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

Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • JD
    A primer on federal jurisdiction http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/20mcrm.htm
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
    • Marshall Magill
      Ok, I have been convinced by reading in this forum that jurisdiction is the way to try and keep the beast at bay. The IRS called my home last night for what I
      Message 2 of 26 , Feb 17, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Ok, I have been convinced by reading in this forum that jurisdiction is the
        way to try and keep the beast at bay. The IRS called my home last night for
        what I do not know(well I kinda do since I have not played their game for 18
        years) as I was not here to take the call but got a message. My question
        is, how do you intiate the defense of lack of Jurisdiction? Any and all
        "constructive" help is appreciated.

        Marshall
      • jckhly
        Give a look at this site losthorizons.com J. ... the ... night for ... for 18 ... question
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 17, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Give a look at this site losthorizons.com
          J.




          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Marshall Magill"
          <wmmw@...> wrote:
          >
          > Ok, I have been convinced by reading in this forum that jurisdiction is
          the
          > way to try and keep the beast at bay. The IRS called my home last
          night for
          > what I do not know(well I kinda do since I have not played their game
          for 18
          > years) as I was not here to take the call but got a message. My
          question
          > is, how do you intiate the defense of lack of Jurisdiction? Any and all
          > "constructive" help is appreciated.
          >
          > Marshall
          >
        • JOHN INGRESS
          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
          Message 4 of 26 , Feb 17, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            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?
          • Marshall Magill
            I don t know Brent. However about 4 years ago I sent affidavits to the President, IRS Commissioner, chief Justice of the supreme court, the DOJ and a host of
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 18, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I don't know Brent. However about 4 years ago I sent affidavits to the
              President, IRS Commissioner, chief Justice of the supreme court, the DOJ and
              a host of State of Texas officials declaring I am not a 14th amendment
              citzen but in fact a Sovereign! Now is the time I suppose to start using it.
              However, I have seen in COURT people challenge jurisdiction and the judge
              says i am the judge of this court and I have determined I have Jurisdiction,
              I understand that that is not enough just for him to declare it but how do
              you move to make him (the Judge) Prove he has Jurisdiction? Also, Just
              because you have filed affidavits stating who and what you are that does not
              mean they will just bow down to you as a sovereign, they look at that
              argument as frivolous as they are convinced everyone is a U S citizen. I
              submit to you that it then becomes a heavy load to make them acknowledge you
              as such when it debases their power and control because this is what they
              ultimately desire. To maintain their power and control over the people of
              this once free land.
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "JOHN INGRESS" <ingress@...>
              To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:00 AM
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Jurisdiction


              > 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."
            • Legalbear
              However, I have seen in COURT people challenge jurisdiction and the judge says i am the judge of this court and I have determined I have Jurisdiction, I
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 18, 2006
              • 0 Attachment

                However, I have seen in COURT people challenge jurisdiction and the judge

                says i am the judge of this court and I have determined I have Jurisdiction,

                I understand that that is not enough just for him to declare it but how do

                you move to make him (the Judge) Prove he has Jurisdiction?

                 

                If you had a copy of my legal research video and law course described and offered at www.legal-research-video.com you would be able to learn the answer to your question by doing some skillful research. You can learn to be skillful researcher by watching the video a number of times and applying the knowledge portrayed there. If you had read the law course you would know that first, to challenge jurisdiction, you must file a motion setting forth why the trial court does not have jurisdiction and give the trial court first crack at the issue. From watching the research video you would learn that there are a number of places in the law library where you could see samples of what these motions look like to model yours after. You will have increased credibility with the judge when he sees that you write motions that look they were written by a lawyer and then he will not treat you so summarily. IF you know how to do research skillfully, you will also be able to learn where the so called “judge” was supposed to file his oath and whether or not he was supposed to obtain and post a bond to qualify for his office. You would even be able to find out where he was supposed to post that bond and how long he had to do it. If you truly are a sovereign would you even ask the question, “…how do you move to make him (the Judge) Prove he has Jurisdiction?” I would think a “sovereign” would easily put a “judge” in his place. Frog Farmer said, and I agree, it doesn’t matter that you say you are a sovereign if you act like a slave. You prove your sovereignty by you wits and knowledge or, by ordering your army to capture the judge and hold him until he proves jurisdiction. I am of the position that true sovereignty can be obtained by submission to Jahuwah; then you can pray and He will immediately send 12 legions of angels to fight for you. Matthew 26:53. One angel alone is capable of slaying 185,000 men in a night. See 2 Kings 19:35 and Isaiah 37:36. Or, like Elijah you will be able to say, “If I am a [sovereign], then let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” 2 Kings 1:10. And fire will fall from heaven and consume him.  And then you can say, see, I told you you didn’t have jurisdiction!

