Jurisdictional Challenge

One thing people often think they MUST do is physically go to court to challenge jurisdiction. This is just fundamentally flawed. Think about it. The person is a fiction and only exists on paper. How can the person do anything? Doesn't your physical presence and GIVING of the name in court then grant general appearance?

Anyway, there was a court case for 'my person' for 'driving while suspended'. A jurisdictional challenge was put into place and the case has disappeared.

More doc scrubbing required to post...

Hey Powder, great to see you post! Yes, I remember you satisfying "appearance" by fax before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powder

One thing people often think they MUST do is physically go to court to challenge jurisdiction. This is just fundamentally flawed. Think about it. The person is a fiction and only exists on paper. How can the person do anything? Doesn't your physical presence and GIVING of the name in court then grant general appearance?

Anyway, there was a court case for 'my person' for 'driving while suspended'. A jurisdictional challenge was put into place and the case has disappeared.

More doc scrubbing required to post...

---

More info please; I look forward to seeing your sanitized docs.
I'm interested in learning more about jurisdiction.
Thank you in advance powder.

Here you go. This document was sent via registered mail and regular mail, see the header in the document. Attachment 636. At the same time this preacipe was sent to the clerk of the court Attachment 635. To which the clerk of the court responded (sent another offer):

Attachment 633

This document was printed and signed, placed in the original envelope with their document, and marked 'return to sender'.
Attachment 634

This document was sent to the prosecutors, noticing them of default.
Attachment 637

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZrhythm

Hey Powder, great to see you post! Yes, I remember you satisfying "appearance" by fax before.

---

Look in local state rules for civil procedure, north carolina has this option in their statutes as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

Look in local state rules for civil procedure, north carolina has this option in their statutes as well.

---

How can a fiction "really" appear in the court? it can't. Fictions only exist on paper and can only appear.... on paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powder

How can a fiction "really" appear in the court? it can't. Fictions only exist on paper and can only appear.... on paper.

---

Sure they can. All you have to do is bring the Certificate of Person into court and say it's right here. In fact the Swedish government does not call them Birth Certificates they use this exact wording " Certificate of Person ".

In Canada as well as America the Crown was overtaken by the same bonding cycle - through the Central Bank of Canada, instead of the Fed.

Quote:

---

...the undersigned accepts your oath of office for value, honour and consideration.

---

Listen to this American do it.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1125/oatha4v.jpg

Plug in those numbers to check for yourself. The STATEMENT is an abatement for misnomer and the JUDGMENT is default ten days later.

The IN GOD WE TRUST was on the bail bond. The current bonds on the officials bore the same ever-living God.

Chief Judge Kirk Stewart SAMELSON.
State Attorney General John William SUTHERS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

Sure they can. All you have to do is bring the Certificate of Person into court and say it's right here. In fact the Swedish government does not call them Birth Certificates they use this exact wording " Certificate of Person ".

---

In Canada, or America that by no means indicates that there is any value in the birth certificate.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7...certnobond.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powder

Here you go. This document was sent via registered mail and regular mail, see the header in the document. Attachment 636. At the same time this preacipe was sent to the clerk of the court Attachment 635. To which the clerk of the court responded (sent another offer):

Attachment 633

This document was printed and signed, placed in the original envelope with their document, and marked 'return to sender'.
Attachment 634

This document was sent to the prosecutors, noticing them of default.
Attachment 637

---

Very nice, thank you powder, and congratulations on managing your affairs in a competent manner.

She says "My name is JUDGE ........." or whatever. Perhaps she/he/it is confessing to being a 'program'?

This is a success story i am currently trying to Powder for myself the answers and answerers are extreme with this we cant offer legal advice YOU have a warrant for your arrest you will have to address that first well i know where thats going I need a few more private snowballs some senior mailboxes are full and they make the best snowballs on the road to success make room for mine thanx

I have not had a success in "dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction". I wrote a really nice brief concerning Right to Travel. I even got the officer and the judge to agree that I was not operating commercially but she went on to deny my motion to dismiss, no basis given and refused to state her opinion why, and then went on to cite Oregon Statutes using all the commercial terms I had defined as commercial, and therefore not applicable in this case, and found me guilty. She lowered the fine to under the amount it cost to appeal (I wonder why).

Anyway I need some court room quality evidence that an administrative court is commercial and requires some type of contract. Can anyone point me to a citation that is unequivocal to this fact? I am also interested in looking into geographic jurisdiction, though it is a longer shot. Information regarding "this State" and "the State" in the Oregon Statues. "As used in ORS 131.205 (Definition for ORS 131.205 to 131.235) to 131.235 (Criminal homicide), this state means the land and water and the air space above the land and water with respect to which the State of Oregon has legislative jurisdiction. [1973 c.836 §13]" Since all of the vehicle code talks about "this state" and the only definition I can find in ORS is the above, my argument would be that my tires were on terra firma and not somewhere above that. Any comments on this as well?

