Jean Keating Vs Other Process

[mystic one]

Everyone here has talked about challenging jurisidiction in personum and subject matter. However Keating is saying arguing jurisdiction is moot, since the courts are commercial, he tends to focus more on certifying the statue and the bill of exchange and bonding procress. I was listenting to winston shrout the other nite, and he has some similiar points to keating, but i think shrout brought up the point that he actually does challenge jurisdiction.. So, the question is , Is keating basically saying not to bring up subjectmatter/personum jurisdiction, or did he mean if you did not challenge personum then its time to focus more on the bonding process. these process need to be assimilated, as we dont want to confuse things and have conflicting strategies.. does keating never mention challenging jurisdiction, or am i taking this out of context with other stuff he mentions. he just doesnt bring it up in his bonding treasties?

on the lecture, winston said to challenge jurisdiction by restricted appearance to attack the commercial issue. look, the key to this whole game is to exhaust your administrative remedy with the other party (in this case the da) before their game gets started, prefarably before arraignment. give the da 72 hrs to certify the statute, then send out the default agreement that he has no claim and file it into the record. i took all my learning from all these sources and put this information above into a logical, common sense approach to what EVERYBODY is saying. u cannot go wrong doing it this way because you have resolved the conflict before its put before a judge, anything they do after this is commercial slander.

Originally Posted by mystic one

Everyone here has talked about challenging jurisidiction in personum and subject matter. However Keating is saying arguing jurisdiction is moot, since the courts are commercial, he tends to focus more on certifying the statue and the bill of exchange and bonding procress. I was listenting to winston shrout the other nite, and he has some similiar points to keating, but i think shrout brought up the point that he actually does challenge jurisdiction.. So, the question is , Is keating basically saying not to bring up subjectmatter/personum jurisdiction, or did he mean if you did not challenge personum then its time to focus more on the bonding process. these process need to be assimilated, as we dont want to confuse things and have conflicting strategies.. does keating never mention challenging jurisdiction, or am i taking this out of context with other stuff he mentions. he just doesnt bring it up in his bonding treasties?

[charlesa6]

I agree they might not even make it to the court if you do your administrative remedy right in the first place.