                 

                Now, from the legal research video and law course at www.legal-research-video.com you would have also learned that the second step to enforcing lack of a courts jurisdiction is to file a complaint for prohibition, an extraordinary writ, in the supervisory court. With the legal research skill you gain from watching the video a number of times you would be able to quickly locate a sample complaint in the form books in the law library or do a well crafted, efficient search for one on Google. And, since you are skilled at doing research as a result of watching the research video you will be able to quickly determine what court supervises the court that you have made the jurisdictional challenge in. When the judges see that you are not under the same constraints as an attorney and that you know and understand these things; they will be afraid of you and give you the respect you deserve as a “sovereign.”

                 

                they look at that argument as frivolous as they are convinced everyone is a U S citizen.

                 

                You contribute to the difficulty of convincing them otherwise when you act like an ignorant slave while saying you are a sovereign. A characteristic of a 14th Amendment/US citizen/former slave is that they do not know how to enforce their rights in court. I strongly recommend that you scare the crap out of them by learning to do legal research skillfully and by obtaining and mastering the information in the law course and legal research video at www.legal-research-video.com. Bear

                 

                PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

                 

                For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley , CO  80634

                 

                BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

                 

                www.legal-research-video.com

                www.legalbears.com

                www.irslienthumper.com

                www.irs-armory.com

                 

                To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:

                tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                 

              • ciamarie2001
                It may or may not work, I just wanted to point out or remind folks that Dick Simkanin filed motions in his trial, challenging jurisdiction; and the judge /
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 18, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  It may or may not work, I just wanted to point out or remind folks
                  that Dick Simkanin filed motions in his trial, challenging
                  jurisdiction; and the judge / court 'unfiled' them. Therefore they
                  didn't have to respond to them.

                  For the most part, you're not dealing with people who play by any
                  rules of 'fair play'. But maybe you'll run into an exception. And I
                  know this board is predicated on the idea that there are legal
                  remedies, which are certainly good to have.

