Jurisdiction Statement & dif of Pro Per, Sui Juris, Pro Se - -Re: Quo warranto
- I have tremendous respect for our wise and learned friend James Alan Daum. However, I do disagree with his apparent belief that inalienable Rights can be waived or forfieted. As inalienable it is not possible. They simply remain unenforced and you remain deprived of your Rights, subject to further and additional violation of your Rights.
There is no practical difference between Pro Per, Sui Juris, Pro Se. Best to put NOTHING next to your name. Do not quantify who and what you are with a label. It cannot be done where all are Equal before the Law.
Here is my recommendation for a Statement of Jurisdiction:
I, xxx, am a Human Person, a Citizen of the United States of America, and a Citizen of the State of yyyy. I have an absolute, inalienable Right to Petition my government for Redress of my Grievances. As an American Citizen I have inalienable Rights. It is the duty of my government, and all agents of that government, including the judicial Official assigned to serve in this Court, to Secure my Rights. (See organic, fundamental, Law for the United States of America found in our Declaration of Independence, incorporated into our United States Constitution via the Preamble).
Then state the facts and the law, as you know it, that applies to your grievances.
NOTE - Your 'grievance' may be against the government, a government sub-unit, an agent of government, a business, your neighbor, or a person on the other side of the World, etc. It is the duty of the judicial Official (aka the Judge) to know the jurisdiction of the court. If you are not in the proper jurisdiction for the assertion of your claims then they will dismiss the case. If they are nice they will tell you why and the proper venue with jurisdiction to address your Petition.
Now most of our judicial Officials have been trained in the 'Practice of Law'. Old habits are hard to break. As a judicial Official they are prohibited from the Practice of Law. Their duty as a judicial Official, in our Land a Public Servant given the Public Trust, is to ADMINISTER the law.
They also have a tendancy to be extremely lazy. They will try to avoid their incumbent duties, even though they have taken a sworn oath to these duties, and put the burden on you to teach them the Law, as well as the Facts, of your case. They have a tendency to be incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt. This is true of all who gain positions of power where there is little to check on their power. So be on guard for their violation of the Rules of Procedure.
They will try to use the Rules of Procedure to excuse depriving you of Due Process of Law. If the adverse party has an Attorney their Attorney will try their best to encourage the judicial Official to use the Rules of Procedure, intended to secure for you Due Process of Law, for the opposite purpose of depriving you of Due Process of Law. So do you best to know the Rules. Howver; if you make a mistake do not let that stop you. Remember that you have inalienable Rights. Court Officials, including the Judge, the Attorney for the Adverse Party, and the temporary Court Officials known as Jurors do not. They have duties, obligations, responsibilies but no 'Rights' in the Court. But they, in particular the judicial Official, will try to shift their responsibilities on to you and then blame you for their own deriliction of duty. It's called 'Blame the Victim'.
Jurors are merely representations of the artificial collective known as 'We the People'. They are of limited knowledge and mental capacity. The Attorney for the adverse party, as part of his 'practice of law', will disregard his Oath of Office and try to confuse the jury and mislead the jury. He, or she, will violate the law at every opportunity. The judicial Official will be biased and prejudiced against you because you are not of the same social class. He, or she, may also violate the law to grant favor to the Attorney for the adverse Party because they are members of the same social class.
Of course these violations of law, for the purpose of engaging in class warfare, are strictly prohibited by our Laws. But that does not keep it from happening. So be prepared for a fight. It may get very, very nasty and you may find that your fellow Americans are of little courage. They will abandon you when the going gets rough. The first to abandon you will be your fellow Americans that are Public Servants in positions of Public Trust. Do your best to secure their aid but don't expect much.
All, including the Jurors, will exercise extreme bias and prejudice against you but will, for purposes of comfort, insist upon living in a mental state of denial of this common human failing. But do not let that stop you. You can win. Even if you do not win you will learn a lot. It will be a character building experience. You will have done your part to promote Americanism. This is particularly true if the adverse party is a Public Servant (aka agent of government) or government entity.
You have nothing to fear but fear itself. Be prepared for an investment of time that may well exceed that which you anticipate.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
----- Original Message -----
From: James Alan Daum
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ed44] Re: Quo warranto
**Is someone able to explain to me, the difference, if any, between Pro Per, and Sui Juris?**
I can muse upon it and share the musings with everyone...
First, there need not be a significant difference when we're talking about the same personality. You can say "in propria persona" or you can just
- From: Mark FerranSubject: Re: [Legal_Self_Representation] Jurisdiction Statement & dif of Pro Per, Sui Juris, Pro Se - -Re: Quo warrantoIf I cannot "Waive" a right when I think it is in my interest to waive that right, then it is not my "right" but a POWER OF THE STATE. A right, being my property, is mine to dispose of. If I have not that privilege, it is not a "right" of mine, but a duty I owe.I respectfully disagree. Depends on what Rights you are talking about. 'We the People' have not given the 'consent of the governed' to the Individual Human Persons and/or Citizen to waive any and all Right they may want to waive. It is deemed in the Public Interest to protect some Fundamental Rights from waiver or forfieture.If we allow Agents of Government to assert that one has 'waived' or 'forfieted' their Rights, by a procedural mistep or inability to communicate, or even by a desire to do so, then none of us will be protected by the Law and ALL our Rights will become so vague and easily voidable as to become, for all practical purposes, non-existent. In our system there are many, many, Rights a Human Person and/or Citizen cannot, legally, waive.There is a fundamental misconception about the nature of Rights that Elitists like John Ashcroft do not understand. In his legal textbook he says "Rights, however, come with duties (or was it responsibilities?)". This is Fundamentally Wrong. Rights are inherent and inalienable. Our system of government imposes duties and responsibilities on government and it's agents, including Court Officials known as Attorneys, and temporary Court Officials known as Jurors, to Secure and Protect these Rights.However; It is very convenient for those upon whom has been placed a duty, responsibility, and obligation, to shift their responsibility on to the victim of their malfeasance and non-feasance to excuse their deriliction of duty.Mark - Please define for us your understanding of the definition of what a "Right" is.