substantial proof.
I have spent the last 6 months preparing for what is
about to unfold, inviting it, indirectly, with my
demands for answers, none of which have been answered.
Part of that preparation is being ready in the event
that my preemptive efforts, very diligent, somehow are
not respected as valid, so I want to be as equally
prepared in the "party room," even if it be but a step
on the way to appeals.
Frankly, with the information and tools I have at my
disposal, I would be surprised if it ever makes it to
court, but I do not want to leave any stone unturned.
> Show me a law where one is "required" to identifyThe question was courtroom specific, in the event it
> oneself, anywhere.
> In court, one who wishes to avoid prosecution might
> wait to be
> identified by the injured party or a witness.
got to that point, when my "name" would be called out
by the clerk, not the "judge" or "atty-in-form-of-
How to respond was my issue, without admitting into
Keep in mind, I would also have already used a
duces tecum on the atty to produce the license/oath,
and I would by then also know whose oath of judicial
office I would need.
> Government actors are flagrantly violating the lawThat is why I want to be fully prepared, even after
> everywhere, so why think they will suddenly follow
> the law for YOU?
all peremptory strikes.
As to the reference to FF being "resident," it was in
the non-Black's way, but point taken. And yes, I
misspelled "propria,"... thank you.
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
- Michael Noonan [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:
> The question was courtroom specific, in the event itEver hear of an appearance without an appearance?
> got to that point, when my "name" would be called out
> by the clerk, not the "judge" or "atty-in-form-of-
> How to respond was my issue, without admitting into
Google "appearance without an appearance".
One time my friend showed up for an arraignment with three witnesses who
made affidavits to that effect. He did not respond when they called his
name, and nobody there pointed out that he was there, no accuser, no
prosecutor, nobody. The judge put out a bench warrant anyway. The
affidavits were filed into the record the next day. Bench warrants in
California are mere computer entries with no paperwork and thus invalid,
like a notice of lien without a lien is no good.
- I love it! The imposters in black robes are all stirred up!
November 9, 2007
Thousands of petty criminals could have their convictions thrown out
and millions of dollars in fines refunded because Spokane County
District Court judges overstepped their authority for more than a
decade by improperly handling city cases, an appeals court ruled
The decision, which overturns two otherwise simple drunken driving
convictions, has such far-reaching implications that it could trigger
what's believed to be the largest legal debacle of overturned Spokane
Municipal Court cases in city history.
Unless the decision is overturned by the Washington Supreme Court,
the ruling would invalidate every DUI and domestic violence
conviction, and all contested speeding and parking tickets issued
between 1995 and Jan. 1, several legal and court officials said.
"It's potentially a huge, huge impact and we're trying to deal with
it in an orderly fashion," said Sara Derr, who serves as the District
Court presiding judge.
Local attorney Breean Beggs who brought the lawsuit that generated
the ruling questions why the city didn't do more to avert the
crisis it now faces.
"It was preventable," Beggs said. "The city had the opportunity over
the last two years to resolve this particular case in a way that
would not have resulted in this ruling and there would be no
jeopardy to these other cases."
The flaw came in how the judges were elected, according to the 2-1
decision by the state Court of Appeals Division III.
State law mandates that Spokane residents alone elect the judges who
handle municipal cases, such as trespassing, shoplifting, speeding
and DUI within city limits.
But in Spokane, an agreement was struck between the city and county
to assign District Court judges who are chosen by voters in
countywide elections to preside over the city's municipal court
caseload. Beggs successfully argued it violated state law because
voters outside Spokane city limits were allowed to choose city judges.
"We conclude that the way in which the Spokane municipal judges are
elected is contrary to state law," appellate judge Dennis Sweeney
wrote in Thursday's opinion. Judge John Schultheis concurred, but
judge Stephen Brown dissented.
City officials, lawyers and judges scrambled for most of the day to
determine how to proceed, city spokeswoman Marlene Feist said.
City Prosecutor Howard Delaney "plans to seek some clarification on
the decision from the court of appeals," she said. "He is also trying
to take some immediate steps on the most pressing issues, such as
outstanding misdemeanor warrants. And he has asked jail officials how
many inmates are currently being held on convictions from municipal
Spokane County sheriff's deputies and city police have stopped
executing misdemeanor warrants involving city cases related to
alleged crimes prior to Jan. 1.
Judge Derr said the ruling "essentially says that we have no
authority to handle city cases until this year. We are attempting to
comply with the order of the court, to the best of our ability and as
quickly as possible."
