|
Originally Posted by free_martha
Be forewarned that before you step a foot into those courts that they are admiralty /maritime/ military law. I have uploaded a pdf called SPECIAL MARITIME EXPOSED and below is a quote from page 16:
The prosecuting attorney is representing a corporation, a fictitious plaintiff, and bringing a maritime claim on the presumption that a maritime contract exists between the STATE OF TEXAS and the defendant, or more correctly, the ignorant victim.
The ignorant victim does not know that this presumption even exists, does not know that the cause of action cannot be in the common law because a crime in law requires a corpus delecti, that is to say, thebody of the crime or an injured party, and a corporation cannot be the body of the crime or an injured partybecause it is artificial, a fiction. Trust the author on this, there is plenty of well-settled authority, but it will
not be cited here in the interests of brevity while covering the essentials.
Because of constant governmentindoctrination and the lasting effects of cognitive dissidence, the fact that the cause is of a maritime nature
is beyond the poor victim’s comprehension.
The ocean is a long way from Kansas, Dorothy!
So how could the accused victim of an alleged offense committed on the land end up in a maritime court and be bound to a presumed maritime contract?
The attorneys for the plaintiff are prosecuting the suit in maritime jurisdiction without evidence entered into the record of the contract binding the Petitioner to the maritime law. Without such contract the
trial court is wholly in want of subject matter jurisdiction and venue jurisdiction. The doctrine of “unclean hands” applies to the attorneys for the plaintiff.
p. 24: The subject matter is merely the facts of the case. Facts must be properly admitted into evidence according to the rules of court. If there are no facts in evidence, there is no subject matter. If there is no subject matter, there is no subject matter jurisdiction and the only action the court can take is to dismiss the claim.
p. 26: It is never too late to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. It ain’t
over until the defendant gives up. The courts have held and the rules reveal that:
Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by parties, conferred by consent, or ignored by court. Bab**** & Wilson v. Parsons Corp., 430 F.2d 531 (1970).Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived and courts may raise the issue sua sponte” FRCP, Rule 12(h).
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a defense that is never waived.” FRCP, Rule12(h)3.Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time, even after trial. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsu****a Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 494 F.Supp. 1161 (D.C.
Pa., 1980).
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and can even be raised on appeal after judgment on the merits. Monaco v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 514 F.Supp. 357 (D.C., Pa., 1981) Judgment of court lacking jurisdiction is void” Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 110 S.Ct. 2105 (1990).
I read somewhere that we are not fish and we do not live in the ocean, and this abortion of law that has come inland is what is screwing us all, big time. No wonder every loses all of the time in court, we do not know what game they have been playing.
Martha
|