Let’s get familiar with our new favourite ‘J’ word. A word which presented itself early on in my research. One which as soon as i saw it, i knew, i sensed, it would be significant going forward. I can’t say I’d never heard the word however it wasn’t one i’d paid any attention to, or was particularly familiar with, let alone knowing the extents or utility of it. Two years on, that same word isn’t just important to be cognisant of, it is KEY to taking back and maintaining our freedom. Let me introduce to you, my good friend, our new favourite word: Jurisdiction!
I suspect most of us look out and around at life, at the ever-increasing signs, forms, rules, and regulations, that we’re told, that we assume, apply to us all, completely oblivious to, and without ever questioning ‘jurisdiction’. How do these rules, regulations, legislation apply to me? Who created them? Do they have the authority to make and enforce them? Didn’t man create government! How is it that government, in an ever-expanding web of bureaucracy, now dictates to us?
Jurisdiction doesn’t appear to be a commonly used, or understood word. It certainly wasn’t in my everyday circle of friends and our collective vocabularies. Let alone something people know they can challenge and use to their advantage. Not until now anyway! I now embrace and take ‘jurisdiction’ with me, hand in hand, everywhere i go. Knowing it is relevant, where it exists, and how it is obtained, is a key component in enabling us to step out from their entanglements back to a freer existence, one of our own choosing.
Rattling through some more common dictionary definitions we see; Jurisdiction can mean: “the official power to make legal decisions and judgements”, “the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgements”, “the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law”, “the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate”, “the power or right to exercise authority: control”, “the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised”, “having a legal right over something”, and “a court can have jurisdiction over a legal question”.
Looking through the above definitions, and applying a couple handy mantras: ‘question everything’ and ‘don’t assume we really know the meaning of seemingly everyday words’, we might have the following internal conversation with ourselves: What makes something official? Who gave you power? What powers and who gave you authority? Authority over whom and to do what? What do the words ‘decision’ and ‘judgment’ mean in law and legalese? What’s meant by ‘interpret’ and what if i prefer my interpretation rather than yours? Legal decisions; power to ‘legislate’…are their differences between what is legal and what is lawful? Who gave you the right? Who gave you the power? What powers? Who gave you what authority to apply the law? What law? Isn’t law agreement of the parties; when and how did i contract with you? What or who’s law is highest? Where are the ‘limits’? Territory suggests there are boundaries to jurisdiction. Great, where are the limits and how do i stay out of your territory? ‘Exercised’ and ‘legal question’ also jump out at me as words and phrases to explore further. ‘Legal right’ isn’t the same as Lawful right is it?…
As you start to see the extents of trickery and subterfusion that goes on by all government entities, and agents, without individual’s knowing for the most part, we no longer assume anything, question all, and research everything.
Allow me to peruse through Bouvier’s Law Dictionary; to expand on ‘jurisdiction’s’ meaning, and to add commentary: “The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction.” Sounds like being thrown to the lions! We’d be mad wouldn’t we, to willingly step into their territory, their sandpit, and try to ‘win’, ‘argue’, or ‘dispute’ our case, using their rules, their words, their language of legalese. Madness. Sounds like stepping into the ring with a MMA fighter. No thanks! When we eliminate fear through putting an end to our ignorance, through actively educating ourselves in law and history; knowing who we are (man/woman), and knowing where we Stand (in our own law), we’ll swiftly realise we don’t need to, nor are we obligated to, step into their world, their territory, their realm, their jurisdictions.
Bouvier’s, for some more: “Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated.”
“It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes.”
“But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may waive the privilege.”
Are you saying that rulings and judgments without the authority to do so mean nothing when we know who we are? Yep. Are you saying that jurisdictions beneath us as man or woman have no say over us, unless we decide they do? Yes again my friend! Pass GO and collect $200. People unknowingly waive superior ‘rights’ as ‘man’ or ‘woman’ every day of the week. They diminish themselves, accepting ‘benefits’ and ‘privileges’ rather than knowing their ‘rights’. They unwittingly step into the perils of ‘their’ system; the legal system; their playground with their rules; to spar with the heavyweights. Insanity.
“Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction…..” Too right! So you guys just play with yourselves over there please. You don’t have jurisdiction here, over man or woman. I don’t want to say i’m above you lot however as ‘man’ (or woman) that’s exactly how it is. Man has superior standing to your courts, to your lower jurisdiction. The trick is not getting fooled, lulled, coaxed, coerced, back into their jurisdiction. We’ve been programmed from a young age to see them as the authority; as authorities that dictate to us what we can and can’t do. Stand back and think for a minute; How does that make sense?! How does something created by man have say over man? It is only by our consent, my friends. Learning law, enacting change, and passing knowledge on, may be one of the biggest, most rewarding gifts, we can give ourselves, our brothers and sisters, and the ‘little ones’ in our care.
Legal jurisdiction over a man or woman is only given by our consent. Our consent to contract with ‘them’ in ‘their’ ‘legal fiction commerce’. We live within a myriad of man-made systems, constructed by the few, over thousands of years, to dumb down and enslave the ignorant. If there is no valid contract (law between parties), then they have no jurisdiction over you.
Let’s cast our eager eyes over some relevant case law to further expand our comprehension of ‘jurisdiction’; to begin to realise its value and significance. In future posts we’ll learn the jurisdictions we want to reside in, which we don’t, and when and how to speak; to act accordingly. Keep these gems in your back pocket:
[Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.] See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.
