LIST OF FACTS AND LAWS THAT WILL PROTECT YOU IN ANY COURT Jurisdiction is of 2 kinds, of the subject matter and of the person, and both must concur or the judgment will be void in any case in which the (a) court has assumed to act, the difference being that jurisdiction of the subject matter given by law cannot be conferred by consent, while jurisdiction of the person may be obtained by consent. Rabbit v. Frank C. Webber and Co. 130 N. E. 787,788. But consent by a living man or Sovereign must be knowingly, willingly and intentionally. Consent by assumption or presumption is treachery, and/or fraud and/or treason. Benedict on Admiralty 6th ed. Volume 1 Section 17, page 28:As no court other than a court of Admiralty can enforce maritime liens, no other court can displace, discharge or subordinate them. Neither the State courts nor the United States courts on their common law, equity and bankruptcy sides can divest, transfer to proceeds or adjudicate the maritime liens, unless the maritime lienor voluntarily submits themselves to the jurisdiction. I am not a person – in that I am not a mask. The word, person, is derived from the Latin word, persona, which means mask. A mask is a form of disguise usually over the face to hide the wearers identity and to establish another being, ie: another something that exists. Title XXXVII INSURANCE: Chapter 624 INSURANCE CODE: ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 624.04 Person defined.--Person includes an individual, insurer, company, association, organization, Lloyds, society, reciprocal insurer or interinsurance exchange, partnership, syndicate, business trust, corporation, agent, general agent, broker, service representative, adjuster, and every legal entity. That the United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. In re Merriam, 163 US 625.That Title 28 USC 1330 states that the United States District Court has to grant permission for the suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the united states citizen is actually a corporate entity and not a living man upon the land.Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged, and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be completely proven. Supreme Court case of 1795, Penhallow v. Doanes Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed.57; 3 Dall. 54), defines governments: governments are corporations. In as much every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action. Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150. A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property. Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio. In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27. A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction. Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris. Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest. Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685. An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void. Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract. Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596. When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially. Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583. A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational. ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284. Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities. Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. Residency: Residency means you have a presence with a purpose. When you complete that purpose, you will return to your domicile. An example is a doctors residency in a hospital. The doctor is there to complete his purpose, and when he is finished he leaves. A domicile needs no purpose. It is not necessary to justify your presence at your domicile. It is your permanent home. For jurisdictional purposes, namely the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, Sec 8, Clause 3), your claim of residency of a state is used to subject you to regulation under the interstate commerce clause. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. Some Defendants urge that any act of a judicial nature entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349. Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872) A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938) Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974) There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign. Cooper v. OConner, 99 F.2d 133 When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697. The courts are not bound by an officers interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act. Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F 417. A Judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S.Ct. at 544-545; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 380, 98 S.Ct. at 1106. Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 at 288 (1991). A Judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S.Ct. at 544-545; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 380, 98 S.Ct. at 1106. Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 at 288 (1991). The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void. In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. A Sovereign is NOT subject to the Courts corporate administrative rulings and can place commercial liens against all who have violated his rights. The Courts know this and know that some JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS have lost their Bonds, assets and property by messing with an informed Sovereign. This is why the criminals are calling freemen who stand up for their rights dirty little names like Paper Terrorists. The truth of the matter is, they are just crying the blues because more and more people are learning how to use lawful notices to assert their rights and tax their criminal asses with hefty bond forfeiting and credit ruining liens when they trespass on those rights. If you want to learn the lawful administrative process for placing a crippling commercial lien on any public servant who tramples your rights, this video class will give you the knowledge and tools to do just that. The class actually starts at about 7:36 into the video. I would highly recommend watching this presentation over and over until you know and understand it good enough to help others follow suit. youtube/watch?v=PFeJc8PrEes Commercial Liens The Most Potent Commercial Weapon - by White Rabbit youtube Commercial Liens The Most Potent Commercial Weapon - by White Rabbit youtube Not to be construed as legal advice in anyway shape or form. For entertainment purposes only. Lien Process = NON judicial and pre-judicial For seminars, one ... Commercial Liens The Most Potent Commercial Weapon - by White Rabbit youtube Not to be construed as legal advice in anyway shape or form. For entertainment purposes only. Lien Process = NON
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:47:37 +0000