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

Is absolutely void.

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Stanton
    This is case law I have collected over the years on jurisdiction. Which clearly shows most judgments are void on their face. Please do not take my word for it,
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 7, 2011
    • 0 Attachment


      This is case law I have collected over the years on jurisdiction. Which clearly shows most judgments are void on their face.
        Please do not take my word for it, read it and make your own determination.
        Always personally verify all cases you may use here to make sure no mistakes were made by me or the case they were taken from.
       Any case you may find that has incorrect verbiage, please let me know so I can correct my records.
                 Lord bless, Jerry James Stanton

       CHALLENGE OF SUBJECT JURISDICTION, TO BE SHOWN AND PROVED BEFORE COURT PROCEEDS

       

      1.      TABLE OF AUTHORITY ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

      In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction.  Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) ("the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it."). 

      Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction. Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)("Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff."). 

      The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff.  Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant's due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction. In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly according to the law or statute under which it operates.  Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) ("the actions, being statutory proceedings, ... were void for want of power to make them.") ("The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void."); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921) ("The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or decree the law or statute which is applicable to it." In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) ("Where a court's power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute."); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990) ("The jurisdiction of a court in a dissolution proceeding is limited to that conferred by statute."); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) ("Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction.").

      "There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." See Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.  "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." See Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.  "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio."  See In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.  "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term."  See Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.  "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331  US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." See Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.  "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." See Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.  "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." See Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685. “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.”  See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v. Levy, 4 US 308. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." See Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.  "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." See Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).  "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."  See Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533. "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." See Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.  "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." See Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558 (b).  "The proponent of the rule has the burden of proof."  Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 (d). "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination."  See Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910. “Mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.”  See Owens v. The City of Independence, 445 US 622 (1980).  "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction."  See Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.  “In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction.”  Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) ("the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.").  “Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction.” Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)("Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff."). 

       

      The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff.  Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant's due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction. In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly according to the law or statute under which it operates.  Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) ("the actions, being statutory proceedings, ... were void for want of power to make them.") ("The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void."); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921) "The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every  question which arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or decree the law or statute which is applicable to it." In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) ("Where a court's power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute."); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990) ("The jurisdiction  of a court in a dissolution proceeding is limited to that conferred by statute."); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) ("Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction.");

      2.      TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – LACK OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

      Thus, neither Judges nor Government attorneys are above the law. See United States v. Isaacs, 493 F. 2d 1124, 1143 (7th Cir. 1974).  In our judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge or judges acting in collusion outside of their judicial authority with the Executive Branch to deprive a citizen of his rights.

      In The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), Sir Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the Magna Carta restricted the power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings would be void, and actionable.

       [W]hen a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is not a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process . . . Id. 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038-41.

      A majority of states including Michigan have followed the English rule to find that a judge had no immunity from suit for acts outside of his judicial capacity or jurisdiction. Robert Craig Waters, 'Liability of Judicial Officers under Section 1983' 79 Yale L. J. (December 1969), pp. 326-27 and 29-30).  Also as early as 1806, in the United States there were recognized restrictions on the power judges, as well as the placing of liability on judges for acts outside of their jurisdiction. In Wise v. Withers, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 331 (1806), the Supreme Court confirmed the right to sue a judge for exercising authority beyond the jurisdiction authorized by statute. In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 at 360 (1978), the Supreme Court confirmed that a judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside of his judicial capacity and/or was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute. See Block, Stump v Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980).  It is clear that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be held liable for his judicial act. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).

      Judicial immunity may only extend to all judicial acts within the courts jurisdiction and judicial capacity, but it does not extend to either criminal acts, or acts outside of official capacity or in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.' see Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978).  When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid Constitutional provisions or valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction or judicial capacity, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard 633 F.2d 844 (1980), Den Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020 (1981).

      As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), '[w]here there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.'

      The constitutional requirement of due process of the law is indispensable:

       

      “A judgment can be void . . . where the court acts in a manner contrary to due process.”  Am Jur 2d, §29 Void Judgments, p. 404.

      "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris."  --Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

      3.       “Moreover, all proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid.”  Olson v. Leith 71 Wyo. 316, 257 P.2d 342.).

       

      4.      THE NATURE OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION:

       

                  The jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over that class of cases, and is said to be essential, necessary, indispensable and an elementary prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power.  US v Cotton, 535 US 625 (2002); Joy v Two-Bit Corp., 287 Mich 244; 283 NW2d 45 (1938); Prosecuting Attorney for Ingham County v American Amusement Co. Inc., 71 Mich App 130; 246 NW2d 684 (1976), cf, 21 CJS “Courts” § 18, p, 25.  Without such jurisdiction existing, an order entered by the court is absolutely void.  In re Matter of Hague, 412 Mich 532, 544; 315 NW2d 524 (1982).  Therefore, a defense based upon the lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time.  Menna v New York, 423 US 61, 62-63 (1975)(citing People v Carpentier, 446 Mich 19; 521 NW2d 195 (1994) cf, Fox v Board of Regent of Michigan University, 375 Mich 238, 242; 134 NW2d 146 (1965).