                  Cia

                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, JOHN INGRESS <ingress@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > 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
                • JOHN INGRESS
                  Marshall wrote: I don t know Brent. However about 4 years ago I sent affidavits to the President, IRS Commissioner, chief Justice of the supreme court, the
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 18, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Marshall wrote: "I don't know Brent. However about 4
                    years ago I sent affidavits to the President, IRS
                    Commissioner, chief Justice of the supreme court, the
                    DOJ and a host of State of Texas officials declaring I
                    am not a 14th amendment
                    citzen but in fact a Sovereign! Now is the time I
                    suppose to start using it."
                    Marshall, I just received a 200 page book from Brent
                    (The American Sovereign), and I’m not going to try to
                    reproduce it here. It covers, for example, the
                    difference between the USDC (United States District
                    Court) and the District Court of the United States.
                    One is an administrative court, the other is federal.
                    Both types exist within the several states of the
                    Union, and it’s vital to know which has jurisdiction
                    over you in your particular situation. Also vital to
                    know how to establish your sovereignty in any
                    situation, but especially in court. I suggest you go
                    to www.rbnlive.com and click “show archives”, The Natl
                    Intel Report, and find the latest shows with Ed Wahler
                    and John Ainsworth, which are usually on Thursdays,
                    starting with I believe January 12. Wahler is adamant
                    that it’s NOT just a question of “I sent in my
                    affidavit to the Gov.”, but that there’s a lot more to
                    it. Did you notify the Social Security Administration?
                    Do you still use the SSN? Do you receive and accept
                    mail that’s government related, (e.g. W-2’s, 1099’s,
                    bank statements) with your name in CAPS? Does your
                    mail have a ZIP code? All these allow the federal
                    Corporate State to assume YOU ARE THEIR PROPERTY, and
                    until you rebut this presumptive evidence, they will
                    do all they can to protect their property---you---so
                    they can take your property. It’s all based on the
                    SSN, and while it is going to be a lot of work to
                    throw off your chains, it is nonetheless EASY (so Ed
                    and Brent say) once you know how to DEMAND that your
                    PUBLIC SERVANTS recognize that THEY derive their
                    authority from YOU! (Both Brent and Wahler have books
                    for around 80 FRNs. Wahler's I think is 100% geared
                    toward helping you sever your ties with the feds,
                    while Brent's covers numerous topics, such as Trusts,
                    why we are free to travel in a car without a "driver's
                    license", why you don't owe property taxes, and
                    more.)(OK, one more vital thought. Brent (and probably
                    Ed-I'm still waiting for my copy) covers "terminating
                    your contract...how to rescind your signature" and
                    other things to do to establish your sovereignty. In
                    contract law, which is what the SSN is under, to
                    rescind means, according to Black's Law, sixth
                    edition,
                    “To abrogate, annul, avoid, or cancel a contract;
                    particularly, nullifying a contract by the act of a
                    party. The right of rescission is the right to cancel
                    (rescind) a contract upon the occurrence of certain
                    kinds of default by the contracting party. To declare
                    a contract void in its inception and to put an end to
                    it as though it never were. Russel v. Stephens, 191
                    Wash. 314, 71 P.2d 3031…A rescission amounts to the
                    unmaking of a contract, or an undoing of it from the
                    beginning. It necessarily involves a repudiation of
                    the contract and a refusal of the moving party to be
                    bound by it…” When enough people do this, this
                    entirely corrupt system is going to topple of its own
                    putrid weight!!!
                  • JOHN INGRESS
                    Cia, that s an excellent point, and that s why, aside from asserting your Sovereignty and terminating our contracts as volunteers in paying the income tax, I
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 18, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Cia, that's an excellent point, and that's why, aside
                      from asserting your Sovereignty and terminating our
                      contracts as "volunteers" in paying the income tax, I
                      believe the next most important thing we can do is to
                      promote JAIL for JUDGES (www.jail4judges.org). Some
                      say that NONE of these judges has an oath of office on
                      file. Imagine that!!!

                      --- ciamarie2001 <CiaMWats@...> wrote:


                      ---------------------------------
                      It may or may not work, I just wanted to point out or
                      remind folks
                      that Dick Simkanin filed motions in his trial,
                    • vivus_spartacus
                      LEARN The CRITICAL Significance Of NOT Using an ATTORNEY and Making ALL Appearances In USDC Specially / Special Appearance Back in 1971 This One finally Got
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 18, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        LEARN The CRITICAL Significance Of NOT Using an ATTORNEY and Making
                        ALL Appearances In USDC "Specially" /"Special Appearance"


                        Back in 1971 This One finally Got 'FED' Up with CONgress' Duplicity
                        in the Fraud being Perpetrated On All Americans Since CONgress & the
                        LBJ Adminstration Launched the "Great Society" Welfare Program and
                        Ceased to Mint the Last Remnant of Lawful "Money" (silver Half
                        Dollars, Quarter Dollars & Dimes)for Circulation and Replaced Them
                        with Cheap, Clad (Counterfeit) "Look a Likes".

