Ticket Slayer

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Akira

How about giving verbal testimony or argueing? Can't you be tricked into doing that?

It happens everyday !

Giving testimony doesn't grant jurisdiction. If Jurisdiction can be challenged at ANY TIME... then it doesn't matter if testimony or anything else is done.

Since "best evidence" is the rule then what steps could a soveriegn take in preparation for a challenge of jurisdiction? And how do you think you might incorporate the use of the evidence repository in this challenge?

If any believe that the court does not have jurisdiction over your being, and challenges such jurisdiction, then prove up your claim with some sort of "evidence". It seems that all I ever hear is how it is "their court"... and people have forgotten they are the masters over the public servants. And, frankly, it saddens me.

Ice

[seeker]

we not only put siu juris, living man on our paperwork, we put a judicial notice of challenge of SMJ, black robe said of course he had SMJ -- no words from the DA's mouth -- and from all I have read, if it is a National bank bringing the suit -- it is the Fed court that has jurisdiction -- NOT a state circuit court. Any clue how to find out if the CCC really did initiate the suit not the DA -- our CRA report says the account is closed with a zero balance -- BEFORE the court date! Or did they monetize that little ol' FBoE? Hmmm .... either way, the CRA says the account is closed and has NO balance! How do we get recognition of this??

Just something that keeps bothering me --

Seeker

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

Arguing or testifying may not be a wise strategy, but by itself means NOTHING.

The notion that doing such somehow grants some sort of imaginary jurisdiction is hogwash and has no foundation in law.

-BT

It may be speculation on my part, but I believe that many teachers who are either misled or intentionally deceitful propagate that in order to sell people on "You don't have to learn all of that court stuff- - that's for them".
It tickles those itching ears for people who do not really want to study procedure and evidence. This, in turn, attracts multitudes who are willing to spend MAD FRNS on seminars in which no real answers or procedure is given and they still walk away happy.

Jason Whitney & I were discussing this concept that such "teachers" are really philosphers, and while not all of them are bad; they still don't really get down to the nitty gritty when it comes down to procedure or clearcut foundations from which they are drawing in order to explain the basis of their theories.

[Akira]

Ice,
Thanks for clearing that up the quote question...

It's good to see you posting again...



Et Al,

The OAS win thread represents my fourth attempt and first win at challenging jurisdiction in court. The first attempt was in district court, and the last three were in superior court. Altogether, I spend over a month in jail, to perfect the approach. For the record, it was worth every minute of jail time.

Only on the last attempt, did the judge halt proceedings, as one would expect. Even then, he had the DA try to sway me behind closed doors.



So lets look at the flipside of this 'jurisdiction' coin....

What is the judge looking for/need to see, in order to presume he has jurisdiction? I don't mean what have past court cites said...

I understand the courts said:

Originally Posted by Ice

The question of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and since neither consent nor waiver can give jurisdiction, the court will not proceed where it appears from the record that it has no authority.

Coffee v. Peterbilt of Nashville, Inc. (Tenn.) 705 SW2d 656.

But they also said:

“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule or law making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them.”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966) (emphasis mine)

"the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights."
Emspak v. United States, 349 US 190 (1955) (emphasis mine)

"The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute (rule or practice) which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former."
U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116 (1929)

"Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635 (1886)


But the courts aren't watchful. They act as though they have jurisdiction from the get-go.... they presume to have it.... and in doing so, they presume you are a US citizen, that you are incompetent, that you are an accomidation party to the strawman, that they are the principal and you are the agent....

"the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights."
Emspak v. United States, 349 US 190 (1955) (emphasis mine)

The presumptions made by judges in court today are FOR the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, not against.

