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!