Jurisdiction - Page 3

Jerseee · #21 10-05-2003, 11:10 PM

Wait a minute,

Is it:

1. subject matter jurisdiction& and/or

2. personal jurisdiction?

&

Jerseee · #22 10-05-2003, 11:10 PM

Wait a minute,

Is it:

1. subject matter jurisdiction& and/or

2. personal jurisdiction?

&

suijuris · #23 10-06-2003, 07:03 PM

What activates the court?

Hmmm... I believe the court can be activated by many means, allthough most are not lawfull. In these case, I would say the court is activated by the need to generate revenue and protect its interest in the continued collection of revenue.

As far as what LAWFULLY activates the court, I have not studied that one out yet...

suijuris · #24 10-06-2003, 07:03 PM

What activates the court?

Hmmm... I believe the court can be activated by many means, allthough most are not lawfull. In these case, I would say the court is activated by the need to generate revenue and protect its interest in the continued collection of revenue.

As far as what LAWFULLY activates the court, I have not studied that one out yet...

#25 10-06-2003, 07:32 PM

I am pleased that this thread is becoming active. Where is it going? That has me scratching my head. One direction might be like the subject, court jurisdiction. Do you want a fish or do you want to learn how to fish? Having a significant appreciation for fish, I will keep mine. That only leaves sharing my knowledge of how to fish. The goal of this test (which is only the first) is to learn now, where failing the test won’t hurt a thing, so you can ace the very similar test administered by Society Of Birdwatcher warring the black dress.
&<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
Seeklight: “How would/could a fiction have jurisdiction over any entity other than an "individual" i.e. STRAWMAN?” Your answer is in article I section 10. Also you might want to determine if you are a man, woman or human being. There is a difference in law. Citizenship is not an issue here.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Jerseee: “the answer is either: the Citizen or the controversy itself” How can one citizen have a controversy?<o

></o

>
Rather than just repeating the constitution, what does it really say? This may help:<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
1. all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
2. the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
3. to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
4. to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
5. to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
6. to Controversies between two or more States;<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
7. between a State and Citizens of another State; <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
8. between Citizens of different States, <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
9. between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
10. and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
We need to “look closely” at all 10 statements. I will start you out with number 3. Are you an “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls”? Hint: look up “resident”. <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Jerseee, in your second post “I'll take door no. 1 Ice.& I will say that the constitution itself turns it on.” That is exactly right! Take it a step further. Where does the constitution get the power to activate the Supreme Court? (Try the first three words.) Its jurisdiction however is very limited by the above 10 statements. 
So here is a question: You commit a murder and get the death sentence in a state. Your last appeal is to the Supreme Court. (It is in the news all the time.) Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear your case? Same hint as above.&<o

></o

>

In your next post: Is it:&<o

></o

>

1. subject matter jurisdiction& and/or&<o

></o

>

2. personal jurisdiction?<o

></o

>
Scrap the and/or. A court cannot get personal jurisdiction without first having subject matter jurisdiction. And it MUST have BOTH to act. And it must BE ACTIVATED before it can act.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Again I would suggest that we try to activate a car first.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Jim<o

></o

>

#26 10-06-2003, 07:32 PM

I am pleased that this thread is becoming active. Where is it going? That has me scratching my head. One direction might be like the subject, court jurisdiction. Do you want a fish or do you want to learn how to fish? Having a significant appreciation for fish, I will keep mine. That only leaves sharing my knowledge of how to fish. The goal of this test (which is only the first) is to learn now, where failing the test won’t hurt a thing, so you can ace the very similar test administered by Society Of Birdwatcher warring the black dress.
&<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
Seeklight: “How would/could a fiction have jurisdiction over any entity other than an "individual" i.e. STRAWMAN?” Your answer is in article I section 10. Also you might want to determine if you are a man, woman or human being. There is a difference in law. Citizenship is not an issue here.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Jerseee: “the answer is either: the Citizen or the controversy itself” How can one citizen have a controversy?<o

></o

>
Rather than just repeating the constitution, what does it really say? This may help:<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
1. all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
2. the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
3. to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
4. to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
5. to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
6. to Controversies between two or more States;<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
7. between a State and Citizens of another State; <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
8. between Citizens of different States, <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
9. between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
10. and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
We need to “look closely” at all 10 statements. I will start you out with number 3. Are you an “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls”? Hint: look up “resident”. <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Jerseee, in your second post “I'll take door no. 1 Ice.& I will say that the constitution itself turns it on.” That is exactly right! Take it a step further. Where does the constitution get the power to activate the Supreme Court? (Try the first three words.) Its jurisdiction however is very limited by the above 10 statements. 
So here is a question: You commit a murder and get the death sentence in a state. Your last appeal is to the Supreme Court. (It is in the news all the time.) Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear your case? Same hint as above.&<o

></o

>

In your next post: Is it:&<o

></o

>

1. subject matter jurisdiction& and/or&<o

></o

>

2. personal jurisdiction?<o

></o

>
Scrap the and/or. A court cannot get personal jurisdiction without first having subject matter jurisdiction. And it MUST have BOTH to act. And it must BE ACTIVATED before it can act.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Again I would suggest that we try to activate a car first.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Jim<o

></o

>

#27 10-06-2003, 08:13 PM

Greetings,

I read Article I section 10.

The State may not enter into a treaty with me. Since they are NOT allowed to lawfully contract with me, nor do I consent to contract, there is no jurisdiction.

#28 10-06-2003, 08:13 PM

Greetings,

I read Article I section 10.

The State may not enter into a treaty with me. Since they are NOT allowed to lawfully contract with me, nor do I consent to contract, there is no jurisdiction.

suijuris · #29 10-06-2003, 08:25 PM

Seeklight,

I may be wrong, but can a state's restriction from entering into a treaty with you restrict them from entering into a contract? Seems to me that a treaty relates to international law and a contract relates to contract or commercial law.

TREATY (bouviers)
CONTRACT (bouviers)

suijuris · #30 10-06-2003, 08:25 PM

Seeklight,

I may be wrong, but can a state's restriction from entering into a treaty with you restrict them from entering into a contract? Seems to me that a treaty relates to international law and a contract relates to contract or commercial law.

TREATY (bouviers)
CONTRACT (bouviers)