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.

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:

Some comments on Arnold Law Firm post about pricing.
Some comments on Arnold Law Firm post about pricing.

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.

Do they even have the authority to hear the matter?
Do they even have the authority to hear the matter?

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] doesn’t 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 State’s/ USA ‘s cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government’s cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).

Continue reading “Does the Court Automatically Have Jurisdiction?”

Your Story Just Doesn’t Add Up FBI…

The FBI had a press conference today… here is what they said:

And it really just doesn’t add up. Watch this short video:

And then this video is very exposing, showing the feds were preparing to create bloodshed to keep their illegal stranglehold over the people and land. They didnt care about a peaceful resolution, they were preparing to murder people:

Read this statement put out yesterday by the Finicum family:

The purpose of this statement is to supplement the statement we issued earlier. It does not contradict our previous statement, but only serves to supplement, support and add detail to our previous position.

At this point, based on the additional information we have now received, it is our position that not only was the shooting death of LaVoy Finicum completely unjustified, but that the FBI and Oregon State Police may also be engaging in a cover-up, and seeking to manipulate and mislead the media and the American public about what really happened.

Officers started shooting at LaVoy’s vehicle and the people in it right from the outset, even at the very first stop.
Officers started shooting at LaVoy’s vehicle and the people in it right from the outset, even at the very first stop.

We realize this may sound like a bold statement, but now that Shawna Cox, who was a passenger in LaVoy’s vehicle, and an eye witness, has been released from custody, we have now had the opportunity to hear yet another account, and the ability to start crossreferencing all currently available information to figure out what really happened. This has shed important additional light on the whole ordeal — especially when Cox is given the opportunity to essentially narrate what is happening in the video, from an eye witness standpoint.

It is our position that under the guise of claimed transparency, the FBI was very quick to release a very grainy, edited video, along with their interpretation of what they claimed it showed, without any audio overlay, in an effort to attempt to try to make the first impression on this issue, and seek to sway public opinion from the outset. Continue reading “Your Story Just Doesn’t Add Up FBI…”