I saw a few people making some posts about 71 US .2 and Section 98, went digging around. Found some very heartening info that I'll post here. In short, from an 1866 SCOTUS case, 71 US .2 Ex parte Milligan, it was ruled that the Constitution cannot be suspended entirely and that martial law shall only extend to habeas corpus, and further shall only extend for such a time until the normal courts may return to regular hearings. Additionally, it was ruled that martial law does not give the military the ability to try civilians in military courts, because the civilian courts are assumed to have the ability to return to normal service in the future.
Very fun reading here: https://archive.md/O8v8f
They also cite American Jurisprudence 2d, section 98.
Something that caught my eye that may be a good read for many people on here is the ruling from Ex parte Milligan, seeing as it's never been overturned. I'll put a few excerpts, but also the link. The case ends and the Official Ruling is delivered in sections 426-493. The Dissenting Opinion begins in Section 494. https://m.openjurist.org/71/us/2
But Section 473 is where things get really interesting.
All other persons, citizens of states where the courts are open, if charged with crime, are guaranteed the inestimable privilege of trial by jury.
The ruling specifically disregards that the courts be ignored or denied their jobs when "the passions of men are aroused" or "the restraints of law are weakened".
Section 476 goes on to speak about what a country governed by unrestricted Martial Law would entail, and why it's restricted so that Commanders and Presidents cannot impede and punish citizens at will.
Martial law, established on such a basis, destroys every guarantee of the Constitution, and effectually renders the 'military independent of and superior to the civil power'—the attempt to do which by the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence, that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their independence.
In Section 477, they speak to the fact that the Founders knew that we would see war, and furthermore they knew that evil men may indeed gain access to the powers delegated to the government.
For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
In Section 478, they defend why the government has the ability to detain/arrest dangerous people without the writ of habeas corpus under martial law.
Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But, it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained.
But 479 is the real kicker, here.
Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration.
Martial law cannot be declared from a threatened invasion. The courts and civil administration must be closed for martial laws to be engaged.
There's a ton of incredible stuff in this never overturned ruling, but that is the big boom. That was the keeper. The first question of this case was whether Martial Law could apply to Milligan in a time of peace, and this never overturned ruling declared that Martial Law may never apply while the civilian courts are open.
So, the reason for this dig, i think a lot of you may have figured out:
-
Why did [they] want to close the country so badly? Who were the targets then?
-
How many times and how many people have violated this case's precedent?
-
Head back to that first article, American Jurisprudence. Anyone who ever supported, aided, voted for, engaged with, comforted, or otherwise enabled this ruling to be broken engaged in war against the US, her Constitution, and her People. This includes Congress, the Judiciary, and even the Executive. What if every court had engaged in this behavior before? Including the FISA courts? Would they all have to close? Where would you try the cases? What precedent would make it legal?
This one. Enjoy the show.
I'd like to discuss this with you, but don't have time now.
I will bookmark this thread and, if you're interested, we can discuss it over the next few days.
100% open for it, brother. I definitely don't mind a good discussion.
Sounds good. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. If not, then FRI.
Changing gears --
Traffic tickets. Let's take speeding. Those of us who are not attorneys-at-law, but who are interested in law have likely come across the various legal arguments revolving around traffic law/statute/regulation, etc.
Have you researched much about subject matter jurisdiction? Subject matter, specifically, not just jurisdiction.
Have you read or seen any of Richard Cornforth's stuff? He seemed to be onto some very interesting case law that has largely been "forgotten" by the legal industry. Too bad his writing skills are not good, to say the least. He makes some amazing claims, but never really puts it all together, from what I looked into.
Anyway, basic concept is that juridiction is composed of 2 parts, and both are required for a court to have jurisdiction over a case --
Personal Jursidiction -- if the defendant (a) shows up in court, or (b) the defendant has been properly served and the plaintiff can prove it (I think there might be one or two relatively minor elements beyond that), then the court has personal jurisdiction. PJ can never be lost by the court once the court has acquired it.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction -- if the defendant challenges SMJ, the plaintiff/prosecutor must prove that the court has SMJ, and do so on the record. SMJ requires a showing that (a) a particular individual (defendant), (b) breached a duty, (c) that resulted in an injury to a particular individual (plaintiff), (d) the result of which caused damage to the injured party, as well as (e) when the action occured, (f) where it occured, (g) how it was done. If all elements of SMJ are not proven by the plaintiff on the record, then the court lacks SMJ, and therefore lacks jurisdiction. In addition, if a court acquires SMJ, it can later be lost through violation of due process.
Do you know anything about that -- in theory, as well as in practice in court?
The reason I ask is I got a speeding ticket. My not-so-ironclad understanding of all of this is that traffic courts are administrative hearings, not real courts. They will never provide full due process, and they can never prove an injured party, much less what the damages were. Therefore, the court will never be able to obtain subject matter jurisdiction, and even if they declared they had it, would later lose it due to not providing due process.
