Discussing Jurisdiciton with the judge

[KITCHIE]

So rather than say you name would it be a good idea to say I am the Authorized Representative for Name. And then when they say well what is YOUR name could you just say you may refer to me as the Secured Party?



By the way on the computer graphic printout of the citation he wrote everything in lower case and stated that NRS Statuets give him the right to use my trade-name.



Kitchie

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]I'm leaning away from the "agent for STRAWDUDE" approach, although it is viable. I just wanna destroy that sucker for good!



I like how this thread started out, lets stick with & FOCUS on the SMJ thing

[Akira]

Hi All,



[QUOTE by re-ality] as soon as you pronounce your name, that is the split second that all of there exponential assumptions stick to you the real man[/quote]

This is exactly the reason I use a personalized version of Randy Lee's IRS opening to deny the court SMJ... this is not theory... I HAVE USED IT SUCCESSFULLY 8 TIMES !!! (to date) You can play the name game.. lazy, useless, ect... I have no doubt this would be a lot of fun.. but it just wastes both your time and the courts, and only serves to tick off the judge. You're dancing and ducking the issue... when all you need to do is knock him on his butt. Don't rebutt the name.. TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE, and let them worry about rebuttles. When they try, then use your documentation to show your secured party relationship to the strawman. This will tick the judge off plenty by itself...



Since I have this MEMORIZED... (hint hint)... you will need to search for the original post...



ME: for the record, your honor...

JUDGE: yes?

ME: My Christian appellation is Firstname Middlename, and my family name is Lastname.

That is spelled capital F, lower case, i-r-s-t-n-a-m-e, capital M, lower case i-d-d-l-e-n-a-m-e (ect.. all the way out...)



(more recently I have said "I am FirstName MiddleName, of the house of LastName, spelled in BOTH upper and lower case letters.." (it's quicker, and seems to be recieved better))



"For the record, I, Firstname Middlename, and Jesus the Christ Advocate and Wonderful Counselor, are using the Right of Special Visitation to exercise Ministerial Powers to be heard on this matter. "



Your lastname or family name is a <u>corporate</u> name (the <u>only</u> corporation sanctioned by the 'Big Guy'). To use your Lastname when you are refering to yourself, is to represent yourself as one of a group, rather than as a single man.



IMHO, to present myself in any other manner, would be to deny my stance as a sovereign, and the many blessings of my Father.



For more info, please seek the original thread, located somewhere on this site.. lol



For HIS Glory,

Akira

I thank you for all your comments and everything. I was offered a "prosecution special deal" like someone was talking about on another thread, for giving an officer false Id with them dropping the DWLS, no jail time, only a fine and court costs. When I was stopped, I was not ready and said I didn't think I had any ID with me, not the things I should have said, or the correct sovereign responses like am I being detained, I do not consent to being detained. I guess I was intidated by the six cop cars and literally lost my tongue when handcuffed and put in police car before they knew i had no DL. I have not filed any papers with local police depts or have any papers yet to keep with me about the right to travel, etc. I know I can and will ask the judge if it is a judicial court, since I know now there are only 3 kinds of courts. Can I just speak up, (if I have to) and ask for one of those? I did file an affidavit of denial of Corporate existence, with no response sent back to the address listed. Someone told me they sometimes do "Motions in Limeni" Hopefully I can get them to notice that I am not the "person" listed on the docs they sent me, and I am answering to the case.

fighting for your sovereignty is a game you are gonna have to play. what i would do is notice the police department and the sheriff along with state officials by contract in regards to the right to travel. let them know what u r gonna do and default them BEFORE they arrest you. then give copies of the contract to the police officer who pulls you over and go from there. no judge can overrule a contract. look at the judge shows on tv, even them tv judges acknowledge contracts, 90 percent of their shows is devoted to contract disputes. they cant override the contract, they just enforce them.

[weishaupt1776]

Foremost among the well-established elements of a justiciable controversy is the requirement that the plaintiff have standing to maintain the suit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Z.J. Gifts D-4, 311 F.3d at 1226.

"There are three requirements of Article III standing. First, the plaintiff must suffer an injury in fact. An injury in fact is an *888 invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, i.e., not conjectural or hypothetical." Essence, Inc. v. City of Fed. Heights, 285 F.3d 1272, 1280 (10th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A plaintiff must also demonstrate that the harm complained of is fairly traceable to defendant's conduct and that a favorable ruling from the court would redress plaintiff's injury. Id. Thus, a main focus of the standing inquiry is whether plaintiff has suffered a present or imminent injury, as opposed to a mere possibility, or even probability, of future injury. See also Rector v. City & County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935, 942-43 (10th Cir.2003).

[TheBlackTruth]

I suppose I'll put my 2 cents in, even though its likely the hearing has already transpired. . .

One will always be unsuccessful if all he does is simply stand up and clears up the "name issue" and states that he "challenges SMJ".

A challenge to SMJ must be clearly articulated. You must be able to explain (either in oral argument or a pleading in writing, which is preferred) WHY this court does not have SMJ. I think this is the point at which most are failing to make their case.

Many are trying to make the case that the court lacks jurisdiction simply because one is a "Sovereign". This is not the case. The court gains In Personam Jurisdiction in the instant matter the moment you make an appearance. The key is to make the "instant matter" a hearing on your motions and not the hearing set up by the Agency acting against you.