       

       

       

       

       



    • Michael
      ... Have to disagree here. Subject matter jurisdiction is a function of a court to hear a particular class of cases. If it is a court of chancery for
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Stanton <farm_stone@...> wrote:

        > Which clearly shows most judgments are void on their face.


        Have to disagree here. Subject matter jurisdiction
        is a function of a court to hear a particular class
        of cases.

        If it is a court of chancery for foreclosure cases,
        as a current example with which many are confronted,
        the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter,
        i.e.,foreclosure. What is it that a planitiff has to
        prove but that the case is about foreclosure. There
        is no way that most judgments are void on their
        face as a consequence of the subject matter.

        There are many other ways in which a case can be void
        on its face, but even at that, it is up to the defendant
        to object and demonstrate that a case is void on its
        face, but it is not because of the subject matter.

        An example?

        Plaintiff files a complaint to foreclose on a property,
        based on submitting a copy of the mortgage and stating
        that the plaintiff if the holder and/or owner of the
        note.

        If the defendant does not challenge the complaint as
        void on its face, the suit will proceed. Why would
        this be a specific example of a case void on its face?
        Because the plaintiff neglected to include a copy of
        the note in the complaint. A mortgage without the
        note is a nullity, and the case void ab initio, but
        having nothing to do with the subject matter involved.

        There are other examples, but SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction
        is hardly void on its face, for the reason cited. If you
        have an example, specific to subject matter jurisdiction,
        show it.

        Merely citing a bunch of case law can be very misleading.

        Cheers,

        mn
      • vivus_spartacus
        Such post is but another prime example of how years get wasted by collecting (and /or merely cut & pasting) items on which the vast majority of Americans
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 7, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Such post is but another prime example of how "years" get wasted by collecting (and /or merely cut & pasting) items on which the vast majority of Americans simply have No Working Knowledge or Understanding regarding the pertinent issues of the Subject. (And FYI Jerry, what you have merely copied and pasted herein does NOT: "clearly shows most judgments are void on their face." and I challenge you to present ANY Facts, Points & Authorities to support your assertion made)
          While the issue of Jurisdiction is indeed Crucial, however there is NO burden upon the Plaintiff to actually Prove jurisdiction, until AFTER such has been challenged, and PROPERLY so, by the Accused / Defendant. The PROBLEM with Jerry's post, is that it incorrectly puts the emphasis on "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" rather than on the PRIMARY concern, which is PERSONAM Jurisdiction over the Accused / Defendant. "Subject Matter" Jurisdiction is ALWAYS SECONDARY! (e.g. Let's say that somehow Bear finds himself the recipient of a final notice by the FAA to pay a licensing Assessment/ Fee, plus Fines, Late Penalties and Interest, before the Matter is sent to the USDC and reduced to judgment. Now if Bear does NOT hold an FAA Pilot's License, nor own a Plane, nor even flies on commercial airlines out of not willing to be personally violated by the TSA, who gives a Rat's A** that Congress indeed gave "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" to the USDC for such Matters??? When THAT is NOT the PRIMARY ISSUE or POINT!!!)

          ERGO, it IS FIRST the Issue of Personam Jurisdiction, which is CRUCIAL and MUST be Challenged, PROPERLY! Because unlike "subject matter jurisdiction", Personam Jurisdiction CAN BE WIAVED, and even IF such waiver was merely accidental or unintentional, whether by entering any Plea, or making any 'general appearance' in Pro Per, or even WORSE, hiring ANY Attorney to represent you, thereby in fact personally surrendering yourself to the jurisdiction of the Court via AN OFFICER of the COURT, oh well, aw gee, shucks and TOO BAD! Ergo, One first preserves and protects One's `Rights' by using `Special Appearance' and MOVES to Dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(2) rather than enter any Plea in the Matter. Otherwise, go ahead and learn the Hard Way, what most others have read and learned for hundreds of years, even while still in elementary school. To wit: "It is likewise to be observed, that this society hath a peculiar
          cant and jargon of their own, that no mere mortal can understand,
          and wherein all their laws are written, whereby they have wholly
          confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood."

