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?”

Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust

Please be careful who you listen to, who you trust. Even be careful with what I say, use your own intuition. After all we are blessed with intuition and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. I would even expect you to question me and what I say, even though I know I would never intentionally lie to you.

The reason why I bring this topic up, is because there are infiltrators and provocateurs out there that are casting huge nets with which to build lists of names of individuals to be used later when larger scale “round ups” of liberty minded patriots begins.

The ones that are the ones that you should suspect first are those who close channels of communication rather that keep them open by responding and communicating with fair, open, and responsive communications. Those who do not respond or respond with slander, orders, negativity, or even just remaining silent are all signs that they may not be someone that you can trust. After all, these agencies and officers of government are only supposed to be there to serve and protect the rights and property of the people. There is no other reason for government, except perhaps defense of the homeland.

These agent provocateurs will also try to keep you in a narrow viewpoint about the situation, and not only will they express a narrow viewpoint, they will usually always try to influence you in a particular way. Sometimes they will try and convince you to not trust a particular individual, sometimes they will exhaustively promote particular individuals or groups.

These plants and government shills also commonly won’t give you a straight answer when you ask them a simple question, and their favorite response is to imply that there is a defect with the complainant to sidestep the actual complaint.

When I talk about those who should be suspected and placed under further scrutiny and background review, I am not just talking about individuals, there may also be shill groups, or organizations. And the ones that should be scrutinized the MOST are those who claim to either be actively affiliated with or employed by government, or those actively promoting ideologies claiming that the government is fair, just, honest, or unbiased.

13133243_244191322636622_309713294813844185_nNaturally those working for the government or benefiting from the government in some way are highly suspect, because they stand to lose the most by withdrawing or losing their support for the broken corrupt system. They are dependent on the government, why challenge it? They will also contradict themselves; for example they may express sympathy and support for the protesters, but at the same time will express support for the government and the “court system” in particular. Like the fox guarding the hen house, they will usually be slick talkers as well. But will rarely offer citations or evidence to prove their claims.

While we are on this subject, I would like to talk briefly about lawyers. And I have more information here if you are interested in learning more. But who has more to lose from the government than a lawyer? Not just any lawyer, but a lawyer that makes his living by arguing cases in government courthouses?

Don’t you think that the government would want to make sure that there were “attorneys” to defend the protesters? Keep them in the casino, where their chances are not good. And by not just any attorneys, but maybe even an attorney from the “Top 100” list of all trial attorneys to prepare their defense. One who has worked their whole career arguing in support of subjects of government who were mainly charged with “code” or “statute” violations. A vast majority of them without a victim, like DUII cases, and other trumped up “code” violations.

I don’t know about you, but after doing years of research on this topic. I have never found in the founding documents where the founders of this country ever suggested or implied that the people were bound by any “code”, “statute”, “rules”, “regulations” or “policy” of government. As a matter of fact the Declaration of Independence says exactly this: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” Continue reading “Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust”