[Akira]

Hi All,

The reason the dialog from part 1 reads :

nor am I a corporate or legal entity, or any other fictional entity, created by Congress

is because, The Maine Legislature in Title 29-a Chapter 1 §101 'definitions', defines person as:

54. Person. "Person" means an individual, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, fiduciary, trust, estate or any other legal or commercial entity. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff).]

So... who / what are you?


EJUSDEM GENERIS . All the same kind, class, or nature.
In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, the "ejusdem generis rule" is, that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. of Laws, 141; Goldsmith. v. U.S., C.C.A.N.Y.,N.Y., 42 F2nd.133,137

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS. "It is known from its associates.1 Vent.225. The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words" " the doctrine means that general and specific words are associated with and take color from each other, restricting general words to sense analogous to less general. Dunham v. State,140 Fla. 754, 192 So. 324,325,326.

By the wording of the definition, we can conclude that a person is a generic term for a variety of 'legal or commercial entities'

"Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign" Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).

You must taylor the opening dialog to suit your circumstance !!

Study the definitions !! (usually the first chapter in that particular section of code)


Here is some other additional dialog I had prepared 'just in case' !


For the record,

Sir, I am an honest man... and are of no threat to you......

But, Sir.... with all due respect.... I do not recognise you.

Who are you, sir, and who do you represent?

Did you voluntarily take an oath to the Constitution FOR the united States?

Will you take judicial notice of your oath to the Constitution FOR the united States?

Ironicly, Sir, I, still, am not sure I recognise you.....

Is your oath to the original jurisdiction Constitution FOR the united States of America, Adopted July 2, 1788 and put into effect March 4, 1789

or is it to the Constitution OF the United States of America, adopted by the United States Incorporated on February 21, 1871 ??


(this last question should make the judge crap in his pants... lol)
-------------------------------

"A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time." 261 Kan. at 862.

Either way... this is a waste of evryone's time...

further, still...... sir....

there is no sworn affidavit by an injured party...

there is no sworn affidavit by a competent witness

therefore, the court lacks the essential elements needed for a "case" and again lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and has no choice but to dismiss the charges.

Having said that, I believe my business here is complete...

If no one has any other business to discuss with me....

I humbly and respectfully take my leave..

May God Bless you all....


---------------------------------


"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

One of the hallmarks of subject matter jurisdiction is that it can be raised at any time, including on appeal. If the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we would have to vacate its order.
Hawley v. Murphy, 1999 ME 127, ¶ 8, 736 A.2d 268, 271; M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)

"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. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026

A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970).

"A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)

"Therefore, it is necessary that the record present the fact establishing the jurisdiction of the tribunal." Lowe v. Alexander 15C 296; People v. Board of Delegates of S.F. Fire Dept., 14 C 479

"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 (1974)

"If any tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed." Louisville RR v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42 (1908)

"Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351." Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.

"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

PROVE IM BEING PAID !!! === MOTION TO DISMISS

...in criminal cases we have repeatedly stated that the failure of an indictment to allege an element of the offense deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution of the defendant. See State v. Levasseur, 538 A.2d 764, 766 (Me. 1988)

Jurisdiction is the essential basis of the court's authority, and this issue may be raised at any time. See State v. Dhuy, 2003 ME 75, ¶ 8, 825 A.2d 336, 341; M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.")

"[a] challenged judgment is either valid or void." Boyer v. Boyer, 1999 ME 128, ¶ 6, 736 A.2d 273, 275. "A judgment is void and must be vacated if the court issuing the judgment lacks subject matter jurisdiction." Id.


For HIS Glory,
Akira