                        Not Knowing Then, what came soon after,
                        (Re: No Lawful Requirement To File 1040)

                        It Was However Known that the Symbol/Mark/Sign ($) MEANS "Dollar"
                        and NOT "Dollar Bills" (FRNs/IOU's)

                        Aware of and Knowing that the MANDATE in the Constitution
                        (Article VI, Paragraph 2) and 12 USC 411 were being Completely
                        Ignored, and that 1040's Still KEPT the ($) Sign on that Form,
                        This One Decided "O.K., I Cannot Tell A Lie" (Perjury) and Converted
                        the FRN's Into Lawful Money i.e. "Dollars"/ ($) with Coin Dealers
                        (Secondary Market) and Subsequently PUT That Amount On 1040s.

                        It Didn't take but a couple of Years, before the IRS Discovered that
                        the Information I Provided Didn't "Match Up" with that from their
                        Other "Source" (Employer) Especially When Silver Prices Were Rising
                        against the Fiat FRNs. RESULT: Federal Criminal Indictments For
                        Felony and Misdemeanor,
                        and subsequent "Summons" (i.e. "Come Here Now"!)


                        Having the Grace to Comprehend the "Jurisdiction" Issue/Matter,
                        Request was Made for an Arrest Warrant to be issued instead of
                        merely appearing in response to a "Summons" Judge would have "None
                        of That" Until He Had No Choice When the subsequent "Failure to
                        Appear" demonstrated One's Resolve, and a Bench Warrant was FINALLY
                        issued.

                        Long Story Short, This One Appeared In Court "Specially" and
                        WITHOUT an ATTORNEY (Officer of the Court) Which would Automatically
                        CONVEY "Personam Jurisdiction" Plus Knowing that CONgress NEVER
                        Granted USDC "Criminal (Title 18 USC) JURISDICTION" On "Income" Tax
                        (Title 26) Matters!

                        One Can NOT be "Re-Presented" by an Attorney in USDC, or Appear
                        Other Than 'SPECIAL' and Expect to Have ANY Success with a Motion to
                        Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction ('PERSONAM')

                        Did the Lower USDC Judge Automatically Agree with this One's
                        Judicial Notice(Special Appearance) Concerning Title 18? NO!
                        Motion To Dismiss? AS IF!

                        However, When The Court of Appeals Got One LOOK at the Brief for
                        Appellant and Realized the Significance should the Matter reach the
                        U.S. Supreme Ct. GEE NO SUPRISE!

                        After Years of Trying to Nail this "Obvious" Tax "Criminal" /
                        "Protestor" ALL Criminal & Civil Charges Were DROPPED!

                        The U.S. Attys were Suddenly Like One's Long Lost "Buddies",
                        even the Judge became as an 'Uncle' towards his Favorite Nephew
                        before He Shortly thereafter "Disappeared"/(transferred?)


                        Same with the Lying Sack of IRS "Special Agent" who Twice Commited
                        PERJURY Under Oath on the Witness Stand Before the Federal Grand
                        Jury (Quickly Vanished) and The Court's Case File (Twilight Zoned!)

                        JURISDICTION HAS ALWAYS Been The Answer and Title 5 Is Your Best
                        Tool To Get The Answer/s!

                        Just Do NOT Ever Expect An Attorney (OFFICER Of The COURT) To Bring
                        You ANYTHING But Defeat and Misery and Jail in a USDC Concerning
                        Title 26/"Income" (Excise) Tax Matters, as an "Officer" of the
                        Court, That IS His Duty!

                        Wisdom IS the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And with all
                        your getting, get understanding. Proverbs 4:7


                        "vivus spartacus"
                        ALL Rights Reserved in the 9th Amendment including the Right to
                        Realize what "Honest Weights & Measures" Are, And Not
                        Be "Represented" by an Attorney, Nor By Myself in a USDC!


                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, JOHN INGRESS <ingress@...>
                        wrote:
                        > 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?
                        >
                      • Ken Norbury
                        How is that (sever ties with the federal corporate state known as the US) done, or do you or others do it? I thought that was part of the so-called
                        Message 11 of 26 , Feb 18, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          How is that (sever ties with the federal corporate state known as
                          the US) done, or do you or others do it? I thought that was part of the so-called "redemption" process when you file a UCC1FS with SOS, and register with SEc of Treasury.

