when there arent enough criminals one criminalizes lawful activities via bills that become statutory rules, but ONLY bind those lawfully, who are IN CONTRACT. Through conventional wisdom and intimidation alone, preying upon ignorance of the masses, lawful activities that are routine every day rights, are not in themselves criminalized because the action itself criminalizing them is unlawful, a crime itself, so in reality all such legislation is retroactively void ab initio to the very beginning date it was enacted, impotent, as if it had never existed, unenforceable by ANY court once the individual learns and understands how it is that courts acquire jurisdiction. Courts, have only ever, and will only ever, have jurisdiction acquired via TRANSFERENCE. Jurisdiction, the literal translation and consequently the LAWFUL definition, is OATH TO SPEAK. A court ONLY acquires OATH TO SPEAK upon a given matter when an INDIVIDUAL goes to that court and SWEARS UNDER OATH, that their lawful rights have been in some manner violated, OR that their person or property has been in some manner damaged or injured. THOSE 2 ELEMENTS I just named, are 2 of the 3 elements NECESSARY to establish the third element, which is redress ability of the court. Without at least 1 of those first 2 elements the third CANNOT EXIST and DOES NOT EXIST. Also, it happens to be true that a VALID cause of action also requires those three elements, otherwise it is not valid. This all goes back to CORPUS DELICTI, which many interpret incorrectly assuming it relates to murder only and the dead body, but the truth is corpus delicti means the body of the crime no the individual crime was committed against. The 3 elements that establish corpus delicti, a valid cause of action, jurisdiction of the court, STANDING, and also ACTUAL OR JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY are ALL identical. As a matter of FACT, proven by supreme court decision that remains today the supreme law of the land, which became the law of the land not because some judged made this decision, but SOLELY because it is in agreement with already established law, courts CANNOT entertain cases where there is no standing. As the court ruled in CLIFFORD v. SUPERIOR COURT without actual or justiciable controversy there is no standing, and courts will not entertain such cases. People must learn not just what the actual true LAW is, but they must also learn what the statutory rules which purport to BE law say as well. It is always wise to be as well informed as you can be. You must learn this because there is ONE other thing which can give a court jurisdiction and establish standing where it does not exist as a matter of fundamental law, and that is CONSENT. YOU can give your consent when you do NOTHING. You will notice how when one is arrested and read their rights that the officer ONLY ever read you 2 of your rights, and then they want you to accept that those are your ONLY rights. And they are entirely incorrect. NO ONE has a RIGHT to an ATTORNEY. What people have a right to is assistance of counsel, which does not mean a card carrying BAR ATTORNEY. Assistance of counsel can be provided by ANYONE you believe is competent to advise you in matters of law. When in court at an arraignment hearing you NEVER argue your RIGHTS directly. The intelligent thing is to argue your DUTY to claim and exercise those rights. Because at this hearing it is IMPERATIVE that you ASSERT and INSIST upon your fundamental right to due process of law. Jurisdiction, can be challenged at ANY time during ANY proceeding, The smartest thing to do is under special appearance right at arraignment, to challenge jurisdiction. AND the beauty of it is that the court, the judge, the prosecutor, they cannot merely ASSERT jurisdiction exists, they MUST PROVE ALL 3 ELEMENTS of CORPUS DELICTI, STANDING, ACTUAL OR JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION, which give rise to jurisdiction. Because at arraignment it is your FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, and you have a DUTY to INSIST upon this fundamental right, to be INFORMED of the CAUSE and the NATURE of BOTH the CHARGES and the PROCEEDINGS against you, you make special appearance SOLELY for the purpose of challenging jurisdiction.. Yes jurisdiction can be challenged at ANY time, however, if you make general appearance, which is ANY appearance where you do not DECLARE ASSERT and VERBALLY ARTICULATE your special appearance, you have already AUTOMATICALLY given CONSENT to jurisdiction. The MOMENT that youthen CLAIM to UNDERSTAND the charges and proceedings against you, you are in fact as a matter of LAW, giving your consent to the court to proceed against you. YOU give the court the jurisdiction to hear the matter before the court. Going back to reading of rights, YES out of the 2 rights they read you only 1 is correct, you DO have a RIGHT to remain SILENT, but it is not WISE to do so. The very first thing you should do is tell the arresting officers that you DO NOT stand under their assertion that those are your ONLY rights, At arraignment, your right to be informed is routinely violated. What they do in their ritualistic routine of violating people, intimidating people, and getting people to bend over and take it out of fear, they just have someone READ YOU THE CHARGE, as if that has ANYTHING to do with INFORMING YOU of the CAUSE and NATURE of the charges and proceedings against you. Special appearance is so important because under special appearance you satisfy the requirements of appearing. While it is true that EVERYONE in court is still free with their rights 100% in tact absent conviction by a jury, courts like to try to intimidate people and too often throw around contempt charges. The fact is you cannot be charged with contempt while you are just asking questions, as your right to speak and be informed cannot be converted into a crime. Under special appearance your only question before you can proceed is, is there evidence of a complaining party. because without a complaining party they cannot satisfy ONE let alone ALL THREE ELEMENTS. Informing you properly of the cause and nature of the charges and proceedings would be accomplished by the court producing a signed complaint UNDER OATH by an individual, alleging that you have damaged or injured their person or property or violated their rights in some manner. That informs you of the cause, the NATURE is explained by establishing the burden of proof. If the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, it is a criminal case, the nature is criminal. If the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence it is a CIVIL case. The court likes to switch hats when it enforces these fines and violating tickets written by POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, They will try to confuse and blur the lines proceeding in a civil matter as if it is a criminal matter. The fact is most of the time you are not being charged with a crime and being prosecuted by the state for a crime, you are being civilly sued by the state for breech of some civil registration adhesion contract. They routinely commit fraud upon people in this manner and 98% of all people fined throughout the country today just pay without ANY resistance. If today 6% as opposed to 2% of all tickets written were challenged, they could no longer enforce this crap statutory rule. They have perverted the tools of justice which exist TO SECURE OUR RIGHTS, into a bureaucratic mechanism to extort capital from the ignorance masses, generating a stream of revenue for the State. ~Rob Johnson~
Posted on: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:58:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015