Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kgod999
found this at findlaw[:]
the statutory courts do recognize abatements under the 14th amendment but they trick to trick you into shamming it by appearance:
|
STATUTORY COURT is the "court" with admirality jurisdiction by default; until shown to be based on a false assumption.
Our proper response is to not recognise this "court's" jurisdiction because:
1. There is NO international contract to which we are a signatory to that can be given in evidence by the complaining party that would cause jurisdiction to attach;
2. After we have established our sovereignty prior to all "judicial process and attacks" and either dissolved or taken control of the imputed FICTION making us the ... I couldnt figer out the conclusion so here's my thinking process in digression:
--
At the time of my delivery from my mother, a document was executed by "hospital personal" with my parents' signatures.
I dont ever recall seeing images of the bottom of my feet
on any document tho.
The document I've seen had two signatures of my folks; and from testimony of others, the name given to the new born baby is the idem sonans symbol translated from the spoken name given by the parents to the written symbol.
I.e., John Quincy Public is and are the written symbol[s] representing the sound given by the parents to the new born child.
By Idem Sonans, the sound-symbol given to the child is represented in a way contrary to the parents' meaning:
John Quincy Public
becomes
PUBLIC, JOHN Q., or,
J. Q. PUBLIC, or,
PUBLIC, J. Q., or,
PUBLIC, J.
Thus by standard usage of The King's rules of English,
the parents' naming (both a birth-right and God-given right and command to name Good and Evil) is usurped by FICTIONS and agents of FICTIONS to:
1. form a FICTION based on the future performance of that new FICTION by falsely mis-teaching that John Quincy is JOHN Q.; and,
2. to float bonds based on a certificate of berthing, live birth, for the support of other FICTIONS and greed and control.
--
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kgod99
Pleas in Abatement. --
State legislation which forbids
a defendant to come into court and challenge the validity of service upon him in a personal action
without thereby surrendering himself
to the jurisdiction of the court,
but which does not restrain him
from protecting his substantive rights
against enforcement of a judgment
rendered without service of process
is constitutional and does not deprive him of property
without due process of law.
Such a defendant, if he pleases, may ignore the proceedings
as wholly ineffective,
and set up the invalidity of the judgment
if and when an attempt is made
to take his property thereunder.
However, if he desires to contest the validity
of the proceedings in the court in which it is instituted, so as to avoid even a semblance of a judgment against him,
it is within the power of a State
to declare that he shall do this
subject to
the risk of being obliged
to submit to the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the merits,
if the objection raised by him as to its jurisdiction over his person shall be overruled
|
I'm wondering if the legislature is trying to do away with the questioning of subject-matter jurisdiction; for, the essence of abatement of papers for being inherently wrong ab initio (from the get-go) is that since the papers are addressed to a FICTION, our abatement of them with corrections required cannot be corrected!
So, what's the point of the legislature's limit as referred to in the quoted post above?
Linear Mode