I would be happy to post my brief if anyone is interested in the arguments I made. Whether to incorporate them in your defense or to possibly discover were I went wrong and allowed the judge to deny on some logical/proceedural/legal grounds.

One caveat on a jurisdictional challenge is that if you get a case closed, you could re-open it by doing this.

Only a person can challenge if you think thats what you is Court has been noticed that u and the NAME aren't going to be a challenge after all this and appeals just PERSONS cuttin deals never a success being a person of my calamity list

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Neil

I would be happy to post my brief if anyone is interested in the arguments I made.

---

Never argue in an administrative court. It engages you in the benefit of discussion which allows a general appearance in that court. That's where you made your mistake.

If you want success, the only way to achieve that is to challenge (not argue) jurisdiction. You can accomplish that with, as David states, an abatement for misnomer, or with a "refusal for cause" and due process challenge, challenging the status of the plaintiff's authority to force his chosen jurisdiction upon the juristic person.

I have had 'success' in two different states concerning traffic tickets and jurisdiction. I did this by submitting the challenge on the record, before the court dates. Going into open court gives jurisdiction, unless the challenge is already on the record and the appearance is a special appearance. Once the challenge is on the record, the answer and proof of jurisdiction must also be on the record. The judges know this, and if they act without the answer on the record, they act outside of their jurisdiction and anything they do is not judicial and immunity is lost. However, neither case was dismissed, the file was simply misplaced and forgotten.

This would zero the balance /on the claim and a record of said balance all challenges are done bye Notice on paper the test still remains with jurisdiction they have it both ways perfecting the appearance or record the special appearance with abatement of the said imperfection they,re file loss is what is recognized not what is put on record they never lose jurisdiction over a charge just balance the books they own the book and justice dept are our bookies.i am who i say i am not who the book says i am misplaced and forgotten is a best-seller a fictional book with zero pages.Grace or Mercy is something one does,nt deserved or never deserved ? Grace & Mercy true jurisdiction is ones highest claim it needs zero improvement zero establishment I am 0 + or - truth. The puzzle is provided the true accounting is ones misplaced and forgotten identity. solid seeds imparted from the pkinpatch.

Maybe. But I wouldn't be bringing all that up in court.

I agree that the best course of action would have to challenge before I went to court, but my learning had not progressed to that level of understanding when I first plead not guilty and then ended up in their court.

I have not had a success in "dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction".

Subject matter jurisdiction, IMO, is best challenged by not using those words. They will convince you that the court CAN here that sort of case. And they are correct, except most times there is no 'case' to hear. Pleading 'Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted' by special appearance, is challenging subject matter jurisdiction. Then it is irrelevant what type of cases the court can here, because there is no case. A claim is a pleading and one is required to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. The rules of court will tell you what a claim must contain. Tickets don't accomplish a pleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pumpkin

I have not had a success in "dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction".

Subject matter jurisdiction, IMO, is best challenged by not using those words. They will convince you that the court CAN here that sort of case. And they are correct, except most times there is no 'case' to hear. Pleading 'Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted' by special appearance, is challenging subject matter jurisdiction. Then it is irrelevant what type of cases the court can here, because there is no case. A claim is a pleading and one is required to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. The rules of court will tell you what a claim must contain. Tickets don't accomplish a pleading.

---

Perfectly written pumpkin as the same with tax court.

A motor vehicle is probable cause to investigate its driver for commercial compliance if this is a requirement .One must dismiss the facts as the charges are based on a commercial fact what has to be challenged is are you infact prima facia a driver on the occasion charged at or near was in commerce or believed = accused.The ownership is the subject the instruments are liability for a DRIVER if a court has a complaint its a in house [courthouse] you is a driver until that facia is challenged thats the venue and commercial standing is the re venue of a Man probates his own cause he is a driver for or is driven steered commercially. I agree thats a brilliant orange pumkn

I have an interesting one where I will be issuing a jurisdictional challenge. As recent as April I was arrested. On the side of the road I stood on my rights and this irked the police, so they fired up the railroading machine. The circumstances surrounding the arrest do not matter at this point, but the license was signed "True Name - All rights reserved" in Michigan. After the arrest I remembered that 'residence is evidence of commerce'. So when the municipal officers asked me in intake/booking where I lived I gave them a current street address, no more (this didn't match the license information). When asked why I didnt have a "current" license I told them to use the information previously supplied on the license. Unbeknowst to them I had previously tried to get a "current" license but got so far as to get up to sign for the license after waiting and paying at the Secretary of State for them to say "you cant sign like that". So I had them refund me and kept the documentation. Anyhow, they claim that at that point they could not complete the "booking process" and attempted to coerce me by telling me I'd be held indefinitely until I completed the "booking process". There were so many procedural errors that it warrants a new thread come to think of it; back to the jurisdictional challenge.