Are we supposed to believe the judge doesn't know the difference between a flesh and blood man, and a commercial/legal entity? (nonfiction & fiction)


From my personal observations, what gives the court jurisdiction? Cooperation. Anything verbal or written, that even hints at cooperation with the court, as that, would represent a contract.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Bird]

This judge doesn't appear to have been half bad. I think he was impressed with the documents, as evidenced by him actually reading them, aloud even. As SJ pointed out, he seemed very interested in Paul88 representing and/or acting as himself. The judge knew what Paul88's intentions were by stating that he was not representing himself, so he chose to bait P88 with the term "acting as yourself", to see if he could get his acceptance with that. But at the end, we see that the judge considers these essentially the same (mind trick). The judge obviously treates the two terms as closely related, if not equal. In fact, at the end he says something like, "If you are going to act as yourself and represent yourself", and he continues that you will receive no help, blah, blah, blah.

[EdgarW]

From my personal observations, what gives the court jurisdiction? Cooperation. Anything verbal or written, that even hints at cooperation with the court, as that, would represent a contract.

Akira,

Would it help to preface every utterance to the judge with the words, "Without in any way entering into a contract," or words to that effect?

Best regards,

EdgarW

[weishaupt1776]

Some law varies from state to state but most is the same.* The only differences are the local frauds and basic state practices which you need to do some research in your code.* For instance in Washington State the code sets the additions which may be added to the bail amount which is fixed by that code.* The Supreme court sets the bail amounts, thus municipalities and counties who add their own, create a*fraud.
The ticket in*Washingtoon is called "Washington Uniform Court Docket" and there are zero hits on any word search for this document, so they have no authority to issue it.* You are asked to sign a "receipt" which they never produce, thus the whole thing is giant fraud but People are so stupid they have been able to build a billion dollar revenue source just on this abuse alone.* It has nothing to do with safety, that is the excuse.*
The more fraud you find the more incentive to dismiss.* The motions to dismiss are only to give the judge a way out.
The basic default can be found in Supreme court cases but those need not be cited, as it is an operation of common law.* If you want to study the default, you should go to a law library and look at the procedures books and*law encyclopedias.* It is up to you to read the court rules as well as the local court rules.* If you have been following our discussions on the subject in the past*few days instead of sleeping, you would have seen me suggest that you print out various files named in file*proc.txt, then read them very carefully, as every word is important.*
I have gone to great pains to make it as simple as possible and yet still effective.* Adding a lot to it, will only detract from the effectiveness and may cause you to cross your own efforts, especially if you don't understand.* Talking in the court usually is mostly unnecessary counter productive to your goal.* The only issue before the* court is the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and no other till that is satisfied, so to talk about guilt or facts is counterproductive till the judge has ruled on the Petition.* In most cases there is nothing to say, the judge dismisses the case.* I know of no other effective remedy which works like this one, and never seen any other process with the impact of this one on exposing the fraud and making it stick like glue.

[weishaupt1776]

The clerk must be informed and asked (ordered) to enter the default.* The Petition for Writ is to mandate that ministerial duty.* Without being told what the duty is and what the clerk should do, the Petition for Writ is meaningless.
*
This is dangerous oversight, as most lawyers (judges) know the default process and if you omit these docs, then you weaken your chance for a clean positive win by showing ignorance.* The clerk can make no legal determination of default on its own thus they have to be shown upon the record the default and the intent to take it as such by the moving party.
*
IN other words, if the moving party does nothing the clerk has no duty and the Petition for any Writ is avoidable as it is absolutely*moot.*
*
Without the Writ of Praecipe, he could just as well omit the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and further simplify the process, however I believe it also weakens the process.* The Writ of Praecipe and Petition for Writ of Mandamus are the tools of the Superior Sovereign Man (Kings in our society) and are the coup de grace to the process.* Neither can stand alone when the clerk refuses or neglects a ministerial duty.

[Akira]

EdgarW,

Everytime isn't necessary....

Read what I said in superior court on an Operating After Suspension win here, where I basicly tried to anticipate all the angles the judge could throw at me, before he threw them. It may not be 'perfect', but it worked for me!

For His Glory,
Akira

[weishaupt1776]

Dismissal is mostly a discretionary issue, but the ministerial issue is that there is a default and the clerk has failed their ministerial duty to certify the default based on the Affidavit and Declaration of default appearing on the record.
*
the motions to dismiss as I have stated over and over is just to give the judge an easy way out of his bind.* They will normally take the easiest way to slither.