Challenging Jurisdiction

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Challenging Jurisdiction

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
This is in by way of a buddy from Minnesota from a couple of guys down in Texas.

Challenging Jurisdiction

Up until now, the only way I have seen people challenge jurisdiction is to do a constitutional or verbal challenge and most of the time they either get thrown out or the judge states "don't worry, I have jurisdiction" and then moves on.

Well, this is a novel way and I pass this along to this forum to assist in helping people handle their most pressing issues regarding courts so they can take a step back and breathe; removing that air of "gotta get this done now" mentality which just leads to more confusion and frustration.



This is a simple 3 step procedure ...

Step 1: you get a ticket or some court summons. Well, you first have to determine what "venue" or jurisdiction you will be operating in so you can adequately prepare your defense, correct? So, a simple letter into the court with a simple question:


"In order to properly prepare my answer and defense, please provide the jurisdiction under which this case/matter will be operating: admiralty, common, maritime, equity, administrative, etc ....?"



Send that off to the court, just like a regular letter.

Step 2: You get a response back from the court / judge stating there will be some sort of hearing on some date in the future, but no mention of the jurisdiction under which the court will be operating the case. So, write back using the SAME LETTER, only this time, have a NOTARY do the mailing and include a Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope with Notary as recipient your mailing address as the return address and put a 2-cent stamp on it and autograph / sign over the stamp. 

Don't worry, it will get to you IF they mail.

Step 3: You get either no response or another notice of hearing of some sort. Again, send SAME LETTER AS ABOVE to court / judge via NOTARY only this time, DO NOT INCLUDE self-addressed stamped envelope.




Now, you have successfully rebutted "jurisdiction" because they can't even tell you which one under which they are operating, so you can not possibly give an answer or enter a plea because you have zero clue as to the nature of the hearing.

Before you all go, "Yea, whatever" ... this has been done in a recent matter for a traffic matter (handicapped parking ticket) and upon receipt of the 3rd notice, the case is discharged and removed from the docket.

This should work for all matters because if the court can not disclose jurisdiction, how does it have any?

Now, isn't this easier than trying to "prove no jurisdiction" for now, you are no longer stuck proving a negative?

Enjoy.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

franc
Thanks, Boris for this. I am going to do it and see what happens. I was wondering if this could be done by having 2 friends do the mailing instead of using a notary.

Also, why does each step incorporate something different from the other steps? For example, in the 1st step I would send the letter without use of notary. In the 2nd step, the notary sends the letter with a stamped return envelope. In the 3rd step, the notary sends the letter without a stamped return envelope. It may help me gain better understanding of the bigger picture to know the why.

Thanks,
franc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

iamsomedude
Administrator

you tried to go to your brother first, then you sought the second witness, than that witness then seeks his second witness.



private - private : brother seeking brother to settle issue

private - public : brother now has to turn to another to seek help with same issue

public - public : other sought can not believe brother ignored brother, so other sought inquires to affirm for self


~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

franc
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Thanks again, Boris for the additional info. After reading several times, your explanation of the three steps makes complete sense. :)

From your response, I gather that the witness does not have to be a notary public and that any one brother would do. If this is incorrect, please let me know.

Thanks,
franc



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

franc
Hello All,

This is a quick update on my experience with this. Someone at the court did respond to my 2nd letter, the one sent by the notary with the self-addressed envelope with a 2 cents stamp. They responded by returning my own letter with the words "criminal law" circled withing the following sentence on the letter: "In order to properly prepare and help you settle the above referenced matters, please provide the jurisdiction under which these cases/matters will be operating: admiralty, common law, criminal law, maritime, equity, administrative, etc."

Then, whoever circled those words also signed their initials and dated it. To me, this is not a proper response. A proper response should be in complete sentences on their own letterhead, signed by the clerk of the court or a judge.

Unless someone here has a better idea, I am thinking of repeating the 3 steps by returning the letter to them and adding a second letter requesting a proper response from the clerk of the court or a judge. The court date in next week, so I will also request that they postpone the hearing until a proper response is made and sufficient time is given for me to properly prepare to help them settle the matter.

I look forward to suggestions and comments.

franc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Gavilan
franc,

I was reading this thread and see it as a great idea.

They replied, check your state constitution and it should have a section about how people are tried regarding crimes.

For example, in New Jersey it reads like this:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp
link wrote
8.   No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases of impeachment, or in cases now prosecuted without indictment, or arising in the army or navy or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.  
Now, please keep in mind this, if you have applied for a license or anything of that nature, they will hold  you to your word. Like Boris says, they truly are honorable people. They will test your mettle. Simple letter writing will let you establish the facts and bring out the Truth of the matter.