                          Ken

                          JOHN INGRESS <ingress@...> wrote:
                          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
                        • JOHN INGRESS
                          Ken Norbury wrote: “How is that (sever ties with the federal corporate state known as the US) done, or do you or others do it?” Ken,
                          Message 12 of 26 , Feb 22, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ken Norbury <kennorbury@...> wrote:
                            “How is that (sever ties with the federal corporate
                            state known as the US) done, or do you or others do
                            it?”
                            Ken, I wrote Wahler regarding your question. In
                            response, he provided the quote from the back cover of
                            the book:
                            The People of this once great republic have
                            through ignorance and deception traded their sacred
                            [Creator]-given rights away by silent assent, waiver,
                            agreement or contract. The legal concepts of political
                            relations, conditions precedent and contract law are
                            exposed in relation to Executive, Legislative as well
                            as Supreme Court usurpations. The authors of this
                            ground-breaking book expose down to the very core, the
                            political exigencies, the legal meandering as well as
                            the outright corruption of our political and legal
                            systems as they have been used to create a legislative
                            democracy where a Republic once stood.
                            Contrary to the beliefs of many in the patriot
                            community, the real blame for this current situation
                            rests with the People, and consequently; the solution
                            also rests with the People individually. Contained
                            within the covers of this book is a treatise on the
                            political and legal history of deceit, Constitutional
                            reinterpretation and utter socialism that has been
                            silently assented to by the people. The authors also
                            plainly describe to the reader the simple yet elegant
                            solution to reclaiming one's lost rights through the
                            reassertion of one's status as a Citizen of one of the
                            Several States of the Union and by severing legal
                            relations with the United States which is revealed in
                            this book as a federal corporation.
                            Whatever your political affiliation or philosophical
                            proclivities this book is intended to provide a
                            foundational basis for a new understanding of the
                            reader's political and legal relations with the
                            "Government of the United States". These relations
                            have a very profound effect on one's rights, claims to
                            property, and every aspect of one's day to day life,
                            even if those relations are politically and legally
                            established through silent assent, waiver, contracts
                            or agreements the reader is completely unaware of.
                            The State Constitutions, as well as the Constitution
                            for the United States of America (1789) have been
                            allowed to be removed from the "legal memory" of the
                            people as those very same people have become United
                            States citizens, devoid of the rights, privileges and
                            immunities referenced in the Bill of Rights and in
                            place been granted civil rights. Most Americans alive
                            today are proud to be referred to as United States
                            citizens. If those same Americans were aware of what
                            the courts had to say about the rights of United
                            States Citizens, they might reconsider their thinking
                            on the matter. Here is what one Court had to say:
                            "The only absolute and unqualified right of a United
                            States citizen is to residence within the territorial
                            boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288
                            F. Supp. 957
                            What else might you need to know about the difference
                            between the United States of America and the United
                            States? What you don't know can cost you your life,
                            liberty and property. If one reads this book, the
                            authors believe, that every citizen, whether of the
                            United States or one of the Several States of the
                            Union, will have the understanding to make a conscious
                            decision on whether legal relations with the United
                            States is an appropriate choice.
                            For more information please visit:
                            www.USofAvUS.com
                            Ken, Wahler says that the SSA has a special category
                            of
                            SS Numbers that allow one to live a “normal” life,
                            i.e., bank, have a job, etc. And he helps you get it,
                            if you choose to. Again, the Jan.12 show, (click show
                            archives, Natl Intel Report) explains a lot.
                          • mn_chicago
                            Thursday 1 February 2007 This comes from the DUI thread, but because it pertains specifically to jurisdiciton, I have moved the comment to here. ... Unless
                            Message 13 of 26 , Feb 1, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thursday 1 February 2007

                              This comes from the DUI thread, but because it pertains specifically
                              to jurisdiciton, I have moved the comment to here.

