{"id":2040,"date":"2020-03-07T16:37:39","date_gmt":"2020-03-07T16:37:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/?p=2040"},"modified":"2020-03-07T16:37:39","modified_gmt":"2020-03-07T16:37:39","slug":"seven-elements-of-jurisdiction-a-good-synopsis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/?p=2040","title":{"rendered":"Seven Elements of Jurisdiction, a good synopsis."},"content":{"rendered":"

This is a classic<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

I know many of you have seen it, but I wanted to post it for the benefit of
\nthose who haven’t. There is a lot of “meat” here!\u00a0 For the more advanced student.<\/p>\n

* * * * * * * \u00a0*<\/p>\n

SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u00a0Accused must be properly identified; identified in such a
    \nfashion there is no room for mistaken identity. \u00a0The individual must
    \nbe singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to
    \narrest and trial without benefit of “wrong party” defense. \u00a0Almost
    \nalways the means of identification is a person’s proper name, BUT, any
    \nmeans of identification is equally valid if said means differentiates
    \nthe accused without doubt. \u00a0(There is no constitutionally valid requirement
    \nyou must identify yourself) For stop and identify (4th<\/sup> Amendment) see<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US\u00a0352.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \u00a0The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or
      \ncommon name. \u00a0A number is insufficient. \u00a0Today, a citizen may stand
      \nin jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes,
      \nregulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Colorado National Monument Superintendent\u2019s Orders regarding an
      \nunleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail). \u00a0If a number were to
      \nbe deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges
      \nat any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as
      \nan offense, it must be declared to be a crime. \u00a0Charges must negate
      \nany exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense,
      \nby affirmative non-applicability. \u00a0In other words, any charge must
      \naffirmatively negate any exception found in the law.<\/p>\n

      Example of exception: “…. thereof to make a return (other than a
      \nreturn required under authority of 6015)…..Indictment or information
      \nis defective unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie
      \ncase of guilt is stated. \u00a0Assumption of element is not lawful.<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Otherwise, accused will not be thoroughly informed. \u00a026 USC 6012 is a
      \nnecessary element of the offense. \u00a0Since 6012 isn’t cited, the
      \ninformation is fatally defective. \u00a0Additionally, information did not
      \nnegate the exception (other than required under authority of section
      \n6015).” \u00a0After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that 7203 elements
      \nare:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \u00a0Required to perform.<\/li>\n
      2. \u00a0Failed to perform.<\/li>\n
      3. \u00a0Failure was willful you may wish to ask, “how often is a
        \nvalid 7203 or other information or indictment brought?
        \nHow many citizens have been convicted on a fatally
        \ndefective process?<\/li>\n
      4. \u00a0The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-preju-<\/u><\/strong>
        \ndicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average<\/u><\/strong>
        \nintelligence to understand nature of charge<\/u> (to enable preparation of<\/strong>
        \ndefense);<\/strong> the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained<\/u><\/strong>
        \nof.<\/u><\/strong> \u00a0The charge must not be described by parroting the statute;<\/strong> not by
        \nthe language of same. \u00a0The naming of the acts of the offense describes<\/u><\/strong>
        \na specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a<\/u><\/strong>
        \ngeneral class of offense.<\/u><\/strong> \u00a0Facts must be stated<\/strong>. \u00a0Conclusions cannot<\/strong>
        \nbe considered in the determination of probable cause.<\/strong><\/li>\n
      5. \u00a0The accuser must be named.<\/strong> \u00a0He may be an officer or a third
        \nparty. \u00a0Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse.
        \nSome certain person must take responsibility for the making of the<\/strong>
        \naccusation, not an agency or an institution.<\/strong> This is the only valid<\/strong>
        \nmeans by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser.<\/strong> \u00a0Also, the
        \ninjured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation<\/strong>. \u00a0Hearsay<\/strong>
        \nevidence may not be provided.<\/strong> \u00a0Anyone else testifying that he heard
        \nthat another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.<\/li>\n
      6. \u00a0The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury.<\/strong> If<\/strong>
        \nperjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation.<\/strong> Otherwise,
        \nanyone may accuse another falsely without risk.<\/li>\n
      7. \u00a0To comply with the five elements above<\/u><\/strong>, that is for the<\/u><\/strong>
        \naccusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process.<\/u><\/strong>
        \na.<\/strong> Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing<\/strong>
        \nthe charge.<\/strong> \u00a0This includes court-determined probable cause, summons
        \nand notice procedure. \u00a0If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a
        \ncitizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man
        \nof his freedom. \u00a0All political dissent may be stifled by utilization<\/strong>
        \nof defective process.<\/strong><\/li>\n
      8. \u00a0The court must be one of competent jurisdiction.<\/u><\/strong> \u00a0To have<\/u><\/strong>
        \nvalid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution,<\/u> in<\/u><\/strong>
        \naccord with the law of its creation, i.e. (article III judge).<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Without the limiting factor of a court of competent
        \njurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty
        \nbeing imposed at any bureaucrat’s whim. \u00a0It is conceivable that the
        \nprocedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of
        \nfacts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.<\/p>\n