The court instituted technical changes this year that brought it
under compliance with state law, she said.
Although there's a legal 30-day "reconsideration period" for the
ruling, court officials are not going to wait, Derr said. However,
court clerks are not going to start issuing refunds for fines and
fees today, Derr added.
"Until we have information on those fees and fines, we ask everybody
to be calm we'll certainly get to everybody," Derr said.
The trigger case began in 2005 when Spokane residents Henry Smith and
Lawrence Rothwell challenged their DUI convictions under the argument
that District Judge Patti Connolly Walker lacked jurisdiction to
decide their case because they were both arrested in Spokane city
Judge Walker, who was elected in a countywide race, denied their
motions. Smith and Rothwell appealed the case to Spokane Superior
Court Judge Rebecca Baker. She likewise ruled that Walker had
With the help of Beggs, an attorney for the public interest law firm
Center for Justice, Smith and Rothwell appealed their case to the
State Court of Appeals Division III.
Along with conviction reversals, the case could have "unimaginable"
effects that could take years to unravel, said Superior Court Judge
Sam Cozza. For instance, if a DUI conviction is reversed, court
records must be changed, any subsequent convictions would be altered,
and the state would have to change the offender's driving record.
Last year alone, Spokane Municipal Court handled 25,104 traffic
tickets, 608 DUIs, and more than 10,000 misdemeanor crimes, including
serious traffic charges, according to the state Office of the
Administrator for the Courts.
"Those are all kind of thrown into a state of uncertainty," Judge
In addition to evaluating the local impact of the appellate court
ruling, Derr's office has sent a query to the Administrative Office
of the Courts in Olympia to assist with an analysis of the fiscal
"As we speak, we are running queries in our system. We'll be meeting
all day" today, Derr said. "We need to minimize the risk to the
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "diggerflyer" <Riverway@...>
>I would add:
> I love it! The imposters in black robes are all stirred up!
> November 9, 2007
> Thousands of petty criminals could have their convictions thrown out
> and millions of dollars in fines refunded because Spokane County
> District Court judges overstepped their authority for more than a
> decade by improperly handling city cases, an appeals court ruled
How about in your city/county jurisdiction? How are they doing
business compared to this quagmire? Could you perhaps challenge
jurisdiction there as well?
Adding to my previous comments in the "Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense" thread, regarding the fact that filing a "motion" gives the court you file it in jurisdiction over you, if you plan to challenge jurisdiction, you can use a filing few people know of, called a "Plea in Bar". Here's part of the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (p. 1152):
Plea in bar. A plea which goes to bar the plaintiff's action; that is, to defeat it absolutely and entirely. A plea in bar sets forth matters which per se destroy the right of action and bar its prosecution absolutely ... U.S. v. Brodson, C.A. Wisc., 234 F.2d 97, 99. A plea in bar is one that denies the plaintiff's right to maintain the action and which, if established, will destroy the action. Gillikin v. Gillikin, 248 N.C. 710; 104 S.E.2d 861, 862.
You can also file a "Notice of Special Appearance" which states that you appear "under duress" & that the only reason you appear is to challenge the jurisdiction of the State and/or the court over you. Now it's going to vary a great deal from State to State & will depend on the case law there, but for North Carolina, I cited a N.C. supreme court ruling that changed the burden of proof from the "defendant" in a criminal action to the State:
State Has Burden to Show Jurisdiction.— The question of jurisdiction of the courts in this state in a criminal case is not an independent, distinct, substantive matter of exemption, immunity or defense and ought not to be regarded as an affirmative defense on which the defendant must bear the burden of proof. Rather, jurisdiction is a matter which, when contested, should be proven by the prosecution as a prerequisite to the authority of the court to enter judgment.
When jurisdiction is challenged, in a criminal case, the State must carry the burden and show beyond a reasonable doubt that North Carolina has jurisdiction to try the accused. Former cases holding that a challenge to the jurisdiction is an affirmative defense with the burden of persuasion on the accused are no longer authoritative.
- State v. Batdorf, 293 N.C. 486, 238 S.E.2d 497 (1977).
We have used the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar" strategy successfully several times, with the result being the prosecutor stands up & says, "State takes a voluntary dismissal, your honor." In other words, rather than try to prove that the State / court has the jurisdiction to try the accused, the assistant district attny. just dismisses the case. Which is fine if you're the accused, but such an action does NOT set a "legal precedent" - it just ends that particular case.