          "In the trial of persons accused for crimes against the state the
          method is much more short and commendable; the judge first sends to
          sound the dispostion of those in power, after which he can easily
          hang or save the criminal strictly preserving all due forms of law."
          Jonathan Swift, `Gulliver's Travels, Part IV, Chapter V' 1735
          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
          Will Rogers

          "Ignorance of fact excuses; Ignorance of the law excuses not. Every man must be taken to be cognizant of the law; otherwise there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance may not be carried."
          Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition Centennial Edition (1981-1991)
          page 747

          Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
          Proverbs 20:10;23
          I John 4:6

          We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
          Benjamin Franklin

          Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
          getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

          "vivus spartacus"
          All Rights Reserved
          It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
          prey to the active. The condition upon which G-d hath given liberty
          to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude
          is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his
          guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)

          Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
          found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
          imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
          with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
          prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
          Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"






          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Stanton <farm_stone@...> wrote:
          >
          > This is case law I have collected over the years on jurisdiction. Which clearly shows most judgments are void on their face. (WTH???)
          <SNIPPED>
        • Frog Farmer
          I just got a forwarded copy of this older thread from Jerry, and looking ... I think that Jerry might have meant that most would turn out to be void if
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 22, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I just got a forwarded copy of this older thread from Jerry, and looking
            it up found this reply from vivus_spartacus:
            > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:47 PM

            > (And FYI Jerry, what you have merely copied and pasted herein does
            > NOT: "clearly shows most judgments are void on their face." and I
            > challenge you to present ANY Facts, Points & Authorities to support
            > your assertion made)

            I think that Jerry might have meant that most would turn out to be void
            if jurisdiction had been challenged. I'll explain why that might be the
            case in a minute here.

            > While the issue of Jurisdiction is indeed Crucial, however there is NO
            > burden upon the Plaintiff to actually Prove jurisdiction, until AFTER
            > such has been challenged, and PROPERLY so, by the Accused / Defendant.
            >
            > The PROBLEM with Jerry's post, is that it incorrectly puts the
            > emphasis on "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" rather than on the PRIMARY
            > concern, which is PERSONAM Jurisdiction over the Accused / Defendant.
            > "Subject Matter" Jurisdiction is ALWAYS SECONDARY!

            Agreed. Now here's the part of Jerry's post that got me to comment:

            "In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the
            court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the
            burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter
            jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the
            court holds subject-matter jurisdiction." Bindell v City of Harvey, 212
            Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) ("the burden of
            proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it."). "Until the
            plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter
            jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter
            jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter
            jurisdiction." Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558,
            522 N.E.2d 841(1988)("Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of
            establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.").

            [FF sez: notice that it is not the court that rules upon its own
            jurisdiction, even if to the judge it is obvious that it has it, but
            that it is the plaintiff (or prosecutor?) who must prove it upon the
            record. Well, you know my favorite ploy in self defense by now...
            disqualify the bastards! This is easy to do, and why wait until court
            hearings when the Initial Moment Of Confrontation (IMOC) presents the
            perfect opportunity to do so! Doing it then and there often results in
            self-disqualifications from would-be administrative prosecutors (a.k.a.
            "cops") who see that the rewards may not be worth the risks to those
            regular paychecks they see no problem in endorsing. Only properly
            qualified people may bring charges and therefore defend challenges to
            allegations of court jurisdiction. We don't have any of those properly
            qualified critters around the farm here. Do you know of any personally
            where you might be? We're collecting sightings of them to go into the
            files next to those we keep on Sasquatch.]

            > ERGO, it IS FIRST the Issue of Personam Jurisdiction, which is CRUCIAL
            > and MUST be Challenged, PROPERLY! Because unlike "subject matter
            > jurisdiction", Personam Jurisdiction CAN BE WIAVED, and even IF such
            > waiver was merely accidental or unintentional, whether by entering any
            > Plea, or making any 'general appearance' in Pro Per, or even WORSE,
            > hiring ANY Attorney to represent you, thereby in fact personally
            > surrendering yourself to the jurisdiction of the Court via AN OFFICER
            > of the COURT, oh well, aw gee, shucks and TOO BAD!

            I think most people waive it in one of those ways.

            > Ergo, One first preserves and protects One's `Rights' by using
            > `Special Appearance' and MOVES to Dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(2)
            > rather than enter any Plea in the Matter.

            I think that a motion to dismiss when there is nothing real to dismiss
            is an admission and confession and a mistake. They'll most likely
            dismiss it anyway without you asking if you make the record show that
            there is no real case, which here is most of the time.