                              : "Jim" <jimveda37@...>

                              > All judges have the right to decide jurisdiction, IF
                              > jurisdiction is in question and IF an action has been commenced.
                              > But the jurisdiction of a court must be invoked by a sufficient
                              > accusatory instrument according to law or an action has NOT been
                              > commenced.

                              Unless certain pieces of information become clear in my mind, I
                              continue to grappple with them and sometimes fail to see the logical
                              conclusion.

                              For example, when a foreclosure is commenced by a lender, it is
                              done via a local agent/attorney with copies of the note and mortgage
                              used as evidence.

                              I understand the need to eliminate the attorney by demanding a license
                              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?

                              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 the
                              proceeding. It may seem like a small issue, but it is important in
                              having confidence as a belligerant.

                              In addition to having no complaining witness, and the lender is
                              always a corporate entity, a fiction should not be able to claim an
                              injury. Is this also not another brick in the wall?

                              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.


                              > What standing does a judge have in an action that has
                              > 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?


                              > The law tells us what is a sufficient accusatory instrument.
                              > Either those elements are in the record of the court or they are
                              > not. It's black or white. If those elements are not in the
                              > record,the jurisdiction of the court has not been invoked, the
                              > court is powerless to issue ANY lawful process (summons or warrant)
                              > and any alleged order of a court acting absent jurisdiction is void
                              > ab initio.

                              I have been to the law library to research precisely what is a
                              complaining witness, and I looked up corporations. All it says is
                              that a corp has to be represented by an attorney. As to witnesses,
                              it goes into issues of being an actual witness, not a complaining
                              party.

                              Reading between the lines sometimes appears as invisible to me.
                              Until I have clarity, I harbor doubt. Once I have clarity, you will
                              finding me standing right behind the resident Farmer, and even trying
                              to push him out of the way so I can get my turn.

                              Thanks.

                              mn
                            • The Handyman
                              In Louisiana we have what is known as executory process to foreclose on a security interest without the formality of a hearing. The representing attorney
                              Message 14 of 26 , Feb 1, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In Louisiana we have what is known as "executory process" to foreclose on a
                                security interest without the formality of a hearing. The representing
                                attorney simply attaches the contract and note along with an affidavit from
                                one of the bank's employee. The affidavit states that s/he has searched
                                their records and found that you are in default for non-payment of the debt.
                                That affidavit is all that is needed because you are not served with a copy
                                of the exparte petition. This is permitted because you waived formal
                                hearing and consented to judgment when you signed the contract. In such a
                                case your only remedy is an injunction based upon a ground that would estop
                                the seizure and sale. It is like shooting fish in a barrel once executory
                                process is filed. I have such a seizure case in Federal court for 3 years
                                involving a seizure and sale. Federal because I goofed and failed to go for
                                an injunction. I am now going against the attorney for not sending a
                                dunning letter prior to filing the exparte petition. He managed to get a
                                dismissal on the ground that, as an attorney enforcing a security interest,
                                he was not a debt collector. I won on appeal but the 5th circuit did not
                                print a decision. Trial is set for August. If I prevail I most probably
                                can get the judgment voided because it was obtained in violation of the Fair
                                Debt Collection Practice Act. This how they avoid witness.

                                -------Original Message-------

                                From: mn_chicago
                                Date: 2/1/2007 1:35:59 PM
                                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Jurisdiction

                                Thursday 1 February 2007

                                This comes from the DUI thread, but because it pertains specifically
                                to jurisdiciton, I have moved the comment to here.

                                : "Jim" <jimveda37@...>

                                > All judges have the right to decide jurisdiction, IF
                                > jurisdiction is in question and IF an action has been commenced.
                                > But the jurisdiction of a court must be invoked by a sufficient
                                > accusatory instrument according to law or an action has NOT been
                                > commenced.

                                Unless certain pieces of information become clear in my mind, I
                                continue to grappple with them and sometimes fail to see the logical
                                conclusion.

