I am enjoying the debate and intellectual challenge.

In that spirit, I think we are mostly in agreement, with some minor differences around the edges.

I do want to drive home the point of Subject Matter Jurisdication, as I think that it is the achilles heel in the entire corrupt legal industry.

I don't think you have this right. The WHOLE POINT of filing notice of SA is to argue they have no jurisdiction. Point being, once you show up GA, you've already tacitly agreed to the diminished serf status and they can and often will walk right over you.

I do not think this is correct.

My understanding is that any court (judge) must have jurisdiction in order to proceed and make any ruling or do anything with regard to any case.

"Jurisdiction" just means the legal authority to act in a judicial capacity. Just because Joe Blow was hired on as a judge and collects a paycheck at the courthouse and wears a black dress and sits on a high chair does NOT mean he has legal authority to act in a judicial capacity in a particular case.

He must have two types of jurisdiction:

• (a) Personal jurisdiction -- legal authority over the parties to a case. He must have legal authorty to make BINDING orders for one party to give evidence to another party, or both parties to show up for a hearing at a specific time and date, etc. The plaintiff/prosecutor grants the court personal jurisdiction by filing the Complaint and asking the court to adjudicate. That is easy.

But the defendant is not easy. He does not want to get sued or criminally prosecuted. He does not really want to cooperate. In order for Joe Blow to have judicial authority over Mr. Defendant, the physical person, the court must have personal jurisdiction. This is obtained when the defendant is served a summons AND shows up in court.

It is at that moment that the judge obtains personal jurisdiction. Now, you are saying that the defendant can show up under Special Appearance only, and not General Appearance, and that will not grant the court personal jurisdiction.

Maybe, but I think a judge can go one of two ways here. You say you are not the person in "ALL CAPS" or are not a "US Citizen," or whatever. The judge will either say that is irrelevant and you have appeared in court (in which case, what are you gonna do, since there is nothing on the record that says otherwise), or the judge can agree that the person being sued/prosecuted did not show up. In which case, the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest. You can believe that when the sheriff (or court bailiff) is given and order to arrest YOU, they will not be asking if your name is in ALL CAPS.

As a practical matter, I don't think it is a good method because it does not get at the heart of the issue. It is an attempt to "play games" as the court/any judge would see it. I know of people who have gotten into worse trouble than they started with doing that.

So, I think it misses the mark, legally.

Besides personal jurisdiction over the parties, a judge also needs:

• (b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction -- legal authority to preside over THIS PARTICULAR CASE. Attorneys get this wrong all the time. They think that any bankruptcy judge can hear any bankruptcy case, any criminal court judge can hear any criminal case, etc., and this is SMJ.

Acutally, that is venue, not SMJ. SMJ is about whether or not the judge has authority to act as a judge in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

And THAT is determined by the pleadings of the parties in the potential case. Why? Because the legislature that created that court (per the Constitution) said so, along with the Supreme Court in their Rules of Court Procedure.

It is the law itself that says so, not an attempt to "play games" as they would likely see it.

The reason SMJ is the achilles heel is because the system has become so corrupt that they no longer respect the rights of the people and what is SUPPOSED to happen. Instead, they take shortcuts to make their own jobs easier.

Although it makes their job easier, and they can go to lunch sooner, it causes them to VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.

Violation of Due Process means loss of SMJ, which means the END of the case.

It is a MATTER OF LAW, not a way of trying to play keep-away-from-the-judge.

In other words, they can't hear a word you're saying, regardless of how solid your argument is. They will often just ignore it and proceed as if you've said nothing at all.

VERY TRUE!

And that bothered me for a long time.

Until ...

I watched those Robert Fox seminar videos. He explains EXACTLY WHY this happens -- but not to HIM (once he figured it out).

And it is why I previously said here that it doesn't matter what you say to the judge ... IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONY.

ONLY testimony can be EVIDENCE. Everything else is heresay. And only EVIDENCE (and law and adhering to court rules) can win a case.

When you tell the judge that if it is a civil case then there must be a contract, and you never signed a contract. So what? The judge can pretend you never said it because ... IT IS HERESAY.

OTOH, if you created an affidavit to this set of facts AND you turned it into testimony IN THE COURT ROOM, then that would be a different situation. Then you would have the ONLY evidence in the case, and the judge would have to rule in your favor ... AS A MATTER OF LAW (that he knows the appelate court judges will uphold if he rules against you -- and he could be sanctioned by the judicial review board).

operating in the CAPACITY of a MAN, not a lowly citizen

I take issue with this because the Founding Fathers did not see a citizen as a lowly position. It was the citizens who created the government. Maybe being a "subject" was bad, but a "citizen" was something to be proud of.

"Natural born citizen," after all ...

I said nobody told me that the DL app was a CONTRACT ... It's FRAUD without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Puts the judge up against it to claim otherwise and can really get him in hot water if he tries to persuade you otherwise.

My take is that you should not be debating the judge at all. Our system is an adversarial system. It is you against me. Or the prosecutor against you. The judge is supposed to be a neutral third party, and should not be engaging in this sort of debate in the first place.

Yes, I know that happens all the time, but pointing out that the judge is acting outside of his authority by asking if he is my adversary should get his attention, and should make him think twice about what he is doing.