            Regards,

            FF
          • Michael
            ... FF has often said the the government is actually comprised of a network of over 4,000 corporations. If one enters a court which is actually a
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 22, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
              >
              > [FF sez: notice that it is not the court that rules
              > upon its own jurisdiction, even if to the judge it
              > is obvious that it has it, but that it is the plaintiff
              > (or prosecutor?) who must prove it upon the record.
              > Well, you know my favorite ploy in self defense by now...
              > disqualify the bastards! This is easy to do, and why
              > wait until court
              > hearings when the Initial Moment Of Confrontation (IMOC)
              > presents the perfect opportunity to do so!

              FF has often said the the government is actually comprised
              of a network of over 4,000 corporations. If one enters a
              "court" which is actually a corporation, it would seem that
              the IMOC would apply to disqualify the corporation as not
              being a part of the judicial branch of the state.

              Or, the disqualification may have to reach to the corporate
              STATE, perhaps with the corporate court in question a
              subsidiary of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH. Either way, it
              would still be a separate and distinct corporation.

              It would then seem that the issue of oath of office to
              support the constitutions "of" the United States, [federal?]
              and "of" the STATE may come into play.

              I have not seen this "argued" by anyone as a "court" tactic,
              but it does seem to be an interesting one to expand on the
              IMOC.
            • Frog Farmer
              ... I think that I once mentioned that there are over 4,000 corporations in North America calling themselves government (or that the believers call
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 22, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Michael was thinking and posted:

                > FF has often said the the government is actually comprised
                > of a network of over 4,000 corporations.

                I think that I once mentioned that there are over 4,000 corporations in
                North America calling themselves "government" (or that the believers
                call government). They may be slightly networked. The people who work
                in most of them are unaware of the others. When I mentioned it, it was
                connected to the thought that they all had to be in conformance with
                their founding charters. Or else.

                > If one enters a
                > "court" which is actually a corporation, it would seem that
                > the IMOC would apply to disqualify the corporation as not
                > being a part of the judicial branch of the state.

                Okay, let's see if I understand what you said: The initial moment of
                confrontation would apply to disqualify the corporation as not
                being a part of the judicial branch of the state?

                The Moment (IMOC) itself can do nothing; it is just a starting gun at
                the window of opportunity so it is the party in the moment that has
                powers that may or may not end up being waived. Who is in control of
                the situation when the IMOC occurs?! For me to treat the face in my
                face during the IMOC as a meaningful representative of any corporation
                would grant it legitimacy I do not believe it has, that of representing
                any corporation at all! Just because people don't go to jail doesn't
                mean crimes aren't being committed in plain daylight all around!
                Impersonation is a crime!

                Have any bankers gone to jail over the so-called "crisis"? Remember the
                S&L crisis? Many went to jail. There has been a coup. "The government"
                is riddled top to bottom with many groups who hate it and want to bring
                it down ("a man with a plan" x 100,000+), aside from the believers who
                take whatever is spoon fed to them (200M+). Few live by the law of the
                land anymore. They plead the Law of Necessity, so that when the ATM
                doesn't spit out FRNs someday, they can kill you because their baby is
                hungry. All my life I've been told that people will kill you for 5 bux
                and it is true. Watch what happens next!

                > Or, the disqualification may have to reach to the corporate
                > STATE, perhaps with the corporate court in question a
                > subsidiary of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH. Either way, it
                > would still be a separate and distinct corporation.

                Do you let just anyone represent corporations to you? Where I am you
                have to either be a corporate officer or his licensed attorney to do so
                and I don't want to make things easy for that type. I find
                disqualifications of everyone to be the best solution to all kinds of
                problems, but they must occur immediately, or record gets made that must
                then be overcome creating lots more work that anyone might have tried to
                be avoiding by waiving assertive defensive/offensive action in the IMOC.

                > It would then seem that the issue of oath of office to
                > support the constitutions "of" the United States, [federal?]
                > and "of" the STATE may come into play.

                The critters I'm dealing with haven't taken that oath and aren't obliged
                to it, since they are only actors, impersonators, portrayers,
                charlatans, knaves, doing it all for the fools who cough up the booty!

                > I have not seen this "argued" by anyone as a "court" tactic,
                > but it does seem to be an interesting one to expand on the
                > IMOC.

                I hope it never comes up that far down the road! Man! There are over a
                hundred steps that could be interjected before that issue ever could
                come up in a courtroom, unless you are dragged in, in chains and
                restraints. The latest I'd ever deal with this as you envision would be
                when I was in front of the magistrate I'd be demanding to see
                immediately if I was arrested. Only he'd never get to rule on anything
                because he's going to be disqualified before that.

                Criminal kidnappers often ignore the demands of their captives, so I
                hear, like in that Bette Midler movie...

                Regards,

                FF
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.