Suijuris Forums - View Single Post

#15 05-01-2004, 11:55 PM

nralien, read the following.& It will help you understand jurisdiction. 
&
To have proper jurisdiction to hear and decide a particular case a court must have both "subject matter" and "in personam" jurisdiction "Subject matter" refers to the kind of issue to be resolved; "in personam" refers to the "personal status" of one or both of the parties to the suit. For example a bankruptcy court deals strictly with the subject of bankruptcy and therefore lacks "subject matter" jurisdiction to hear a divorce case. Likewise, a Texas divorce court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a divorce cases but lacks "in personam" jurisdiction to decide a divorce between two persons who live in California.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
However jurisdiction is normally presumed to exist even when it does not. For example, it is fantastic but not quite impossible that federal bankruptcy court located in Texas could hear a divorce case between two persons living in California. Even though, the court lacks both subject ,matter and in personam jurisdiction the court might hear and decide the case – unless one of the parties raises a proper jurisdiction. <o

></o

>
Although jurisdiction is presumed to exist, the rule is that "once challenged, jurisdiction must be proved to exist before the court can proceed." Therefore, if defendants (virtually all of whom are unhappy to appear in court) [/i]can challenge and disprove either the court's subject matter or in personam jurisdiction the court is legally bound to stop prosecution.<o

></o

>
One of the challenges to in personam jurisdiction is based on impersonal status. Numerous arguments contend that certain details of your personal mailing address provide presumptive evidence that your status is that of a "person subject to" the Federal Government's jurisdiction. Depending on who you talk to, the damning evidence may be one or more of the following: zip code; two-letter state abbreviations (TX); your name in all-capital letters (JOHN DOE); or even your first or middle name abbreviated (John N. Doe) According to these arguments if a judge sees a sample of your address (on your driver's license for example) [/i]that contains any of these incriminating details the Judge can legally presume he has in personam Jurisdiction over your body and slap you around any way he likes.<o

></o

>
Each of us should understand our non-resident status regarding the IRS code. If we establish our proper Judicial location (not "address"), and permanently apply it to all future correspondence, we can escape the reach of the District of Columbia national administrative legal system, and remove ourselves from the national administrative powers of congress which are theoretically limited to the District of Columbia and U. S. possessions.<o

></o

>
Corporate government legally administers its private rules and regulations in its national capacity and jurisdiction through administrative law. Anyone found in a national area, evidenced by voluntary use of a ZIP code, and/or voluntary use of a 2-letter state abbreviation, is presumed to be liable for specific performance of those legal (but unlawful) rules and regulations that apply to persons residing in the United States, one of the States (territories/possessions) or the District of Columbia.<o

></o

>