I am working on a file with annotations and explanations which I will be sharing freely.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Gavilan
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Boris, thank you for sharing this great tip!

I would like to point out for those that may not know, the putting of a postage stamp on a document and having it cancelled by the postmaster/agent is to establish a date of authentication/witness.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

franc
In reply to this post by Gavilan
Hello Gavilan,

Thank you for the info. I hesitate to get into the details of proper criminal procedure with the court, as you suggest. I am not the one being charged, the estate is. By arguing the details of the case I end up agreeing to be the defendant and that is idolatry. From what I gather so far, my job in this matter is to make sure that the plaintiff has a valid claim against the estate. I just don't yet know enough to compelled them to put up or shut up. I know enough to keep myself out of too much trouble, but not enough to help them resolve the matter in a way that preserves my freedom. I am hoping that the matter does not last 9 years, as Boris' did. :)

My priority now is to get my affairs in order by completing usufruct and whatever else I need to do along with that. I have bits and pieces of this process and little time to read all the info, which might as well be written in a foreign language. :)

 If you or anyone else reading this has done this correctly, I would appreciate some assistance.

Thanks,
franc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Rschallmo
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Why don't you put a FOIA in ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

franc
Rschallmo - Thanks for the suggestion. I do not know much about FOIA. What is the idea/purpose/goal of a FOIA request? Is this requested from the court? The plaintiff? Someone else?

Thanks,
franc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Rschallmo
In reply to this post by franc
 Not sure how to do it, listen to the DC attorney audio again. I think you just send it into the court caseTo the judge.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Logos
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
When one attempts to challenge jurisdiction as described one concedes to certain presumptions and is also taking up the matter with the wrong guy (judge), i.e., you're starting in the middle instead of the beginning, and as the maxim reads: the principle part of everything is the beginning.

There are only two kinds of jurisdiction that could connect one to them: territorial & personal, and they don't really get the latter, or it at least doesn't really matter, unless they acquire the first kind. All law *must* apply somewhere on this world, and state where it applies. Their laws, and therfore court rulings, state said verbiage applies to United States territory--a place where few people live and go. This is their territorial jurisdiction. Even children tend to understand the concept of TJ, because it's intuitive and humanity has been living it for ages: you can make rules for your turf, but not really anywhere else, and no one has the right to apply their rules to your turf. The gov'ts laws are honorably written in that the only place they state their laws apply to is their own turf; they are not so barbaric as to claim extra-territorial jurisdiction, and it has been thus since America's founding. By "their turf" I mean territory over which they have a proprietary interest, i.e., territory ceded to or otherwised owned by The United States of America. Do you live on gov't land? Unless you're at Washington D.C. or a military base, the answer is likely a firm "no". Now, I'm talking about how the laws are written. What their operatives do is another matter altogether. As Boris or someone else once said, there's a massive problem with mis-application and mis-administration of the laws.

Getting back to the example: a court/judge doesn't magically have TJ. He/it has to get it from the moving party, and conversely, a moving party can't cure their lack of TJ by running to a court. The court would have to get it from the prosecuting/plaintiff attorney, who in turn can only get it from whatever party they are acting on behalf of, if there is one. In the above example, the prosecutor would have to get it from the purported, alleged "cop". It doesn't matter if one was speeding down the street from one's house 100mph above their "speed limit", in a car whose registration with them has expired, sans insurance with a busted tail light, while sporting an expired driver license, and was pulled over by a bonded, FARA registered (!) "cop" actually authorized to hunt on the soil of The United States of America. If the alleged cop didn't flag you down on United States territory--the only place the laws he enforces are written to apply to--then the prosecutor has a problem. If you challenge TJ, i.e., the applicability of their laws to where you were stopped, the prosecutor will know what's going on and tell the "cop" he's on his own if the latter wishes to press the matter, and will thus have to get his own attorney. So, it's not simply a question of "do they have territorial jurisdiction". Of course, they do--on United States territory. The question must be asked in regards to "where?"

That's why the judge can say with a straight face "don't worry, I have jurisdiction...  ", but leaves out the critical part of "in *my* courtroom, which is United State territory! ". You weren't specific enough, though again, this shouldn't be taken up with him.

Attorneys and their courts can only operate in the construct known as "United States". We also give them TJ by our voluntary use of their two letter territorial state postal codes, e.g., AZ, FL, etc., and ZIP Codes, which denote NOT the land we live on but United States territory (politically, not necessarilly physically). I remember reading years ago about tax cases where prosecutors nailed people using the accused's use of ZIP Codes as evidence of the gov'ts jurisdiction over them, though I didn't fully understand it at the time. I know from personal experience they will not correspond with you using a non-territorial style of mailing location--they cannot go outside their sandbox.