Something stinks here! How do you have say over me? I challenge your jurisdiction. Hmm, but doesn’t the burden of proof lay with the one claiming they don’t have jurisdiction? Doesn’t that mean I must prove they don’t have jurisdiction? In short, no. You’re enquiring, not claiming. You’ve challenged jurisdiction by asking the question. Read on…
“…if his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof, and, even where they are not so challenged, the court may insist that the jurisdictional facts be established by a preponderance of evidence, or the case be dismissed.” McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178.
“A jurisdiction assumed without authority, would be equally an usurpation, whether exercised wisely, or unwisely.” Maxfield v. Levy, 4 US 330.
“the judgment must be reversed for want of jurisdiction.” Roberts v. Lewis, 144 US 653.
“the burden is and always has been upon the one asserting it to affirmatively sustain it; and the court is under the duty to dismiss the action if at any stage of the proceeding it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.” Burt v. Dennis 310 F.2d 73.
[Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.] Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910.
Just a few quotes from case law. For those wanting to research further, you’ll find that you could go on forever with statements that in summary assert, that, once jurisdiction is challenged is to be proven, and proven by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter! And that the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court/prosecutor lacks jurisdiction; that the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.
There are so many cases in support of this, that it highlights to me, why is this not fundamental everyday knowledge!? Has it not been taught to us by design? Have we allowed ourselves to be wilfully diverted by endless distractions?
For the avid readers and researchers, the following links may be interesting places to start. Be sure to put any other case law relevant to jurisdictional matters, in the comments below, along with a link to them, for others to reference:
NB: if the first two links below don’t work; try ‘cut and pasting’ them into your browser.
Jamahl-Harim:Simmons©— PETITIONER Vs. Louis Lappen-RESPONDENT(S):
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-620/71955/20181114122006585_00000001.pdfRonald Leroy Satterlee, Sui Juris Petitioner, V. STATE OF MISSOURI et al. Respondents:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-792/77090/20181220142542955_00000001.pdf
Further links of interest:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/CanterLawRw/2005/10.html
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-lawton-oklahoma-v-chapman
https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/101-2
https://law.justia.com/lawsearch?query=jurisdiction
For those feeling overwhelmed, just know that the more time you spend researching all this, the more the words, and their meanings, become ingrained, and the simpler the over-arching solutions become. As we go forward i’ll be breaking things down into easy to follow principals. After all, we make our own law, and freedom is just that; free. Free to live our own lives by man’s law; as long as we don’t harm any other man or woman, or their property.
Back to the dictionaries; best not to forget Black’s Law Dictionary: “It is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases.” The key word here being authority; from where do they derive their authority in matters pertaining to you? We lazily assume they have authority over us. Authority comes from your consent. “The legal right by which judges exercise their authority.” The judge may have ‘legal rights’, however man and woman have Lawful rights. Legal, not Lawful, so stop diminishing your Lawful Standing, as man or woman, to that of a legal entity with status not Standing.
Continuing with Blacks Law: “determine action. controversy, or question”, “examine whether court has power to hear and determine controversy”, and “litigate controversy between parties”. We, as man or woman, only concern ourselves with claims and fact; not controversy, argument, and disputes. Those last three words are more of their tricks; please present your ‘argument’ Mr Ambler. Just like that, they’ve just pulled you into their jurisdiction by you agreeing to the ‘name’, and also by accepting the invitation to ‘argue’, ‘dispute’, or create ‘controversy’.
In future posts we’ll examine the difference between Legal and Lawful, as well as identifying the seemingly apparent everyday words and titles, we readily volunteer to adopt, which trip us up; straight into their jurisdiction. We’ll explore the utmost importance and magical powers of WORDS.
Also, “JURISDICTIONAL FACTS. Those matters of fact which must exist before the court can properly take jurisdiction of the particular case, as, that the defendant has been properly served with process,…” – Black’s Law 4th Edition 1968
Also, “Lawful jurisdiction over man [or] woman derives from causing unreasonable harm to a living soul. If there is no [injured party], there is no jurisdiction. The law pertains to the real world of living men and women [emphasis added]. Lawful jurisdiction is subject to the ‘due process’ of the Common Law whereby no crime is attributable to a man or woman unless they cause ‘intentional and measurable’ harm to another man or woman, not reasonably caused by self defence. To prove a crime of harm there must be an ‘injured party’ willing and able to ‘swear under oath’ to the facts of that harm, ‘upon penalty of perjury’ in a properly convened de jure ‘Court of Record’ (Common Law court with a jury of one's peers), or witness testimony equally-bound, or irrefutable evidence. In any detention/seizure/arrest, the accuser must have ‘probable cause’ and/or a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the accused is committing, or is about to commit, a crime against a [man or woman]. The accuser bears the burden of proof. Any forced detention/seizure/arrest without [an injured party], by any Public Servant, is coercion, duress, treason, and a breach of their Oath and fiduciary duty as Trustee.” – Source: Living in the Private
Cal Washington also delivers meaning to jurisdiction through pictorial aids in this short video:
‘They’ need jurisdiction to rule; the tricks for obtaining jurisdiction are abundant; with practice you’ll start to see the hidden come to the surface, everywhere. Learn to stand in higher jurisdictions. Know that no legal or lawful matter can proceed without jurisdiction and that you can challenge jurisdiction every step of the way through various means. Learn how to express your will; that you don’t consent, and don’t wish to contract with them. Unless you’ve harmed someone or someone’s property, there is no obligation. In future we’ll explore ‘speaking to this’, as well as the power and potency of putting words to paper by serving NOTICE, when it serves you to do so.
Stay tuned – We’ll use this and coming knowledge in practical ways: to protect our property; to not pay their presentments; by not going into their ‘corporate’ courts; by holding them liable for their fraudulent actions; by putting them back where they belong, in positions of public servant, which they volunteered for; and by serving notice. We’ll learn to challenge jurisdiction and create our own law.