NOTICE IS EVERYTHING

Specifically what posture you take while in court. If you say or do ANYTHING to show that you stand under the courts authority, you have already been convicted of their claims.

"Jairod Roeder Asks : Paul, is demanding notice of the law the same as demanding the nature and cause? 24 minutes ago

Paul Rowe responded :

Finally! a dozen groups and thousands of wanna be jail house, prison planet lawyers , students and paralegals... and, Finally! Some one found the Rabit hole !!! Some one asked the MOST IMPORTANT question of all.
Notice, is everything. You are entitled to actual notice, fair and proper notice, and notice reasonably calculated to afford you an opportunity to respond with respect to each and every element of the charge and the process, clarification and definition of terms... IF YOU BOTHER TO ASK FOR IT... and if you don't ask, you WILL BE DENIED due process, because they are using two set of dictionaries, and two sets of rules, and making two sets of books. Cause Its the only way any one can be convicted of anything, the system has become so utterly contradictory.
Notice of the jurisdiction the charge is brought in, notice of the law or grounds upon which the claim or charge is brought, notice of the nature and cause for the charge or claim, notice of... any evidence to be used to prove criminal intent... everything... pursuant to your right to DISCOVERY, clarification and definition of terms... until you UNDERSTAND that you are guilty, because you really, really, want to help them convict you, step by step... means, opportunity, and most importantly, MOTIVE.

When they say person, what do they mean? When they ask your name, are you asking if im the man or woman given that christian name, or are you addressing the incorporated creature of statute created by government. And in this, NOTICE, is victory. You can just keep asking questions, and one you learn to ask questions you already know the answer to, I one hundred percent in my full liability capacity guarantee and do so promise, that you will prevail, and they will give up.

It is only by NOT providing notice of the fact that they are misapplying something, or perverting something somewhere in the administration of law not in accordance with the rules of procedure, in violation of due process requirements, that they presume to prosecute any case at all. If you ask the right questions, they must, and will, run from the right line of questioning regarding procedure or the law (forget the facts in your case they are irrelevant), they must run and withdraw or eventually convict themselves on record with their answers. And when you start asking the simplest, fundamental questions of law and procedure, the act is destroyed, the illusion is broken, the emperor has no cloths.

Do the crime, do the time. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Fair NOTICE : who am I to you and who are you to me? By what authority? By what law in what jurisdiction according to what rules? He who brings the claim must bring the remedy, and full disclosure.

Ask and you shall receive.

Is this a court of the judiciary, or a for profit corporate business? Cause if its a for profit corporate business (they all are now since 69) they cannot exercise the powers of government or police, fairly and impartially, in accordance with the requirements of DUE PROCESS, because they are biased and prejudiced by dual obligation. Can you give me fair notice of how this game is played? What are the rules for natural persons, American citizens, incorrectly charged as artificial persons and US citizens by a court who refuses to recognize they are breathing and speaking and not a creature of statute created by government identity theft of your name to create a business front, offended at the derogatory name calling from the start, with intent to diminish your rights and legal status in law by false designation and classification of your person in law. Its a frame up, from the moment you receive the paper work to the DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT CORPORATE FRANCHISE PERSON."

~Paul Paul Rowe ~

Validation Of Federal Jurisdiction. Or NOT!

 

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend

into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in
the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the national government," Caha v. United
States, 152 U.S., at 215. "We think a proper examination of this
subject will show that the United States never held any municipal
sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the
territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were
formed..."

"[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to
exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain,
within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in
which it is expressly granted..." "Alabama is therefore entitled
to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within
her limits, subject to the common law," Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.
221, 223, 228, 229."

GENERAL CASE LAW ON JURISDICTION

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2nd 906 at 910.
“It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor.” U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d, at 481 (5th Cir., 1974).
“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
“Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” Thompson v Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381; and Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471.
“The United States is entirely a creature of the Federal Constitution, its power and authority has no other source and it can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
“The rights and liberties of the citizens of the United States are not protected by custom and tradition alone, they are preserved from the encroachments of government by express/enumerated provisions of the Federal Constitution.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
“The prohibitions of the Federal Constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be nullified by the executive or by the executive and the senate combined.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
“Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
“Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution.” Eisner v. McComber, 252 U.S. 189 at 207.

JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE OF ANY COURT, ANYWHERE!

January 6, 2013 at 11:45pm

Challenging the Jurisdiction of ANY Court, anywhere!
By Robyna Choleton, 1-6-13

'Following are quotes issued by courts within the United States of America -- which attest to the fact that a court's jurisdiction over parties appearing before the court, may be challenged by any party, and at any time.  A court, upon such challenge, is compelled to answer the challenge, and prove to the challenger's reasonable doubt that it, the court, possesses jurisdiction for a particular action before the court.

Typically, challenges to a court's jurisdiction pertain to criminal proceedings and prosecutions -- whereby an accused, or a defendant, may challenge a court's jurisdiction to adjudicate a criminal case.  The maxim of law therefore, substantiated by numerous case cites, is that once challenged, a court's jurisdiction must be proven.

"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.

"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."
Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." 
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"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)

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."  Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"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.

"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.

"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.



"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.

"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.

Judge acting outside his jurisdiction

“When a judge acts when he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
US vs. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. ct, 471, 66 L. Ed. 2nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohen vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6wheat) 264, 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821).

“Dismissal of charges is warranted, because of fraud placed on the court.”
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)