And all the cases have involved relatively minor driving issues, such as no driver's license, a claim of a revoked license, speeding, running a red light, etc. & in no case was there an "injured party" - like somebody getting hurt in a wreck the "defendant" allegedly caused. And in each case the individual who filed the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar" used the term "Respondent" rather than "Defendant" - I'm "responding" to your accusation(s), not "defending" & until the State proves its courts have jurisdiction, we can't go any farther. And I'm not going to "traverse" into subject-matter either - that's another term to learn - once you start arguing over the subject-matter, you just gave the court jurisdiction.
Now I'm not saying the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar" strategy always works because it hasn't & there are WAY too many variables from one situation to another to say there's a "one size fits all" method to use, but it is something you can investigate yourself, going by the case law which applies in the State you live in. You could do it on the federal level too, although I've not seen anybody do it & I've never needed to. But neither of those filings constitute a "motion" & neither give the court jurisdiction over you, which filing a "motion" and/or "traversing" into subject-matter arguments does.
~ ~ ~
A search at www.versuslaw.com for the phrase "lack of jurisdiction" turned up over 200 results. I learned quite a bit about jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, by just perusing a few of the cases.
A few things I already knew about jurisdiction to be researched in whatever state you are in for applicability:
A court always has jurisdiction to determine if it has jurisdiction
Filing a motion cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction when there is none.
Plea in abatement, plea in bar, and special appearance are now embodied in Rule 12 of both civil and criminal rules when your state uses a federal numbering system. It is no longer necessary to invoke the magic words "appearing specially", it is now possible to raise that single issue via motion.
With respect to personam jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the person), if you put in any other motions, raise any other issues in your motion, or, file any other motion raising any other issue besides the issue of personam jurisdiction you cure the lack of personam jurisdiction issue for your opponent and waive the issue.
When jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the one asserting it to prove it. If a judge sets out to prove his jurisdiction for one of the parties, he just showed his bias because he carried one of the parties burden.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Pleadings invoking their jurisdiction must have a jurisdictional statement. Any state court that has a jurisdictional Dollar amount or is limited to hearing misdemeanors or petty offenses is a court of limited jurisdiction. If the court can hear felony charges and civil matters of any amount it is a court of general jurisdiction whose jurisdiction is only limited by statute. No jurisdictional statement is required in pleadings invoking a court of general jurisdictions jurisdiction.
Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST
Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com
www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net
www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:
email@example.com to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group
- Jake wrote:
> Adding to my previous comments in the "Texas Appeals Court Denies
> Sovereign Citizen Defense" thread, regarding the fact that filing a
> "motion" gives the court you file it in jurisdiction over you, if you
> plan to challenge jurisdiction, you can use a filing few people know
> of, called a "Plea in Bar".
> You can also file a "Notice of Special Appearance" which states thatYou don't even need paper when you do it in the continuation of the IMOC
> you appear "under duress" & that the only reason you appear is to
> challenge the jurisdiction of the State and/or the court over you.
(Initial Moment Of Confrontation) and get to the "immediately" provided
magistrate because you were not "free to go". If you performed a mutual
citizens arrest of the impersonator who was hoping to use you for added
booty, this is where you'd turn him in and then you SHOULD be free to
go, unless a probable cause hearing shows otherwise, but then already
certain required parties are and have been "missing in action".
Most people waive the opportunity to discuss these things in chambers
before a hearing. Doing so can save all a lot of wasted time and work.
> it's going to vary a great deal from State to State & will depend onThe "defendant" is a party well along the slippery slope to conviction.
> the case law there, but for North Carolina, I cited a N.C. supreme
> court ruling that changed the burden of proof from the "defendant" in
> a criminal action to the State:
The key to winning your freedom is to not become a defendant. There are
hundreds of opportunities to avoid becoming the defendant during and
after the IMOC right up until voire dire of potential jurors. This is
because becoming the defendant is not a matter of choice or opinion but
is a matter of facts set into the record. If certain requirements are
not met, the accused may act and sound like a defendant, but he isn't
really one. Isn't that the way with so many things today??!
So, people will be cunningly coerced to pretend that they are defendants
(and I must say for all the NEWBIES, I'm strictly speaking for where I
am, in northwest North Mexico just south of the Oregon line, otherwise
known as "northern California" before "The State of California" went
bankrupt) and will be told that they are defendants. If they are
sheeple, they "baaahhh" and go into one process. If they are aware
Americans with rights who aren't part of the indentured servitude, they
may let it be known and be afforded a different process. It requires
them to control their own court. Few are even aware of the concept.
