From a local radio station 90.1 FM called KZFR Wednesday Evening show 5:30PM - 7:00PM

[SemiAutoSam]

Dear NoticeLetter Listees,
Here's a post from a very good list to be on. I highly recommend that
you sign-up!
In this one you'll learn that the courts you've been taught to
believe to be so mighty
and final, are in fact, nothing of the sort. These cites are just
ones that ended up in
the books because they had to be appealed to a higher court. As Jack
and Margy Flynn
have shown some 300 times in a row, these courts haven't got what it
takes from the git-
go. I hope you'll check out their work to get some hope in your mind
about your future.
If the world goes on with business-as-usual, your future and everyone
else's future is
going to be pretty grim. As if the present is a piece of cake.

We start with ourselves... what we believe, and we either adjust to
reality or we get
adjusted by reality. Jack and Margy's website is a good place to
start thinking outside the
well-constructed boxes. Government is either proper, or it's NOT
government. Yes or No?

http://www.citizensoftheamericanconstitution.org/

If you want more, here's a powerful view of your rights as agreed to
by Congress and
the courts:

http://www.landrights.com/primer_on_eminent_domain_rights.htm

Several years ago we talked to Sharon Martin on the air and she
doesn't mince words when
it comes to speaking about serious issues!

Blessings,
~Fred
Frederick-Earl
Executive Producer (wow!) and Host for "Freedom's Questions", heard
every Wednesday from 5:30-7:00 PM PST at 90.1 FM, KZFR, Chico,
California, in the Sacramento River Valley. www.KZFR.org
Also please look at the free copy of Robert Cheney's amazing book
(look at the Charts first!!): "Suffering Patriarchy" which you can
find at:

http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy/index2.html

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com
> Date: July 15, 2006 1155 AM PDT
> To: frederick_earl@sbcglobal.net
> Subject: challenging jurisdiction
>
> This is a one-way announcement list. Please do not reply to this
> Email.
>
> Paycheck Piracy does not accept any liability or responsibility for
> the accurateness of the information being provided by others.
> It is the sole responsibility and the duty of anyone reading
> information on the Internet, to verify the accuracy and
> the legality of any information they are viewing.
>
>
> ***********************************************
> Prepare, Persist, Prevail. http://www.preferredservices.org
> Subscribe to the free e-letter Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com
>
> Lawful information is not legal advice. Use all lawful and legal
> means to peacefully restore the sovereign's place in a
> Constitutional Republic. Threats and coercion are not advocated or
> supported against anyone.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Challenging Jurisdiction
>
> http://fightingforliberty.org/content/view/34/26/
>
>
>
> Challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make,
> because when you use the right argument, it is almost impossible for
> you to loose! If they attempt to tell you that you can't question
> their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court
> rulings!
>
>
>
> "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.
>
>
> "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of
> the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings."
> Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.
>
>
> Read US v Lopez and Hagans v Levine both void because of lack of
> jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in
> Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right,
> in both cases, void.
>
>
> Granted, it's best, and most efficient to challenge jurisdiction and
> motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme court
> cases you will find that
> jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, and in the case of Lopez
> it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of
> jurisdiction. If it doesn't exist, it just can't justify
> conviction or judgment. Without which power (jurisdiction) the
> state CANNOT be said to be "sovereign." At best, to proceed would
> be in "excess" of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the
> State's/USA's cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860) the
> same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government's cause
> (e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).
>
>
> A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over
> the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be
> void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.]
> Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553
> (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
>
>
> "A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot
> make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law
> that a void order can be challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT. L.
> ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
>
>
> "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction."
> Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
>
>
> "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
> Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416
>
>
> "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to
> the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188;
> Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150
>
>
> "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been
> challenged, it must be proven."
> 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)
>
>
> "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time."
> Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.


CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

[SemiAutoSam]

> "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
> raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v.
> Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
>
>
> "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to
> the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188;
> Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150.
>
>
> "Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved
> to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
>
>
> "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be
> decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.
>
>
> "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.
>
>
>
>
> Vehicle/Traffic
>
> "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. 1.
>
>
> "The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative
> act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected
> thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the
> validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of
> a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally
> protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the
> statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 105.
>
>
>
> 2006 FightingForLiberty.org
>
> =============================================
> No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or
> W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of
> being hired or keeping one's job. With the exception of an order
> from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified
> judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes,
> fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing,
> voluntary, written consent. http://www.preferredservices.org/
> NonconsentualTaking.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> This is a one-way announcement list. Only the list moderators are
> able to post a message.
> To subscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com
> To unsubscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-off@mail-list.com
> Update your email address, send a message to Paycheck-Piracy-
> change@mail-list.com with your old address in the Subject: area
>
> Archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy
>
>
>
>
> This message was launched into cyberspace to
> frederick_earl@sbcglobal.net

[Ford8N]

I'm sorry, what is your point?

[SemiAutoSam]

This gives information about how to challenge jurisdiction within a court of law and or in pleadings.

Have you ever filed a motion in superior or district court ?

My point should be very ovvious.

Have you ever defended yourself within a court of law at any level ?

If not then this may be of interest to you.