In short, if it doesn't occur on, or isn't incurred on their "turf", then there is no "it".

One does not petition or move their court, because if you know who and where you are, you know you are truly foreign to them and not part of their court processes. You put them on notice they do not have TJ with a challenge to provide evidence to the contrary. The PowersThatBe back off when challenged on TJ, but few people are knowledgable about America's Organic Laws and where said laws apply, and therefore seldom raise the issue. People are using this successfully, for instance to get tax assessors to back off and stopping banks from seizing their homes even after the bank gets a default judgment.

We've given our interests in our private land over to a foreign entity named United States to be held in trust, albeit in ignorance, though they don't claim authority over the land itself. This is in harmony with the concept of usufruct.

This is the other path one can take, to have nothing to do with United States, and the authorities will respect that. Learning America's Organic Laws will round out the picture. However, IMHO resting on the Organic Laws alone doesn't address the bigger issues and is why I think the spiritually based avenue that Boris has uncovered is the proverbial Final Frontier I, and many others, have been seeking.

Sorry for the rant, BTW.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Fathers son
All i see here is infants fighting with there parents. The U.S is you and perfect. They do things right. You dont. Dont try anything in court. Wont work. You know why. Your still disabled .  The system is perfect. Of course they have jurisdiction. The phrase property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes, without limitation, securities, whether registered or bearer, issued by:

(1) The United States or any State, district, territory, possession, county, municipality, or any other subdivision or agency or instrumentality of any thereof; or

(2) Any person with the United States whether the certificate which evidences such property or interest is physically located within or outside the United States.

(b) The phrase property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States also includes, without limitation, securities, whether registered or bearer, by whomsoever issued, if the instrument evidencing such property or interest is physically located within the United States.

The only way to leave hell is through Christ the Redemmer.  Otherwise. Your at sea and dead. The flood came and cast everyone into the sea dead except noahs bloodline. Enochs bloodline. The scribe. The guardians. Hmmmm court / guardian. Loco parentis.   They want the bond. Your ACTING as surety they need your signature as it authenticates the record aka accounting .  Its a claim on proceeds to the insurance fidelity bond. Held by the court warehouse for your preformance in commerece. If any liabilty is incurred. So of course they will make you trustee in a constructive trust in court and get those proceeds. Let them. Until Jesus becomes your surety you will be to the dead
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Fathers son
All this challenge and fighting. Boris is telling you surrender, your intent will attract what you desire. To truly surrender it to surrender to yourself. Since all these men and woman administrating the trust are a reflection of your consciousness.  The only common law court is the probate court!  Thats right in the written code.  So its clear what they are doing. Commerece. Bills of exchange warehouse reciepts. Since they store goods for hire.  Seems to me the better the comprehension of the system the better one can navigate with as least resistance as possible as we are electrical energy and travel the path to least resistance. Here it is call the circuit court. Charges and discharges. Complete the circuit.     The courts hold all titles. Its a good thing. Let it be. That is my view on challenging jurisdiction. Now if its to appeal to higher court then go ahead. I just see we need to completly surrender the leave the world of the dammed
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Logos
In reply to this post by Fathers son
A territorial JD challenge is not in the nature of an argument but mainly notice. You've agreed they don't have jurisdiction on the soil of the perpetual Union, and they say the same--thanks.

However, as I've said, a territorial JD challenge doesn't effect all that Boris has uncovered. Though they do leave you alone if you notice them, not participating in that foreign-to-us-and-where-we-live system as it was designed only starves it and doesn't undo the world-wide mess we've created.

As the saying goes: as a thing is done, so it is undone.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Challenging Jurisdiction

Logos
In reply to this post by Fathers son
I've already agreed to much of what you say, but I didn't start this JD thread. I'm only clarifying and correcting some misperceptions about the subject.

There are two paths available: (a) interact with the system as it was intended for us to, or (b) have nothing to do with it. Most people find themselves stuck between the two, not really aware the latter option really exists. The latter option is available if one understands America's Organic Laws, and thus where they apply, and the U.S. authorities honor that choice.

I have a friend who has chosen the latter road, but as I've tried to tell him, it doesn't provide the protection and support the former road affords, and that if one travels the former path by helping the territorial gov't do what the Founders really ordained it to do, then it will help you do whatever it is the Creator put you here to do--a symbiotic relationship, if you will.

Surrendering unto Ceasar that which is his is the right thing to do. However, Caesar has his limits, too, and his minions sometimes need to be reminded of that so they don't err in their ways. If they then proceed where they know they mustn't, then they've earned whatever wrath Caesar has in store for them.