They were attempting to manufacture PC - so they played good cop bad cop. While in custody, the arresting officer asked for a blood draw. Having good reason to refuse (and being prevented from seeking counsel all the same) I refused. As it turns out, After this event there is a requirement in Michigan to send in an administrative hearing request on their paperwork which I did with all rights reserved. The mailing (stupidly) was not sent certified and for it to be timely was required within 14 days. After not receiving any correspondence, I sent them a handwritten letter, certified, signed true name, minimizing nexus(es) to commerce and questioning jurisdiction of the administrative agency. I received a letter from the secretary of state saying "we have no jurisdiction because you filed late" which I think is a ruse. A week later I received a "Notice of intent to use technicians report in lieu of testimony" from the DA. The applicable statute in their instructions says to "respond within 14 days" (MCL 6.202). So they've sent me a pleading with no case number and the results of the blood draw finding nothing actionable. They're asking me to file into a matter that doesnt exist! Create the controversy for us? I'm sure this is an attempt to get me to plead into their jurisdiction (because if they had it, would they not have assigned a matter number?).

Abatement for misnomer? or is there something trickier I can do. Eventually this may develop into a counterclaim for a 1983 case, but I'm questionable about whether that concedes jurisdiction. A few attorney/friends I've consulted say they've never seen such process. There are more details which I can provide, but I thought this a nice start. Any thoughts from the brain trust?

I'm No Brain Trust,,, but............If I’m Reading this correctly: I never heard or read , or been linked to any process like that BS. I check into that.

Blood draw? What was the alleged reason for the stop and arrest? Instead of "all rights reserved", I would do "without prejudice". If signing ARR or WoPr , it is probably a good idea to notify the state AG what you mean and send off the letter the same day you get the license.

Traffic stop. First reason for the stop being, window tint to dark. Then she walked it back and said she had me on video doing 10 over on the interstate. As she was standing at my window the plain view doctrine kicked in and they called for backup, arrested me and began a search due to something in plain view, site, or smell (small amount a marijuana and a pipe). This poster currently undergoing certification for use in Michigan. So she pulled me out of the car and began a search. As I said earlier, I stood on my rights and clammed up after doing so, refusing to answer any questions. This irked them, so when I was booked the reason given (about 2 hours BEFORE being mirandized) was "a string of misdemeanors". When I asked them about where to bail out - I assume they did not like my attitude and changed their stance to "driving under the influence" the reason given that "there were open intoxicants" (Michigan - beer bottles that were being returned for $.10 - a bag had broken and there were some stragglers under the front seat) for the sole reason that they wanted to inconvenience me and be able to hold me under statute. So since I would not answer the questions to complete the booking process I was not able to use a telephone (according to them), however I was mirandized eventually and told I had access to an attorney (which never occurred). When I was initially booked they *offered* me a blood draw, as in Michigan there is an "implied consent" statute which I refused due to being on anticoagulants, and the statute reads that persons of that status are not assumed to have given consent. So she cooked up a warrant from a magistrate, which wasn't presented to me and they threatened use of force to seize my blood while simultaneously threatining to tack on "resisting" charges. They seized the blood and got nothing other than knowledge that supported the breathalyzers findings of .00. and that I consume marijuana. They also said it would take up to 60 days to work through State Patrol lab. This was the end of April. It appears now that the results are back the "case" is "active" again and process is in motion.

Facts: I was held for 20 hours incommunicado, I continuously requested an attorney which they denied because "I hadnt completed the booking process", I've questioned each offer or counter offered in good faith. Its a mess.

Blood draw statutes don't work. There is no contract for compelled performance, and the legislature cannot declare anyone 'guilty' for not complying or any other reason. It is a bill of attainder. Doing a quick search within Michigan's rules of court, they are the same for my state. There is one form of action (stated in the civil rules), the civil rules apply to criminal prosecutions unless they conflict (this is stated in the criminal rules), and no other form of action is mentioned or allowed. It seems all the pleadings within the civil rules can be used in criminal proceedings, because they are still civil actions. I looked quickly for 'all style of process shall be..' and found 'The people of the state of Michigan', in the Michigan constitution, though I did not see that it is current (or repealed for that matter), but most states use THE STATE OF MICHIGAN or some other all caps BS, unconstitutional style of process. Anyway, to me it looks like 'failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted' and 'wrong party of interest', and maybe 'lack of injury in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court'. It sounds civil, because IMO, it is civil. Hell, it is civil law for crying out loud.

edit:
Damn dude, did you have a sign on the side of the car too saying FU police? You're just asking for problems there, and what ever happens stay away from a jury. They will crucify you.