AND to add to this personally I am of the opinion that "IF THERE IS NO VICTIM THERE IS NO CRIME"

[TheMan]

This gives information about how to challenge jurisdiction within a court of law and or in pleadings.

Have you ever filed a motion in superior or district court ?

My point should be very ovvious.

Have you ever defended yourself within a court of law at any level ?

If not then this may be of interest to you.

That Citizens of the American Constitution link was interesting. If you get past the mind numbingly long blathering that seems to inflict so many of these types, some of their cases were interesting. It appears as though they challenged a traffic ticket, demanding a trial by jury. And the result was that the ticket was dismissed because they were denied their trial by jury.

Traffic court is a joke. If I get a ticket I deserved(and with a lead foot, I occasionally do), I pay it, no problem. But if you fight an unjust ticket, most of the time you get a judge who is so burned out, they don't give you a fair hearing. And they make it sound as though there is no appeal beyond that. So these people being able to appeal tickets beyond that, is a good thing.

[bg]

I've learned from far back, if I even sense I have a chance
at beating a ticket, I plead not guilty and go through
the process. I've had at least 2 tossed, one dropped
down to a much lower offense and one that went on
for so long, the court lost part of the paperwork and
my ending settlement went from close to 500.00
down to 35.00 with another much lesser conviction.

That's been yrs ago, and I haven't had any probs since
the late 80's, but it's fun to go to court and watch
what unfolds when it comes to traffic tickets. I
will give one tip that help you in your case. It's
very simple, but appreciated. When your name is
called by the clerk or the Judge, make sure he
can hear you when you say " here" or present.
As soon as you stand in front the judge, say
" Good morning, or good afternoon your Honor".

You wouldn't believe how many times I've gotten
breaks even if just small ones saying this and answering
the Judge is a courteous reply, clearly spoken, using
Yes- No, Sir, or your Honor. Bring as many receipts
as you can that apply EXACTLY to the charge against
you, such as fix it receipts, estimates, etc. That always
helps, and dress nice. Nothing real fancy, but look
clean, act right , and if you do things right, many times
you'll walk.

Well I guess that was more than one tip, but this stuff
works, and works well. At least all the times I went
before a court.

Sorry I'm off topic from the author's thread, but I thought
maybe someone who has never been to traffic court might
be able to use it.

[artherd]

One thing I have noticed that helps in court; be the best dressed individual in the room.

Attorneys, etc. will even tell you that just dressing 'nice' is enough. Not in my opinion. Full tailored suit, no exceptions. (and I'm a casual kind of guy.)

[TheMan]

That is all fine, but if the judge is in the mode of "processing tickets" rather than actually being a judge(and many traffic courts are like this), your clothing, enunciation, ability to brownnose the judge, etc. doesn't matter.
Of course, whether or not you have to deal with that attitude all depends on where your traffic court is, but my point was that you don't get the option of a jury trial with traffic tickets, they handle them differently. If you know the judge you are going to be dealing with is reasonable, that isn't an issue. But if this process of demanding a jury trial works in CA(the other cases all appeared to be in New Mexico), then that would give everyone else the opportunity to a fair hearing.

And any ticket like this, where you are being accused of an illegal act, people SHOULD have the right to a jury trial. The way ticket processing is now, it is clearly more for revenue generation than anything else.

[bg]

I think saying good morning to the judge is far from
brownnosing, but each person has their own opinions.
All I can say I've never gotten in MORE trouble for saying
it.

[SemiAutoSam]

The first thing I do is get the name of the judge on the record and then ask the judge directly if he has a claim against me.

[TheMan]

I think saying good morning to the judge is far from
brownnosing, but each person has their own opinions.
All I can say I've never gotten in MORE trouble for saying
it.

But you are missing the point. That website discussed a way to get an actual jury trial, where you can be judged on your guilt or innocence, instead of how dapper you look, or whether or not you are polite, and whether or not the judge is in a good mood.

I understand what you are saying about politeness, being well dressed, etc. But it just doesn't work for all judges all the time. It works for cops sometimes too, but not all the time.

The point is that the system is broken, if the amount of justice you get is determined by your wardrobe or some other random factor, instead of being based on facts of the case.

[bg]

The point is that the system is broken, if the amount of justice you get is determined by your wardrobe or some other random factor, instead of being based on facts of the case.

Can't argue that, and admit I didn't read all of the authors
thread. I was just relating my own experiances.

In fact here's a case of pure INJUSTICE. Ck out what
the so-called "judge" wants to do in this case..The
victims get screwed again..>

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Los_Angeles/The_Press-Enterprise/SIG=143jib97m/*http%3A//www.pe.com/perl/common/rssredir.pl?page=http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_ssmith15.3eaf14a.html

Smith was sentenced to two years in prison for the June 2005 drunken-driving accident on the Ortega Highway west of Lake Elsinore.

Last month, Judge James T. Warren said he made a mistake and wants to resentence Smith. He announced Friday that he will hear no more testimony from the victim's family unless there is something new to add.

In June, the judge called the case back and told both sides that he was going to resentence Smith because he thought he had been too harsh.

Some justice huh ? I may be missing the point of this
thread again, but I'm NOT missing the fact that the
above are getting robbed by a two-bit half-*** judge.

Sorry going off topic, but this kind of crap fires me up.