                                For example, when a foreclosure is commenced by a lender, it is
                                done via a local agent/attorney with copies of the note and mortgage
                                used as evidence.
                              • Craig Lancaster
                                b1 wrote: Thursday 1 February 2007 ... , mn_chicago wrote:. ... * It s a great issue and on point. An attorney
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 1, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 a
                                  license
                                  >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?

                                  >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
                                  the
                                  >proceeding. It may seem like a small issue, but it is important in
                                  >having confidence as a belligerent.

                                      It's a great issue and on point.
                                      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
                                  the court).
                                      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,
                                  b1yatsar






                                • Frog Farmer
                                  ... Back in the old days of honest judges it might have been okay, but why let a liar and cheat have any part of anything to do with you today? Here s what I
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 1, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    mn_chicago [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:

                                    > I understand the need to eliminate the attorney by demanding a license
                                    > 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?

                                    Back in the old days of honest judges it might have been okay, but why
                                    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 a
                                    > complaining party,

                                    But they act like witnesses in front of juries - are you betting your
                                    jury is smart enough not to be fooled? A bad bet today...

                                    > Does one have to identify themselves in such a procedure if there is
                                    > no complaining witness making an accusation?

                                    Show me a law where one is "required" to identify oneself, anywhere. I
                                    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 that
                                    > as to how to be in command with certainty in one's stance against the
                                    > proceeding.

                                    If you're really "against the proceeding" you won't be caught acting in
                                    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 in
                                    > 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.

                                    I won most of my cases the wrong way. Every time I went to court, I
                                    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 has
                                    > > 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?

                                    Nothing is sufficient anymore. You never know what to expect, even
                                    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
                                    absolutely necessary?

                                    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
                                    this!

                                    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.
                                    > > Either those elements are in the record of the court or they are
                                    > > not. It's black or white.

                                    True, but how many people go in with the conviction that they can tell
                                    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 the
                                    > > record, the jurisdiction of the court has not been invoked,

                                    And so one needs to be able to recognize a real from a fake, on every
                                    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)
                                    > > and any alleged order of a court acting absent jurisdiction is void
                                    > > ab initio.

                                    None of my neighbors seem to currently hold this concept in their heads.
                                    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
                                    Ship!

                                    > I have been to the law library to research precisely what is a
                                    > complaining witness, and I looked up corporations. All it says is
                                    > that a corp has to be represented by an attorney.

                                    So, here in California we torpedo the attorneys with Business and
                                    Professions Code 6067 et seq. Not too hard to do, if someone has the
                                    power of speech.

                                    > As to witnesses,
                                    > it goes into issues of being an actual witness, not a complaining
                                    > party.

                                    Yeah, and does even Wikipedia say that if you go out in the rain,
                                    "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.
                                    > Until I have clarity, I harbor doubt.

                                    I would say, everything is in us, and we should not look to our
                                    oppressors for anything.

                                    > Once I have clarity, you will
                                    > finding me standing right behind the resident Farmer, and even trying
                                    > to push him out of the way so I can get my turn.

                                    You can have it. I'm not in the way! And I'm not a "resident".

                                    Regards,

                                    FF
                                  • Michael Noonan
                                    ... That I took removing atty for lack of license out of the equation, does not mean I would not use it. I already sent a letter to a Calif senior counsel
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 3, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                                      >
                                      > But they act like witnesses in front of juries - are
                                      > you betting your
                                      > jury is smart enough not to be fooled? A bad bet
                                      > today...

                                      That I took removing atty for lack of license out of
                                      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
                                      she couldn't.

                                      That was mid-November '06. Haven't heard back from
                                      her since.

                                      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
                                      did
                                      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
                                      to collect.

                                      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
                                      non-responsive replies.

                                      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 identify
                                      > oneself, anywhere.
                                      > In court, one who wishes to avoid prosecution might
                                      > wait to be
                                      > identified by the injured party or a witness.

                                      The question was courtroom specific, in the event it
                                      got to that point, when my "name" would be called out
                                      by the clerk, not the "judge" or "atty-in-form-of-
                                      witness-or-whatever-(s)he-can-get-away-with."

                                      How to respond was my issue, without admitting into
                                      jurisdiction.

