BoKnowsEntertainment
Link
BoKnowsEntertainment
Link
They have a few of those, I like the one where the so called judge is walking out of the court room and the Moor states "on and for the record..." the judge immediately stops, comes back and waits like a good dog till the man is done talking. Priceless.
Here another good one:
Look at the attorney emptying his pockets in preparation to go to jail!!
Tell me he was not sure he was going. So much for the people having no power!!!
nice video's thanks
Jurisdiction
The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/jurisdiction
I love this map. ( Its Canada's Official land map)
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-science...abloid2011.pdf
Look at that map and notices that the legend has nothing labeled as the white area which takes up the majority of the land mass they call Canada.
If Canada's jurisdiction is a geographic area the map is proof that all lands in the white zone are not in Canada's geographical area.
The map is proof that the court needs consent or joinder to have jurisdiction over one.
Nice walter, I like these kinds of maps. How about a different kind of map, navigating the waters? http://onlashuk.wordpress.com/2013/1...circumstances/Originally Posted by walter
“As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign can not make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober under standing and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest.” – FDR
Last edited by Chex; 11-04-13 at 02:33 PM.
When I was dragged out of court once when the judge lost control of his fully packed place of business, there was this word the sheriffs used on me right before they locked me up in the box.
This word has stuck in my mind because when they used it the word stuck out as being a word of entrapment.
Domicile
They asked me what was my domicile?
I said earth.
They did not ask again.
My computer is acting up and I can't scan anything right now so i would have to tell you to look the word up in a Law dictionary.
There is three kinds of Domicile.
1. birth
2. choice
3. operation of law.
Domicile of choice is the relation the law creates between an individual and a particular locality or country. It is a conclusion or inference which the law derives from the fact of a man fixing voluntarily his sole or chief residence in a particular place with the intention of continuing to reside there for an unlimited time"
Crosby v. Thomson [1926]
On Oaths and Jurisdiction
Ancient MAXIM of Law: "In law none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must, when established by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation."
The police and lower court judges operate under the PRESUMPTION that you are under their jurisdiction. And, unless you directly and explicitly challenge this presumption, you lawfully fall under their jurisdiction. The old maxim of law states, “a presumption not rebutted becomes a fact in law.” Since the police and the judges operate under the presumption that you fall under their jurisdiction, you must challenge that presumption in court by filing a counter-claim, in which you become the counter-plaintiff. Once you challenge their presumption, ALL court procedures must stop until they PROVE as fact to YOU or to a JURY that they possess jurisdiction. ONLY the plaintiff or a jury may act as a tribunal – the decider of the Law and Facts of the case. (In point of fact, under the Common Law, either party can demand a jury decision on ANY point of fact or law.) A judge can NOT simply deny your “motion”, because a counter-claim is NOT a “motion”. In a counter-claim, which you should submit BEFORE attending any hearings or court appearances, you are the plaintiff in YOUR own “court of record” operating under the Common Law. In that counter-claim you must challenge the jurisdiction of the police, and the judge and his court.
In such a court, YOU, as the plaintiff and the sovereign, become the TRIBUNAL – the entity who makes all rulings and decisions. The only other tribunal available to the police and judge (as the named defendants in your counter-claim) is a JURY, which they must explicitly request. The judge can act ONLY as a magistrate - an administrator or “referee” regarding the orderly conduct of the proceeding – he can make NO rulings or decisions of fact or law in the case. And if he attempts to issue any rulings, you simply object, then later you issue a written court order from YOUR court over-ruling any rulings or decisions he has made.
The judge will probably be quite perplexed and even angry at your actions. And, if he has any common sense, he will consult a judge of a superior court for assistance. Only then will be the inferior court judge become aware that what you have done is LAWFUL and LEGAL – and he will back down. (Most often, the judge will dismiss the original charges against you for reasons left unstated.) BUT that should NOT be the end of the matter! By accepting his ruling of “charges dismissed”, you will be granting him jurisdiction over you! Instead, your final act in this drama will be your issuance of a court ruling in which you, as the Tribunal, declare that YOUR court: (1) vacates the judge’s dismissal of the charges against you; (2) declare that the judge, police and prosecution failed to prove their presumption of jurisdiction; (3) declare that the police, the judge, and the judge’s court never had jurisdiction over you; (4) and your court dismisses the original charges against you, based on a lack of jurisdiction of the police, prosecution and the judge in his court.