I am thinking of filing a Motion to Dismiss prior to my court hearing. Worst-case scenario is $300 and no jail time, so I am interested in testing the system to see if they can/will follow the law.
But I need a crash course in looking at the right things to be prepared.
There is more to it, but that is the surface level issue I am interested in dealing with at this time.
I think Americans need to develop the ability to pursue their own legal cases and challenges to government abuses, and have a relatively easy way of doing it.
I am pursing that idea, and I now have an opportunity to put it into action.
Your thoughts?
So, we already covered that I'm not a lawyer, but if you weren't served that ticket in person, toss it. Don't acknowledge it. Never speak a word of it. Don't show up anywhere it told you to. For all intents in purposes, you never received notice of it. Note: none of this advice applies if any person physically spoke to you. Specifically, treat any mail tickets like you would those stupid telemarketers calling about your car's extended warranty. Click.
You, as a citizen, have the right to be served any papers in person. This right is fundamental for several reasons, but the most obvious are so that the court has proof that the correct person was served and so that you are aware that you were served. This is also why you'd have been held for 24 hours if you were under any intoxicating substances, to ensure that you had the wherewithal to understand that you had contact with law enforcement and were served notice of court.
I'm not familiar with Richard Cornforth by name, but the concept of Personal Jurisdiction sounds like what I'm mentioning above.
The subject of Subject Matter is one I'm familiar with for the same reasons I'm familiar with courts and cases. Officer Training in recent years has started to train police on how to use their wording effectively to defeat most challenges against SM Jurisdiction. Wording like "I was able to determine so because of my years of experience and expertise on the matter" or "I was able to determine that a serious injury/incident/accident was likely to occur from their behavior if it was allowed to continue, because I have seen numerous such incidents during my tenure as an officer." While this honestly deserves an eye roll in the real world, in the legal one it yields a serious quagmire for the defendant to dig out of.
From personal experience, if you want to beat a ticket, the best defense (if you were served in person) is to show up in traffic court and simply say "I don't think I was speeding." or "I don't understand how the officer could have gotten my speed in that situation. I don't think they got my speed accurately." This puts the onus on the officer to testify and prove that all things were true, tested, and accurate. While many judges will have a relationship with their local LEO to give some slack here, some will take Innocent Until Proven Guilty very seriously and require much more than a story in a report to throw the fine at you.
I got out of a ticket where I (maybe) got clocked on a highway going quite a bit over because there was another truck the same color as mine passing at roughly the same time. From a simple statement and the video, it wasn't possible to determine if they or I were actually captured on the radar (and honestly, I didn't know if I was speeding). When footage was reviewed (this took a while a decade ago, but everything is digital and cloud based now), neither I, the officer, nor the judge could definitively say whether my truck or the other was the one who blasted by at double digits over.
But if you have the $300 and the time, just avoid perjury. No definite statements under oath. Comey style, "I don't know." Make a day out of it. The officer will be there all day for court either way.
If you have the $300 and don't have the time, let the county have their blackmail money.
If you want to file anything with the court, speak to an actual lawyer. There's good reason for the saying "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
I was.
We're talking about two different things here. SMJ must be proven by the other party -- in this case, the prosecuting attorney. Witnesses are not involved. You are talking about bogus testimony, and cops do that all the time, but it is a different discussion from SMJ.
Yes, and I want to test the legal theories that are supposedly based on higher case law. Basically, the idea is that all traffic cases are set up in a manner to quickly process them to maximize money coming into the government, not to uphold due process. For that reason, they always violate due process, and nobody (including attorneys) ever challenges that. I want to challenge it.
A violation of due process makes the court lose subject matter jurisdiction, which means the court loses jurisdiction, which means there is no case, which means the government cannot proceed. That's what I have read, but now I need to put the abstract principle into action in the real world.
This is our fundamental disagreement. That's a convenient little statement for the legal industry, but is it actually true? I look at it quite differently.
I think hiring an attorney to get legal advice is fine. But hiring one to represent you in court, especially on relatively minor matters, is throwing money down into the sewer. I have seen it too many times to be deceived into believing otherwise. I suspect that knowledgable pro se/pro per litigants have an overall better track record than attorneys. Most are not knowledgeable, though, and no statistics are kept on this issue, for obvious reasons.
First, more than half of all attorneys-at-law lose their cases. They have a less than 50% success rate. Therefore, is it really foolish to leave them out of the game?
Second, one of the reasons they lose more than they win is because the deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution (98%+ win rate), and attorneys are officers of the court. Their duty is to the system, not to the client. They are not trained to pursue justice or even to really know the fundamentals of law. They are trained like doctors are -- just enough to benefit the system, but no more. Look up "attorney" in AmJur. It will tell you they are defined as "an officer of the court, with a duty to the court, not to the client." Says it all.