                                      Keep in mind, I would also have already used a
                                      subpoena
                                      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 law
                                      > everywhere, so why think they will suddenly follow
                                      > the law for YOU?

                                      That is why I want to be fully prepared, even after
                                      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.

                                      Cheers, all.

                                      mn



                                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                      Finding fabulous fares is fun.
                                      Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
                                      http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
                                    • Frog Farmer
                                      ... Ever hear of an appearance without an appearance? Google appearance without an appearance . One time my friend showed up for an arraignment with three
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 3, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Michael Noonan [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:

                                        > The question was courtroom specific, in the event it
                                        > got to that point, when my "name" would be called out
                                        > by the clerk, not the "judge" or "atty-in-form-of-
                                        > witness-or-whatever-(s)he-can-get-away-with."
                                        >
                                        > How to respond was my issue, without admitting into
                                        > jurisdiction.

                                        Ever hear of an appearance without an appearance?

                                        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.

                                        Regards,

                                        FF
                                      • diggerflyer
                                        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
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Nov 12, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          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
                                          Thursday.
                                          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
                                          court."
                                          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
                                          limits.
                                          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
                                          jurisdiction.
                                          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
                                          Cozza said.
                                          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
                                          impact.
                                          "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
                                          citizens."
                                        • diggerflyer
                                          ... I would add: How about in your city/county jurisdiction? How are they doing business compared to this quagmire? Could you perhaps challenge jurisdiction
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Nov 13, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "diggerflyer" <Riverway@...>
                                            wrote:
                                            >
                                            > 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
                                            > Thursday.



                                            I would add:

                                            How about in your city/county jurisdiction? How are they doing
                                            business compared to this quagmire? Could you perhaps challenge
                                            jurisdiction there as well?

                                            Diggerflyer
                                          • Jake
                                            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
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Sep 12, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              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.

                                              ~ ~ ~

                                            • Barry
                                              A search at www.versuslaw.com for the phrase lack of jurisdiction turned up over 200 results. I learned quite a bit about
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Sep 13, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment

                                                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.

                                                 

                                                Phone Contact: 720-675-7230

                                                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:

                                                tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group

                                                 

                                              • Frog Farmer
                                                ... You don t even need paper when you do it in the continuation of the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation) and get to the immediately provided magistrate
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Sep 13, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  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 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.

                                                  You don't even need paper when you do it in the continuation of the IMOC
                                                  (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 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:

                                                  The "defendant" is a party well along the slippery slope to conviction.

                                                  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 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).

                                                  Progress! I'm not going to hang my hat on it here. The game is really
                                                  over here. But you know those "aficionados"! You can�t get them off
                                                  the field!

                                                  > 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.

                                                  Yes...here that would come after a long process of wasted time, and the
                                                  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, 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.

                                                  Good one saying he wasn't the defendant, but he didn't really appear to
                                                  know WHY...if it was California. If it was New York, I hear anything
                                                  can happen!

                                                  > 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.

                                                  "Traverse" comes into play in the IMOC!! And is usually RECORDED now!

                                                  > Now I'm not saying the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar"
                                                  > strategy always works because it hasn't

                                                  That's like saying "The Hammer Strategy" will not always work".

                                                  > & 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.

                                                  Good info, but coming late after the IMOC, may involve more work than
                                                  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.

                                                  Regards,

                                                  FF
                                                • andrewswayne31
                                                  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
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Jan 6, 2014
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    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
                                                  • andrewswayne31
                                                    Hi, I want to thank everyone who helped in this situation. The information is very much appreciated and valuable. Wayne
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Jan 8, 2014
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Hi, I want to thank everyone who helped in this situation.  The information is very much appreciated and valuable.  Wayne
                                                    • realtor realtor
                                                      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
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Jan 8, 2014
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        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!
                                                        Mark 


                                                        On 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




                                                        --
                                                        Mark Austin
                                                        American Dreamer
                                                        Fitness at your fingertips
                                                        (505)860-0345
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.