Government is supposed to protect rights, not grant them.
Does the Court Automatically Have Jurisdiction?
Attorneys would have you believe that the court always automatically has jurisdiction according to a geographic border. If the STATE OF OREGON essentially is composed of articles of incorporation on paper that is commonly referred to as the Oregon Constitution, what does that have to do with the inhabitants or land?
My question is, how exactly does a piece of paper (Oregon Constitution), that I have not ever nor will I ever be a party to, give authority to a commercial entity to prosecute me without a victim or valid cause of action? Answer: it doesn’t.
The only duty we have delegated to government is the authority to PROTECT and DEFEND rights of the people, not GRANT or REVOKE them.
I think that they would AT LEAST need to show exactly where I agreed to participate in their tribunal with full disclosure and clean hands. If they can’t then I don’t care what they presume about me being their subject, it simply IS NOT TRUE until proven.
Check out how slick Arnold Law Firm is in his motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction, while at the same time he EXPRESSLY ADMITS PERSONAL JURISDICTION! This is a sneaky attorney move to close doors and lock Ammon Bundy in for the ride. Tell me what you think about this??? And then go ask Mike Arnold of Arnold Law what his strategy was here? Don’t be surprised if he ignores you or implies that you have a mental condition.
Arnold Law Firm playing typical attorney tricks.
It is obvious to me that Mike Arnold is counting on you to remain ignorant. He has put a price tag of almost $14 million to take this case to trial and he stands to lose all that by challenging personal jurisdiction.
Comment excerpts from the same post:
Please contact Arnold Law and demand answers! This attorney’s job is to not let the fish (the client) off of the hook.
Does the government’s constitution say anything about being guaranteed representation by an attorney? Or does it protect assistance of counsel? Is there a difference between them? What is the difference? And the KICKER IF there is no requirement in the bill of rights to be represented by an attorney, why would an attorney tell you that you HAVE TO be represented by an attorney? (PS The lies they tell wouldn’t work on you if you knew your rights.)
Allow me to present, the Bill of Rights Amendment VI (look at the last sentence):
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Does it EVER refer to being REPRESENTED by an ATTORNEY? Those words do not even appear in the text of the amendment, so my question now is why do they say that you have to be REPRESENTED by an ATTORNEY??? Why are they lying to us? Why are they lying to us?
What they will never tell you is that challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to lose!
In rem jurisdiction (Latin, power about or against the thing’) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a status against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction.
If they attempt to tell you that you can’t question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!
Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action. Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.
Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesnt exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be sovereign. At best, to proceed would be in excess of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the States/ USA s cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the governments cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well-established law that a void order can be challenged in any court OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. and Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal. Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist. Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property. Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio. In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction. Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris. Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest. Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
The following is an oral course of action that you can use:
Are we on the record? I dont say anything further until we are.
Me, I am a man. I am competent. I am here under duress. I do not consent to this matter.
If I am here at all, I am here in special appearance to challenge jurisdiction and to have this matter dismissed.
I believe this court lacks a jurisdiction. I want to see the supposed jurisdiction duly placed into evidence.
What, this court can move on facts not in evidence?
Where is the competent fact witness? Where is the damaged party?
Who brings the claim? Who is underwriting this action?
I do not understand the nature and cause of the accusation with regard to the elements of personal jurisdiction, venue, underwriting and the nature of the action until the prosecution properly alleges them. I am therefore unable to plea to the charges until I have had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against the elements.
I cannot rebut an unstated presumption.
As a man, as an accused by law I come with the presumption of innocent and I can go with that.
Me, I am a man, not a corporation or a legal person nor am I a surety for one.
Hey, as keeper of the records for the thing, Im willing to plead the defendant guilty upon validated proof of claim.
Where is the contract wherein I knowingly and willingly, with full disclosure, consented or otherwise agreed to be treated this way?
Me, I see a yellow fringe around your flag which clearly advertises admiralty matters settled here so again I say, where is the contract?
Where is the Form 1099OID?
Who are you people and why do you deem yourselves better than me?
May I remind everyone, Equality under the Law is paramount and mandatory by law.
Me, I am unrepresented, I dont do Attorneys as I have found them to be injurious to my freedom, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Me, I reserve all rights at all times in all places and I waive no rights at any time or in any place. I do waive benefit privilege.