Finally, Blackstone wrote that the power of the People is not in the voting booth (as we have seen), but rather is in the courts. There needs to be a movement for the People to relearn about law and how to enforce it against the government in the courts. Back in the founders' day, most people understood the law. It was simpler, based on biblical principles, and people had time to read (no TV, internet, etc.). We have lost that. But I want to be part of helping us all regain it. This small traffic ticket is a step in that direction.
First, 100% agreement on getting the system straightened out, and if you're looking to do that via this endeavor, I'm completely in your corner. I honestly wish I were a better resource here. However, I know there are several knowledgeable and patriotic attorneys in the US who love these types of battles and can give good legal advice (likely some pro bono and maybe even representation). Lin Wood's groups come to mind, over at fightback.law, for one.
I will say that the 98% win rate is somewhat inflated for a few reasons. Yes, there are fairness and partisan issues at hand (judges wanting to preserve relationships, attorneys swearing to uphold the court, citizens not understanding the complex legal system and laws), but also keep in mind that the prosecution can choose to drop any case they want to. When they do, that number is no longer part of their ratio. Which cases are they dropping? Certainly not cases they think they'll win. (This is one extremely good reason to keep some liability insurance like USCCA, because you can intimidate tf out of a DA)
The phrase about having a fool for a client does not mean that you can't successfully defend yourself, but rather that the average person who did not attend law school will have a lesser understanding about the law than someone who did their time in law school and in the legal system. Even my limited experience in that world yielded insights that were mindblowing, and that was only from the ground level.
Also, one last bit here, just in case you get this absolute gift. If the officer who wrote your charge doesn't show for court, plead Not Guilty. The court will have no witness to call on their defense, and therefore the only statement entered is yours. You'll walk, no fine. 100% guaranteed. It's an awful practice, but it's useless to pretend it doesn't happen: Officers will write tickets simply to hit their numbers (not called quotas anymore) so they'll seem proactive, then let people who pay the tickets without challenge settle their ultimate scorecards for promotions.
Yes, that is one of the big reasons for the 98% win rate.
The other big reason is they can use the resources of the state to come after individuals who can never match those resources. They can pile charges on top of charges and push someone into taking a plea deal, even though the prosector really has no case. This is evil. Look at what they did to Gen. Flynn.
Add to that that most (not all, but most) attorneys for the defense are too chicken shit to really stand up to them. This is especially true for public defenders who are not paid a million dollars to defend a wealthy person. They are working for peanuts, as they see it, so why put in any "extra work," like challenging due process before a judge and prosecutor who the defense attorney wants as friends?
You probably know who Gerry Spence is. Here is what he said about the system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcjwgaVuMhw
Yes, I know that, but I am looking at something way more important than that. If the JUDGE HAS NO AUTHORITY, then there is no case, no witness, no nothing.
It is a challenge of the system itself, not a mere technicality.
The legal system is great for the People. It is protective of the rights of the People. But ONLY IF it is actually followed as it was intended (older case law and legal principles that still apply). It is only because of the corruption of the system that so many people get into jams in the first place.
That's the road I'm interested in checking out.
I think you should throw a line out to Fight Back. https://fightback.law/contact/
I have a feeling they could at minimum offer some legal advice on how to proceed versus the court, they may offer next steps if the court fully ignores your filing/argument, and they may even have a lawyer in network willing to work to set/use a precedent to lay down some case law on your locality.
Patriots like yourself in situations like your own are how most of these case law protections came about, so certainly worth the convo with them, yeah? Worst case (pun!), they ask for donations and don't have a lot of help to offer. However, Lin Wood does surround himself with patriots (and some paytriots), so you may strike the hot iron and make some serious waves, as it seems you're amped to do.
I'm in full support. Reach out to me however things start to shape up. I'm on here and Gab under the same moniker.
Sounds good. I have to get my ducks in a row, then I will contact some sources, and I might be back in touch with you.
Thanks.
Hey, had a chance to read through your post and the AmJur info.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that Ex Parte Milligan says: No fundamental right that is protected by the Constitution can ever be violated by government, with the sole exception of Habeas Corpus, and that can only be violated if the civilian courts are shut down, and then only until the courts re-open.
Correct?
In time of war, that could make sense, depending on circumstances. It would make sense that the founders put that provision in.
So then, we have two sides of the coin to look at.
Cabal Criminals -- if Hillary had won, they could have done all the tyrannical things they did, but with the added bonus they could shut down the courts, and then round up all the "deplorables" as domestic terrorists, and prosecute in military courts, with no habeas corpus due to the courts being shut down.