However, before you proceed down this path, you should understand some basic precepts of the Common Law - a few of which are presented below. The next step will be learning what documents are necessary in a court of record in Common Law; and the procedures for establishing (and maintaining) YOUR own court under the Common Law. From this information, you will learn that a case is resolved to your benefit even BEFORE you ever appear in court hearing, so that in any hearing you should – except for OBJECTING to ALL rulings the judge may issue - you will all but remain silent and let your DOCUMENTS speak for you. In short, your DOCUMENTS, which means your COUNTER-CLAIM and all other evidentiary documents, should say EVERYTHING you wish to say, including points of law. The whole purpose of a hearing is for the judge to clarify any issues in written documents previously submitted by both sides to the court – and his goals in asking you questions will be: (1) for him to gain jurisdiction over you in HIS court (as opposed to you maintaining your jurisdiction over you and him in YOUR Common Law court); and (2) to get you to contradict yourself. Do NOT fall into his trap. If he states ANYTHING you do not like and/or he attempts to issues any decisions, rulings or orders, you need to clearly state, “For the record, I object.” When he asks the reason for your objection, simply state, “It is not my wish.” Should you attempt to explain your reasons, you will be ceding authority to him and to his jurisdiction. If the judge asks you to clarify any issue, simply state something like, “It is fully explained in my documents and I can not explain it any better than that.” Repeat as often as necessary. Do not let him bully you into saying anything more.
The most basic premises of law:
(1) A presumption not rebutted becomes a fact in law.
(2) Jurisdiction over a man exists only by oath.
Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of office of a federal or state officer (called an “information”). Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person may be charged with a perjury. It’s all about oaths. And the one and only crime for which immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be extended is ... PERJURY.
As far as I am aware, in all of history there has been but one successful widespread protest against an income tax. The protest was begun in England about 400 years ago by the so-called Quakers about 400 years ago. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken." In short, if a man has not sworn an oath to someone or something, then he is NOT under its jurisdiction. For example, when you file your income tax form and sign your name “under penalty of perjury”, you have confirmed that you have sworn an oath. When you sign a traffic ticket, you are signing an oath – which is simply a means of forming a contract. (Of note is the fact that for many years a person's income tax return form had to be accompanied by a sworn and notarized affidavit of truth regarding the filing.
Rather than “re-invent the wheel”, below I have copied excerpts from Bill Thornton’s excellent web site (www.1215.org – the year the Magna Carta was signed) on the basics of the Common Law.
+++++++++++++++++
A statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) may NOT second guess the judgment of a common law court of record. The Supreme Court of the USA acknowledges a Common Law court of record as supreme:
“The judgment of a court of record [a Common Law court ONLY] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
--- U.S. Supreme Court
+++++++++++++++
The only difference between an action at law and a counterclaim in a court of record is that the original parties have their identifications changed. The defendant becomes the counterplaintiff, and the plaintiff becomes the counterdefendant. Other than that, the counterclaim is written the same as an action at law.
A court of record proceeds according to the Common Law. It is not a criminal court and it is not a civil court; those two courts are statutory courts, not common law courts.
There are two kinds of trial courts: superior and inferior. The criminal court is an inferior court because it is operating according to special rules (criminal code) and not according to the common law. Even if its name is "Superior Court of ....." it is still an inferior court so long as it is operating according to some code or statutes rather than the common law.
On the other hand, a court of record is a true superior court, if it meets the criteria:
1. generally has a seal
2. power to fine or imprison for contempt
3. keeps a record of the proceedings
4. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)
5. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)
When you write a counterclaim, the primary issue is JURISDICTION. If the inferior court fails to prove its jurisdiction, then the final judgment of the superior court will be that the inferior court had no jurisdiction and all proceedings thereafter are barred. If the inferior court proceeds anyway, then contempt proceedings and judgment enforcement proceedings can be initiated in the superior court.
Of great importance are the following facts:
1.) The judge and/or prosecutor are REQUIRED to prove jurisdiction to the satisfaction of the plaintiff (YOU as the counter-plaintiff) OR to a jury (if requested by either party).
2.) You counterclaim can NOT be dismissed by the judge, the judge can issue NO rulings. Your counterclaim is NOT a "motion" to the judge's court; instead it is a challenge to the lawfulness and legitimacy of the judge's court to be settled in YOUR court of record, as a superior court operating under the Common Law. The judge can NOT lawfully issue any rulings in the matter.
My entire article is too large and was rejected by this web site.
It’s Not Andy Griffith’s America Any More, Mayberry Is Dead.
We’ve previously documented that there are so many federal and state laws in the United States, that no one can keep track of them all, and everyone violates laws every day without even knowing it. http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...-law-enforceme
Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Rm87cqnUI
Nationalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4
You have to ask yourself Why, The U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago Thursday requested permission from Department of Justice officials in the nation's capital for permission to proceed with the appeal.
Such appeals by prosecutors are unusual.
Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/24...#ixzz2tacmqNxB
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote