Smj = Suject Matter Jurisdiction

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Codee

No I meant that they are officers and so they do stuff for the big daddy,,,,the US

Got it!!
Thanks.

[wargamez102]

N/a..................

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrypitts
Codee:
"Florida Statutes—a permanent collection of state laws organized by subject area into a code made up of titles, chapters, parts, and sections. The Florida Statutes are updated annually by laws that create, amend, or repeal statutory material."


Please bear with me Codee: If you notice in the last sentence above, it states that the 'statutes' are updated by 'laws that create, amend, or repeal statutory material.'

If it is "laws" that create, amend, or repeal statutory material, then how is it possible for "statutes" to create, amend, or repeal statutory material? It would seem that "laws" are significantly different than "statutory material"/statute provisions.

In Florida, the Laws are in a completely separate publication and must be thoroughly searched in order to find the statutory provision that is in question. This is sometimes nearly impossible in the manner in which Florida has them set up.

Just still curious.

Jerry.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Big Al

I would advise anyone reading these posts to contact James B. Woods III, for the full information needed to successfully understand the full extent of the discussions on this subject. http://beatalltraffictickets.com/index.htm This is most important, otherwise you wil be lost!

Hmmm... 6 plugs for this guy in the first 17 posts? Are you getting a kickback? With those prices, he can afford to pay it..

Why then, would anyone with a clue on the subject, offer their insight here, in this thread, for free... when, as demonstrated, there is plenty of money to be made by selling the knowledge instead?


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[rentiap]

Ahhh but this is not the only thread he is pluggin it in.
Pm's to.

A decree entered without subject matter jurisdiction is void and that issue can be raised at any time. Chapoteau v. Chapoteau, 659 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 654 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Walt v. Walt, 574 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Cf. Plummer v. Hoover, 519 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); International Harvester Co. v. Mann, 460 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Dimino v. Farina, 572 So.2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Kennedy v. Reed, 533 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

The courts have held, however, in the context of evaluating factual matters asserted in a memorandum of law appearing in the record on appeal, that “unproven utterances documented only by an attorney are not facts that a trial court or this court can acknowledge.“ Schneider v. Currey, 584 So.2d 86, 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accord Blimpie Capital Venture, Inc. v. Palms Plaza Partners, Ltd., 636 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The only possible basis in the record for the trial court’s conclusion in this cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction is the respondent's version of the facts as stated by her attorney, documented in the record regarding the Relator's Motions to Dismiss accompanying this petition.

this instant case before the lower tribunal must be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. States v. Siviglia, 686 Fed. 2d 832, 835 (1981). The Florida Statutes upon which the lower Court's adjudication’s are based are not laws in the State of Florida and Relator cannot be bound thereby. If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right. Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619. Consequently, the lower tribunal's position is fundamentally and fatally defective and therefore the lower tribunal is without jurisdiction to try or adjudicate the Relator. Therefore, the lower tribunal's orders are void and unenforceable. Without valid statutes containing an enacting clause, there is no subject matter jurisdiction and therefore any decisions by the lower court is rendered void. Hooker v. Boles, 346 Fed. 2d 285, 286 (1965); Honomichl v. State, 333 N.W.2d 797, 799 (S.D. 1983); People v. McKinnon, 362 N.W. 2d 809, 812 (Mich. App. 1985); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4). Without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Court's judgment is void. Kutner v. Kutner, 159 Fla. 870, 33 So.2d 42 (1947); see also Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass‘n, 489 So.2d 758, 759-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The Relator is not bound if the judgment being attacked is void because the court rendering the judgment lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Corbin Well Pump & Supply v. James D. Koon, 482 So. 2d 525, 11 Fla. Law W. 295 (Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1986). When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction it has no power to decide the case and any judgment entered is absolutely null and void, can be set aside and stricken from the record on motion at any time and may be collaterally attacked. Young v. State, 439 So2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926). For all practical purposes the “final judgment“ serves no legal function and is null and void as beyond the judicial power as well as being beyond the invoked subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court in this particular case.

SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

1. Accused must be properly identified; identified in such
a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual
must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be
subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party"
defense. Almost always the means of identification is a person's
proper name, BUT, any means of identification is equally valid if
said means differentiates the accused without doubt. (There is
no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself)
For stop and identify (4th Amendment) see Brown v. Texas, 443 US
47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.

2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper
or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may
stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of
statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders
(example: Colorado National Monument Superintentdent's Orders
regarding an unleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail). If
a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new
and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error.
For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to
be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of
the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-
applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively
negate any exception found in the law. Example of exception:
".... thereof to make a return (other than a return required
under authority of 6015).....Indictment or information is
defective unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie
case of guilt is stated. Assumption of element is not lawful.
Otherwise, accused will not be thoroughly informed. 26 USC 6012
is a necessary element of the offense. Since 6012 isn't cited,
the information is fatally defective. Additionally, information
did not negate the exception (other than required under authority
of section 6015)." After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that
7203 elements are:
A. Required to perform.
B. Failed to perform.
C. Failure was willful
you may wish to ask, "how often is a valid 7203 or other
information or indictment brought? How many citizens have been
convicted on a fatally defective process?