        Leg 1<\/strong>
        \n1. Court of proper Venue
        \n2. Judge with Oath<\/p>\n

        Leg 2<\/strong>
        \n3. Plaintiff
        \n4. Sworn Complaint \/ Affidavit<\/p>\n

        Leg 3<\/strong>
        \n5. Competent Witness
        \n6. Sworn Affidavit<\/p>\n

        Leg 4<\/strong>
        \n7. ‘In Personam’ Jurisdiction over the Defendant,<\/p>\n

        The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue<\/u><\/strong>
        \nof personal jurisdiction.<\/u><\/strong> \u00a0The seventh element<\/u><\/strong> (also element #2)
        \naddresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction<\/u><\/strong>. \u00a0Subject matter<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>
        \n<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>jurisdiction<\/strong> is <\/strong>conferred by acts controlled by law;<\/strong> territorial<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>
        \n<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>jurisdiction<\/strong> attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>
        \n<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0and to any trans-jurisdictional acts and\/or activities of the parties<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>
        \n<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>
        \n<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0long-arm statutes).<\/strong><\/p>\n

        SUMMING UP the LAW and the POLITICS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

        Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless
        \nwaived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure
        \nagainst further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform court of
        \nfacts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction,
        \nshould one be obtained.<\/strong> \u00a0Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and
        \ncharge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. \u00a0Without
        \nlawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings
        \nprior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the
        \nseven elements is void. \u00a0A lawful act is always legal but many legal
        \nacts by government are often unlawful. \u00a0Most bureaucrats lack
        \nelementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of
        \nconstitutional due process. \u00a0They will make mistakes. \u00a0Numbers beyond
        \ncount have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to
        \nthese seven elements. \u00a0Today, informations are being filed and<\/strong>
        \nprosecuted by “accepted practice” rather than due process of law.<\/strong><\/p>\n

        See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney &
        \nclient: \u00a0The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public<\/strong>,
        \nnot to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with<\/strong>
        \nthose he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of<\/strong>
        \njustice, the former must yield to the latter.<\/strong> \u00a0Clients<\/u><\/strong> are also called<\/strong>
        \n“wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their<\/strong>
        \nattorneys.<\/strong> \u00a0After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to
        \nsee a copy of “regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules” (http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/groups\/professional_responsibility\/resources\/lawyer_ethics_regulation\/model_rules_for_lawyer_disciplinary_enforcement.html<\/a>) \u00a0Also Canons<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>1 through 9<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/migrated\/cpr\/mrpc\/Canons_Ethics.authcheckdam.pdf<\/a>)<\/p>\n

        Corpus Juris Secundum<\/u><\/strong> assumes courts will operate in a lawful
        \nmanner.<\/strong> \u00a0If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his
        \ndetriment, through experience, that certain questions of law,
        \nincluding the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised
        \nand addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar.
        \n(Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of
        \na fox guarding the hen house.)<\/p>\n

        Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court<\/u><\/em><\/strong>,
        \nbut by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction.<\/u><\/em><\/strong> \u00a0The burden of<\/u><\/strong>
        \nproof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter.<\/u><\/strong> \u00a0The court is only to<\/u><\/em><\/strong>
        \nrule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered<\/u><\/em><\/strong>. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298
        \nUS 178. \u00a0The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in
        \nMaxfield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.<\/p>\n

        NOTE: \u00a0Today the courts are unconcerned with questions such as
        \nwhether or not the 16th or 17th amendments were ever lawfully
        \nratified. \u00a0If the courts were to address this type of question
        \nhonestly, the government, with its huge bureaucracy and patron special
        \ninterests would be placed in jeopardy. \u00a0This potential threat is not
        \nallowed nor will it ever be. \u00a0It is much easier for the courts to
        \nlabel such potential threats as political questions, point to the
        \nlateness of the clock and refuse to hear or rule. \u00a0Whatever the
        \npolitical jugernaut does, it uses the facade of law to justify or
        \nreconcile it. \u00a0The only way such questions will have force and effect<\/strong>
        \nis if the general public becomes aware and concerned with justice<\/strong>
        \nbeing based upon law and not just policy based on a facade of law.<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