The reason a case brought to court from an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code is outside the jurisdiction of the court is becase there is a delegated State Agency that is responsible for enforcing the Vehicle Code. As an administrative agency (executive branch), it must comply with your state's Administrative Procedures Act. In this Act you will find that there is a procedure that must be followed when there is a contested case before the agency. The agency must first hold a hearing and make a final determination before the case can be referred to a Judicial court for Judicial Review. THIS is why the Judicial court lacks SMJ. Because the Agency failed to exhaust its administrative remedy and has invoked a Judical court without first holding a hearing and making a determination of facts and law concerning rights, duties and privileges.

-BT

p.s. if you want to learn more, contact me and I'll show you some pleadings I've created and are currently awaiting hearings.

[weishaupt1776]

Yup. I was checking out that thread you started regarding Cali, I need to shepard it in Florida.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

Many are trying to make the case that the court lacks jurisdiction simply because one is a "Sovereign".

Welp... that's kinda vague.. so I'm not sure who you are refering too.. but let me say this...

The court lacks SMJ because they can't 'see' the flesh and blood man, period. He and the court are fictions, and can't see the non-fiction man. By getting him it acknowledge his oath, we turn the tide. Now, he is a judge, a non-fiction, based in organic, positive law, and now he can't see the fiction ! Since we can't injure a fiction, there can be no injury, and there can be no evidence of a complaining party.

The 'sovereign arguement' has nothing to do with this.. we are simply using a defect of the court, to deny them authority.

Once we get the court to acknowledge the flesh and blood man, we can use the 'sovereign arguement' to show that we aren't subject to their 60 million codes, statutes, and regulations. There are 2 classes of citizenry, and we are not the one controlled by them.

We have a choice. We can confront the black robed guy, as the secured party, and not make an appearance. Or, we can go in as the flesh and blood man, and not make an appearance. Both deny the court authority over "US" In one senario, we are accepting their game and using their energy against them (I own the strawman). In the other, we are staying out of the game by being apples to their oranges (I am not a commercial or legal entity).

As stated, I have used the latter, multiple times, and only failed, because I testified. It was great to see the judge sit there and wring his hands together, put his head in his hands, and progressively get more frustrated, as he worked his brain, trying to figure out how he was going to trick me into acquiesing. I had worked so hard to get to that point, I forgot to study what to do next, once I got there. lol

Hard lessons are the best, and I will never be in that position again.

There is an understanding that comes by doing, and nothing can replace it.

As I told Weis, go to traffic court. Have your first 'brain fart' there, where the penalties are light. My first brain fart came at my rights and responsibilities hearing, and I no longer have access to my kids. Don't make my mistake...

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[TheBlackTruth]

Originally Posted by Akira

Welp... that's kinda vague.. so I'm not sure who you are refering too.. but let me say this...

The court lacks SMJ because they can't 'see' the flesh and blood man, period. He and the court are fictions, and can't see the non-fiction man. By getting him it acknowledge his oath, we turn the tide. Now, he is a judge, a non-fiction, based in organic, positive law, and now he can't see the fiction ! Since we can't injure a fiction, there can be no injury, and there can be no evidence of a complaining party.

You have made so many presumptions that I've seen so many make, but I've seen no case cites to back it up. I haven't even seen or read of any verifiable court experience in which the "fiction/non-fiction" argument has ever been successfully litigated.

Where did the idea that you can't injure a fiction come from? I've heard it several times and I've even adopted it as true, but now I am forced to reject it for lack of evidence in support. Please show me a law, statute or case cite that supports this claim.

I understand the argument and it makes sense, but there is simply no evidence at law to support that the Judge is a "fiction" at law or that he/she becomes a "non-fiction" after taking notice of his/her oath of office (or the several constitutions). The fact of the matter is, if a Judge breaches his/her oath such can be reversed on appeal. Public officials are presumed to know the law at all times. There is never a need to force judicial notice of such things except to get a subtle hint across to the judge that you are aware of his/her responsibilities. It does not alter your status at law nor that of the judge. I challenge anyone, with applicable case law, to illustrate otherwise.

Originally Posted by Akira

The 'sovereign arguement' has nothing to do with this.. we are simply using a defect of the court, to deny them authority.

Once we get the court to acknowledge the flesh and blood man, we can use the 'sovereign arguement' to show that we aren't subject to their 60 million codes, statutes, and regulations. There are 2 classes of citizenry, and we are not the one controlled by them.

We have a choice. We can confront the black robed guy, as the secured party, and not make an appearance. Or, we can go in as the flesh and blood man, and not make an appearance. Both deny the court authority over "US" In one senario, we are accepting their game and using their energy against them (I own the strawman). In the other, we are staying out of the game by being apples to their oranges (I am not a commercial or legal entity).

As stated, I have used the latter, multiple times, and only failed, because I testified. It was great to see the judge sit there and wring his hands together, put his head in his hands, and progressively get more frustrated, as he worked his brain, trying to figure out how he was going to trick me into acquiesing. I had worked so hard to get to that point, I forgot to study what to do next, once I got there. lol

Have you considered the possibility that you may have failed because you lacked standing to support your argument which was insufficient and unconvincing? Do you really think testimony has anything to do with it? What is your basis for this conclusion?

Originally Posted by Akira

Hard lessons are the best, and I will never be in that position again.

There is an understanding that comes by doing, and nothing can replace it.

As I told Weis, go to traffic court. Have your first 'brain fart' there, where the penalties are light. My first brain fart came at my rights and responsibilities hearing, and I no longer have access to my kids. Don't make my mistake...

For HIS Glory,
Akira

As we all know, any order issued by a court absent jurisdiction is void on its face from the beginning. This being the case, please explain how the loss of access to your children was a result of your somehow granting jurisdiction to the court. Otherwise, its quite possible the court never did (and still does not) have jurisdiction to sustain its order/judgment against you.

-BT