The People -- since Trump won, that was stopped and the tables were turned. We would like to see the criminals prosecuted, but how does the civilian courts being shut down come into play? If anything, things are opening back up now.
If they want to prosecute treason, for example, that would be done in federal court rather than state court. So, the state courts don't matter in this case.
But it could be either federal court or military court for someone in the military, like Milley. It seems like this would have to go through military courts, but the Graham/Kavanaugh exchange discussed a different case (Reynolds v. US, I think) that had to do with trying civilians in military courts for something like treason.
Ex Parte Milligan seems to be a good citation for arguing that mask and vaccine mandates are unconstitutional as a restriction on liberty and not something for which the state can declare martial law (and even if it was declared, habeas corpus would be the only constitutional right at issue, not liberty in general). But other than that, I don't really see the point.
I like to interact with people interested in the law and know about AmJur and looking up court cases, since they are the backbone of the law in the USA.
So, can you clarify what you think Ex Parte Milligan means for The People and/or The Plan?
thx
I won't pretend to be a scholar on the issue, but I've done more than a fair amount of study both formal and informal on the law and Constitution, and I do love reading through cases, precedents, and jurisprudence. So, that in mind, I am not a lawyer, and even if I were, I am certainly not the definitive source here.
However, here's my take. When the courts are open, civilian courts always get the first swing at a case where they have jurisdiction. You're always tried in the lowest court possible for your case, and you appeal your way up through the system, thus giving the defendant the maximum chance to provide reasonable doubt or disprove the state's case. To the point further, civilians are never tried in the military courts, where such a robust set of appeals and extra chances don't exist, except in very specific circumstances which are extremely dire to the United States (in the case of Parte Ex Milligan, he fought against the Union and did not meet the requirements, to give you an idea of the height of these reqs).
The Military must have a fast, efficient, and locked down methodology to their courts that focuses on factual guilt and whether the court/command/admirals feel the defendant should be punished in respect for what occurred. This is nothing like the civilian courts, where the primary focus is on the preservation of the defendant's rights and justice as viewed by your peers being served (jury of your peers, objections in courts, Constitutional protections, etc.). When one joins the Military, they temporarily resign these rights for their service term. Civilians have signed over no such rights.
In regards to the plans of the Cabal, my best guess is that they intended to revoke the protections of the lower courts by using the "threat" of Covid and War to close the country, the courts, and the civil administration of the States. This would have satisfied all Constitutional precedent and allowed them to declare full martial law with little or no pushback, and worse while yielding the Military and SCOTUS no openings to object (if they weren't packed out with corrupt justices by then).
To the tune of using federal and military courts today versus the Cabal, there have long been precedents backed by the States themselves for cases which exceed their power and jurisdiction. Cases like Treason, which you mentioned. But also cases like interstate issues, backed by the Interstate clauses, and cases of exigent circumstances and immediate and large-scale threats to the United States (terrorism, sedition, conspiracy, mass destruction). In these cases, not only is the precedent set for civilians to be tried directly by the federal courts, because no single state can claim jurisdiction, but the States have freely given the government the ability to do so either in the original ratification of the Constitution or in subsequent years voted via their legislators.
To sum it up, we were saved when she lost in 2016. Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming.
Also, great timing today with the Durham Sussman indictment. Sept 16. 916 | 619. https://qalerts.app/?n=619
Check my comment history for a full deep dive a post or two back.
Thanks for the reply. I can see Ex Parte Milligan being a serious threat to us if the Hillary won scenario to were to play out. Of course, at the moment we have the Briben won scenario -- for as long as it lasts.
Q said military tribunals were the way. Reynolds v. US gave the go-ahead for civilians to be tried by military courts, which seems on point for the good guys prosecuting the bad guys.
Ex Parte Milligan might come into play (good going after bad) if somehow the courts are declared as good as shut down due to corruption. It does not seem like that is the direction of things at the moment, though.
If nothing else, Milligan reminds us that fundamental rights "Trump" everything else -- at least, that's how it is supposed to work.
I want to switch gears to a different legal subject, as long as we are having the discussion (in this thread that probably nobody is paying attention to anymore).
See my next post.
I'm not sure that Reynolds vs US is the precedent you mean, but there are some cases outside of martial law where civilians can be tried in military courts. They're rare, and you've got to be pretty much freebasing Traitor coke to get there (unless you work for the military as a civilian contractor, then it's a little easier, but they sign some pretty hefty paperwork just like a serviceman does).
One precedent does come to mind, though. POWs. Q kept hinting (or outright mentioning) the Law of War and 11.3 throughout the posts. Frankly, if the military was viewing the Cabal's actions as a hostile takeover of the US, then their capture could escalate them to a Prisoner of War status in some cases, no martial law required.
Or, you know, 10 days of darkness. Keep some Emergency Mac n Cheese around.