When do you challenge authority? ab initio, from the beginning, from the first act. I think it is fairly well documented that the court must show jurisdiction on the record. The problem is most people challenge not in the proper way. I am no expert on this subject however, when they bring you infront of a judge under threat, duress and in fear of going to jail, that is the time to make your challenges. Make your challenges to the jurisdiction!!! PROPRIA PERSONA (Lat. in his own person.) It is a rule in pleading that please to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attornery they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and
presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction. BOUVIER'S DICT. - All federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent is manifest. (See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 which limits UNITED STATES Jurisdiction to Washington D.C. and its enclaves or its Federal “States” (see fn 2)). (Emphasis added)
- “It is elementary that before a court may exercise judicial power to hear and determine a criminal prosecution, that court must possess three types of jurisdiction: jurisdiction over the defendant, jurisdiction over the alleged crime, and territorial jurisdiction.” State v. Legg, 9 S.W.3d 111 (1999). (Emphasis added)
- “Without jurisdiction, criminal proceedings are a nullity.” See State v. Inglin, 592 N.W.2d 666, 274 Wis.2d 764 (1999). (Emphasis added)
- "It is elementary that a
court may act only upon crimes committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the sovereignty seeking to try the offense." Hotzel v. Simmons, 258 Wis. 234, 240, 45 N.W.2d 683, 686 (1951) (emphasis added).
- “Territorial jurisdiction… is question of state’s power to prosecute and punish accused for crime and must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.” See People v. al-Ladkani, 647 N.Y.S.2d 666, 169 Misc.2d 720 (1996). (Emphasis added)
- 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 83, Territorial extent of jurisdiction (2012).
“All courts
are bound to take judicial notice of the territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the government, and the extent and boundaries of the territory under which they can exercise jurisdiction.”
20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts § 105, Territorial limitations (2008).
“The jurisdiction of a court is subject to territorial limits. Its jurisdiction cannot
extend beyond the territory belonging to the sovereignty on behalf of which it functions, and its jurisdiction can be further limited, by constitutional or statutory provisions, to only part of a territory of the sovereignty to which it belongs.” - 20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts § 99, Effect of location of defendant or res (2008).
“The life or force of process in personam is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the court that issued it; personal service on a nonresident defendant, outside the jurisdiction of the court, does not suffice to give the court jurisdiction over the person of a defendant.” “[T]here is a presumption that a federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, and the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction must affirmatively allege the facts supporting it.” - 13D Wright & Miller § 3522, pp. 104–07.
“If these facts are challenged, the burden is on the party claiming
jurisdiction to prove that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. . . . This showing must be made by a preponderance of the evidence.” - 15 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 102.14.
Citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
of Ind., Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (“The burden of proving all jurisdictional facts is on the party asserting jurisdiction.”) “The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, § 3, of
that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.” (Emphasis added) Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 US 298 - Supreme Court 1922 - UNDISPUTED KNOWN FACTS.
- THE DOLLAR IS CRASHING
- AI WILL BE REPLACING 80% OF THE WORKFORCE
- UNEMPLOYMENT SKYHIGH
- PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING FROM INFLATION.
"TranzCard Members" (TCM) are unlimited The past year most of my time has been devoted in helping a friend in a struggle, a legal struggle where his freedom is at risk. It is far from being over. However, I don’t believe it won’t be as much time consuming as it has been. Quicksilver, in my belief today, as it was yesterday, but not as strong as it will be tomorrow is probably the greatest opportunity for someone who understands the value of having precious metals. I think it is clear now to the silent majority that the (federal) United States is basically a house of cards that is about to crash. It is basically a matter of fact that people, through our political system, via constructive treason, is taking down our country as we know it, or basically as we would like to have it. I am introducing people to this list, who are signing up to join me in the “Tranzact card” whereby, I will be announcing calls for both programs. If you wish to delete yourself from this list as much as I hate to see you go, I sincerely understand and if you wish to remain on the list, I believe it will be to
your benefit. The reason I think it would be to your benefit is that people will be signing up who just may want to be a Tranzact Card Member (TCM), in order to double their buying power and who will be seeing information about Quicksilver and possibly positive results may apply. |
Call me if we have anything to talk about |
|
|
