James Woods Distilled

[weishaupt1776]

Well i at least started the thread

For me, it seems like the useful stuff starts at "the Alpha & Omega Of const. Law" chapter

He claims that since the people did not delegate to the legislature, authority to create a DMV (or other agencies); and that since it's powers are not spelled out; then the DMV is a constitutional nullity

[Codee]

Ok so Weis has intoduced "express delegation of powers from the inherint politcal power holders to the state to create 'agencies.'" as a ground for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

Then there is also the lack of expressed delegated "police power" to the state.

1) No authority to create "agencies"

2) No authority for the existence of Implied police powers.

3) No authority in the "people" to delegate to the state power to regulate inalienable rights.

**********4) Numbered averments in motion to dismiss must be adressed with either "Admit or Deny or "Don't know."

[weishaupt1776]

Do you think another way to "trim the fat" would be to analyze the docs he has in Book 2 and then see what lines up in Book 1?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Do you think another way to "trim the fat" would be to analyze the docs he has in Book 2 and then see what lines up in Book 1?

Yes.

I started reading them concurrently.

I have just started book two and am on about the fourth doc.

The docs are not even set up in pleading form however and again the instructions for them are too vague for my liking.

I am afraid however that each assumption of "It is an undisputed fact" is never supported with a citation to law. Maybe it is not needed as apparently in a verified averment the prosecutor must provide for the evidence of the jurisdiction existing.