> Former cases holdingProgress! I'm not going to hang my hat on it here. The game is really
> that a challenge to the jurisdiction is an affirmative defense with
> the burden of persuasion on the accused are no longer authoritative.
> - State v. Batdorf, 293 N.C. 486, 238 S.E.2d 497 (1977).
over here. But you know those "aficionados"! You can�t get them off
> We have used the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar"Yes...here that would come after a long process of wasted time, and the
> strategy successfully several times, with the result being the
> prosecutor stands up & says, "State takes a voluntary dismissal, your
> honor." In other words, rather than try to prove that the State /
> court has the jurisdiction to try the accused, the assistant district
> attny. just dismisses the case. Which is fine if you're the accused,
> but such an action does NOT set a "legal precedent" - it just ends
> that particular case.
odds are that there really IS "no case" to be tried under constitutional
and statutory definitions, but there COULD be a "revenue producing
affair" for any number of parties IF a sufficiently na�ve and gullible
SHEEPLE is the target. This is what happens most of the time.
> And all the cases have involved relatively minor driving issues, suchGood one saying he wasn't the defendant, but he didn't really appear to
> as no driver's license, a claim of a revoked license, speeding,
> running a red light, etc. & in no case was there an "injured party" -
> like somebody getting hurt in a wreck the "defendant" allegedly
> caused. And in each case the individual who filed the "Notice of
> Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar" used the term "Respondent" rather
> than "Defendant" - I'm "responding" to your accusation(s), not
> "defending" & until the State proves its courts have jurisdiction, we
> can't go any farther.
know WHY...if it was California. If it was New York, I hear anything
> And I'm not going to "traverse" into subject-"Traverse" comes into play in the IMOC!! And is usually RECORDED now!
> matter either - that's another term to learn - once you start arguing
> over the subject-matter, you just gave the court jurisdiction.
> Now I'm not saying the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar"That's like saying "The Hammer Strategy" will not always work".
> strategy always works because it hasn't
> & there are WAY too manyGood info, but coming late after the IMOC, may involve more work than
> variables from one situation to another to say there's a "one size
> fits all" method to use, but it is something you can investigate
> yourself, going by the case law which applies in the State you live
> in. You could do it on the federal level too, although I've not seen
> anybody do it & I've never needed to. But neither of those filings
> constitute a "motion" & neither give the court jurisdiction over you,
> which filing a "motion" and/or "traversing" into subject-matter
> arguments does.
was actually necessary. Before paper, verbal trial balloons are floated
in a non-official setting, such as in back seat or in chambers, and so
paper may not have to be created to get the desired effect, just letting
the other side know what is coming may be enough. So I take things one
step at a time from the IMOC and usually the meeting draws to a quick
close. To NOT continue non-stop from the IMOC ADMITS too many necessary
facts for the record. I let the pizza on the front seat get stone cold
if necessary, and do what I have to do immediately until it is over and
I am either arraigned or free. And there are over a hundred steps
before arraignment possible! Collect the trading card set!
Maybe this site should create and market a set of cards to carry on you
that could also be used to play poker. But there are only 52 of those,
so at least there'd have to be Deck I and Deck II.
- Hi everyone. I have researched past posts dealing with jurisdiction and not found info that I want. If a court claims not to have jurisdiction because the defendants were not properly served and still renders a decision, does the decision have any force of law? I don't know where to find information of that type and could use some help. Thanks, Wayne
- In the case of a courts admission it does not have jurisdiction on the record a "motion to vacate void judgment for lack of jurisdiction" is in order.... Then in the instance of a denial of that motion to "appeal the decision" Finding case law would be to type into your search engines "void judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction" and in your case "void judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction" in hind sight. improper or no service can be challenged by the defendant prior to any proceedings by "filing by special appearance a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction" or "appearing specially" to challenge jurisdiction. May our Fathers wisdom make clear your path!MarkOn Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:58 AM, <wayne@...> wrote:Hi everyone. I have researched past posts dealing with jurisdiction and not found info that I want. If a court claims not to have jurisdiction because the defendants were not properly served and still renders a decision, does the decision have any force of law? I don't know where to find information of that type and could use some help. Thanks, Wayne
American DreamerFitness at your fingertips