3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-
prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of
average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable
preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the
offense complained of. The charge must not be described by
parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming
of the acts of the offense describe a specific offense whereas
the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of
offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered
in the determination of probable cause.

4. The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a
third party. Some positively identifiable person (human being)
must accuse. Some certain person must take responsibility for
the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution.
This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face
his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make
the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone
else testifying that he heard that another party was injured does
not qualify as direct evidence.

5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury.
If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation.
Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.

6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the
accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process.
Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in
bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable
cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be
abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may
be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom. All political
dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.

7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To
have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its
constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e.
(article III judge).

Without the limiting factor of a court of competent
jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of
liberty being imposed at any bureaucrat's whim. It is
conceivable that the procedure could devolve to one in which the
accuser, the trier of facts, and the executioner would all be one
and the same.

The first six elements above deal primarily with the
issue of personal jurisdiction. The seventh element (also
element #2) addresses subject matter and territorial
jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by acts
controlled by law; territorial jurisdiction attaches by venue of
the parties in relation to the court and to any trans-
jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties (extended
territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial long-arm
statutes).

SUMMING UP the LAW and the POLITICS

Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof,
(unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to
ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform
court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to
support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is
no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to
state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal
jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial
document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful
act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often
unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and
incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due
process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have
been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these
seven elements. Today, informations are being filed and
prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than due process of law.

See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4,
Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts
and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his
client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in
the administration of justice, the former must yield to the
latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard
to their relationship with their attorneys. After you have read
the foregoing, ask your attorney to see a copy of "regarding
Lawyer Discipline & other rules" Also Canons 1 through 9.

Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a
lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may
learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain
questions of law, including the question of personal
jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when
the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed
counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding
the hen house.)

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the
court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The
burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The
court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.
Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of
law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

NOTE: Today the courts are unconcerned with questions such
as whether or not the 16th or 17th amendments were ever lawfully
ratified. If the courts were to address this type of question
honestly, the government, with its huge bureaucracy and patron
special interests would be placed in jeopardy. This potential
threat is not allowed nor will it ever be. It is much easier for
the courts to label such potential threats as political
questions, point to the lateness of the clock and refuse to hear
or rule. Whatever the political jugernaut does, it uses the
facade of law to justify or reconcile it. The only way such
questions will have force and effect is if the general public
becomes aware and concerned with justice being based upon law and
not just policy based on a facade of law.

If you doubt such words, please be assured that they are not
just words but are, in fact, and articulation of the unwritten,
unspoken, present public policy, as enforced by the courts in
dealing with challenges to governmental acts and authority. For
documentation, see US v WAYNE WOJTAS, 85 CR 48 in the US District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division and
Judge Shadur's opinion on the 16th Amendment. You will see the
beginnings and threat of disbarment of a certain "aggressive"
licensed attorney.

To be truly effective in the courts in any challenge to
governmental power and authority, the challenger must possess a
good understanding of politics. This is especially so since
government and the courts are primarily concerned with a public
perception of the balancing of the scales of justice rather than
the attainment of true justice under the law.

Once it is realized that the court is primarily concerned
with politics, it then becomes necessary for any challenger to
become proficient in the political arena. By politics, we speak,
not of the electoral process, but of the politics of association.

Keeping this in mind, and truly understanding the concept, a
man accused of breaking a "rule" for which he may suffer
penalties of imprisonment, fine and costs without benefit of
trial or Constitutional safeguards, may very will consider
bringing a criminal charge against himself directly in court and
thereby blunt his adversaries' attack. To the uninitiated, this
may sound like madness, but to the political scholar destined to
appear before a "master" to answer to alleged rule violation of
the unauthorized practice of law, the self-accusatory route to
the courts may be the only hope of victory; both legal and
political.

SMJ Brief FYI

[kran sanis]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Dear Big Al;


I like the indentation. Would you briefly explain how we can do that please?

The simple way to defeat subject matter jurisdiction is to abate without the court or appear Restricted (Rule E(8)) upon the lack of an enacting clause on the statute.

Charles Weisman wrote a good treatise on this called The Authority of Law.





Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill,
"The Authority of Law" is a great referance. Thank you for helping to bring it to the use of others. Under this referance, Subject-matter jurisdiction is quite simply put as Joiner v State. An enacting clause gives a law jurisdictional identity and constitutional authenticity
It is the referance to all common private persons to ensure that the laws enacted are apportioned by Congress for use within the Fifty States of the Union (u)nited States. It also will referance as to who may be held accountable for the said law if defecient.
The enacting clause must also appear on the face of the law within all law books for common referance of any private person. A private citizen (and also a private Citizen) is not required or expected to search through endless volumes and tomes of law to ensure that the law is properly enacted.
An enacting clause must appear on the face of the law and should appear after the statute or law number and before the body text of the law.
Look for the wording "Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Alaska..." [This is the referance relevant to myself but should be near for other States.]
Enacting clauses are not origionated by our forefathers, it is a system used by governments through-out time immemorial. It is even used by the Great I AM with his Holy Ten Laws.

If there is not an enacting clause on the face of the law, it is not a law at all. And no court may assert any other form of jurisdiction when the Subject-matter jurisdiction is in the want.