        If you doubt such words, please be assured that they are not just
        \nwords but are, in fact, and articulation of the unwritten, unspoken,
        \npresent public policy, as enforced by the courts in dealing with
        \nchallenges to governmental acts and authority. \u00a0For documentation, see
        \nUS v WAYNE WOJTAS<\/u><\/strong>, 85 CR 48 in the US District Court for the Northern
        \nDistrict of Illinois, Eastern Division and Judge Shadur’s opinion on
        \nthe 16th Amendment. \u00a0You will see the beginnings and threat of
        \ndisbarment of a certain “aggressive” licensed attorney.<\/p>\n

        To be truly effective in the courts in any challenge to
        \ngovernmental power and authority, the challenger must possess a good
        \nunderstanding of politics. \u00a0This is especially so since government and
        \nthe courts are primarily concerned with a public perception of the
        \nbalancing of the scales of justice rather than the attainment of true
        \njustice under the law.<\/p>\n

        Once it is realized that the court is primarily concerned with
        \npolitics, it then becomes necessary for any challenger to become
        \nproficient in the political arena. \u00a0By politics, we speak, not of the
        \nelectoral process, but of the politics of association.<\/p>\n

        Keeping this in mind, and truly understanding the concept, a man
        \naccused of breaking a “rule” for which he may suffer penalties of
        \nimprisonment, fine and costs without benefit of trial or
        \nConstitutional safeguards, may very will consider bringing a criminal
        \ncharge against himself directly in court and thereby blunt his
        \nadversaries’ attack. \u00a0To the uninitiated, this may sound like madness,
        \nbut to the political scholar destined to appear before a “master” to
        \nanswer to alleged rule violation of the unauthorized practice of law,
        \nthe self-accusatory route to the courts may be the only hope of
        \nvictory; both legal and political.<\/p>\n

        The cop can\u2019t be the WITNESS, INJURED PARTY and PROCESS SERVER, all at the same time. It is a CONFLICT of INTEREST\u2026.\u00a0 The same goes for the DA, as well.\u00a0 The judge is not allowed to prosecute the case, just the TRIER of the LAW and FACTS but yet that should be the responsibility of the JURY, not the JUDGE.\u00a0 The judge is supposed to be a NEUTRAL PARTY to the case but can\u2019t, as he\/she is an EMPLOYEE of the STATE (CONFLICT of INTEREST), who is bringing the charges against you by the <\/strong>SURROGATE<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (DA).\u00a0 <\/strong>The STATE is a FICTION and can\u2019t be INJURED<\/strong>.\u00a0 The DA has NO FIRST HAND INFORMATION <\/em>about the supposed CRIME (VICTIMLESS), as there is NO INJURED PARTY and NO CORPUS DELICTI).\u00a0 <\/em>A STATUTE is not Law but COLORABLE LAW only\u2026.\u00a0 No living man or woman comes forward to state a CLAIM of INJURY<\/strong>\u2026 The DA only relies on the STATUTES, which are for those operating as GOVERNMENT Employee or those OPERATING in COMMERCE<\/u><\/em><\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>When you are going about your everyday task, and going from POINT A to POINT Z, you are not operating in COMMERCE and are to have UNFETTERED movement on the PUBLIC ROADWAYS\u2026.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

        We have NO <\/strong><\/p>\n

        —————————————————————–<\/p>\n

        A fully informed jury is a Constitutionally literate jury<\/u><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

        —————————————————————<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        MAINE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

        Last reviewed and edited December 16, 2012\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Including amendments effective January 1, 2012 \u00a0\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

        The Maine Supreme Judicial Court adopted the Maine Rules of Professional<\/p>\n

        Conduct, effective August 1, 2009. On the same date Maine Bar Rule 2-A<\/p>\n

        (Aspirational Goals for Lawyer Professionalism), Maine Bar Rule 3 (Code of<\/p>\n

        Professional Responsibility) and Maine Bar Rule 8 (Contingent Fees) were<\/p>\n

        abrogated, as they are replaced by the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct.<\/p>\n

        http:\/\/www.courts.state.me.us\/rules_adminorders\/rules\/text\/MRProfCondONLY1-12.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        This is a classic. I know many of you have seen it, but I wanted to post it for the benefit of those who haven’t. There is a lot of “meat” here!\u00a0 For the more advanced student. * * * … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2040"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2040"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2040\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2041,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2040\/revisions\/2041"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}