It should make him think that maybe you know more than he would assume you do, and that you could cause him some trouble if he does not follow his oath of office a little more closely.

You can come back at the judge for furthering a fraud if he somehow tap dances around the fact that the DL app was a contract.

And how EXACTLY are you gonna do that? File an appeal? On what grounds? You have none. No judicial error was preserved on the record for appelate review.

Are you going to sue the judge in a collateral action? If you knew you could do that, you would just get him to violate Due Process because that would be more of a slam dunk.

The judge knows full well it isn't a contract. It's not even debatable. What choice does he/she have once he/she has admitted it isn't a criminal proceeding and you've pointed out there's no contract as a basis for a civil/criminal offense?

He has a very easy out. He just says that the motor vehicle statute says you must not drive above the posted speed limit, and the cop says you did.

No contract needed for a civil lawsuit.

If you are my neighbor and I am playing loud music all night, you can sue me for breach of quiet enjoyment. You are likely to point to a city ordinance against noise.

We never had a contract. Not a written one, anyway. This is under that heading of "social contract" that is promoted by the loonies.

I did have a duty not to interefer with your rights to peace and quiet, especially at night.

BUT ... there was no contract. You could still file a civil lawsuit against me.

Could you or I act as "Counselor at Law" for another without finding ourselves in hot water for "practicing law without a license"

Robert Fox claimed he did that in 5 states. Sat right next to the defendant in the court room.

How? Because the 6th Amendment provides that a defendant has a right to "assistance of counsel" ... NOT to an "attorney at law."

Also, the US Supreme Court had a decision many years ago that practicing law is a common law right and no license can be required.

They do it, but only in violation of law. Who challenges it? Nobody.

A violation of a right that goes unchallenged will stand.

Sleep on your rights and you lose them (at least for that moment). That is also a principle of the common law.

I'd say 99 out of 100 times the person in trouble runs straight to an attorney - game over.

Absolutely. Frederick Graves, inventor of Jurisdictionary and an attorney for many years, said: "If you want to throw your money away, go buy an attorney."

The whole legal realm despises "pro se" (or "sui juris") appearances and makes sure to levy the heftiest fines and penalties possible when such an interloper enters their domain. One wrong step, one minor slip-up and its game over for the rookie/novice/newcomer. The pit of serpents usually finds a way to extract its pound of flesh.

True, but our generation has something that no other generation in human history ever did: the Internet.

We can communicate these ideas and share strategies and experiences.

That has potential to change the game, and clean up the corruption.

Even if Q team succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, We the People will STILL have to stand up and do our part.

Blackstone, who wrote the legal encyclopedia that the Founding Fathers relied on said, "The courts are the theater of the power of the People."

He said nothing about voting.

The Founders' generation were learned in the law, which is what made them "lawyers," even though most had never been to a formal law school.

So my question to you would be, how do we get people interested in this subject who aren't presently in any legal trouble?

The more we talk about it, the more might be open to learning more.

Ideally, we set up a simplified structure for people to learn.

Jurisdictionary is a very good tool for routine civil law cases (you vs. me, but not vs. the government).

When the goverenment becomes the predator, I think that learning where their weakness is in not following the law (i.e. procedure) is probably the key.

I heard someone talking a few years ago (don't remember the name), but he said, "Find the first flaw in their case. Attack that flaw, and do not let go."

By that, he meant that if there is a flaw in their legal paperwork (such as not fulfilling the requirements for the court to obtain SMJ), then do not even discuss the facts (i.e. whether or not I ever signed a contract with the DMV). Focus on that flaw, and that is where you win.

In my traffic ticket case, I never got to trial. I think it is because they were not sure what to do. Maybe they were just "too busy" to spend resources on my case.

But what if 1,000 other people with tickets did the same?

When I refused to settle for $20, I suspect that raised a few eyebrows.

I will never know, but I do think this is the path.

I am enjoying the debate and intellectual challenge.

In that spirit, I think we are mostly in agreement, with some minor differences around the edges.

I do want to drive home the point of Subject Matter Jurisdication, as I think that it is the achilles heel in the entire corrupt legal industry.

I don't think you have this right. The WHOLE POINT of filing notice of SA is to argue they have no jurisdiction. Point being, once you show up GA, you've already tacitly agreed to the diminished serf status and they can and often will walk right over you.

I do not think this is correct.

My understanding is that any court (judge) must have jurisdiction in order to proceed and make any ruling or do anything with regard to any case.

"Jurisdiction" just means the legal authority to act in a judicial capacity. Just because Joe Blow was hired on as a judge and collects a paycheck at the courthouse and wears a black dress and sits on a high chair does NOT mean he has legal authority to act in a judicial capacity in a particular case.

He must have two types of jurisdiction:

• (a) Personal jurisdiction -- legal authority over the parties to a case. He must have legal authorty to make BINDING orders for one party to give evidence to another party, or both parties to show up for a hearing at a specific time and date, etc. The plaintiff/prosecutor grants the court personal jurisdiction by filing the Complaint and asking the court to adjudicate. That is easy.

But the defendant is not easy. He does not want to get sued or criminally prosecuted. He does not really want to cooperate. In order for Joe Blow to have judicial authority over Mr. Defendant, the physical person, the court must have personal jurisdiction. This is obtained when the defendant is served a summons AND shows up in court.

It is at that moment that the judge obtains personal jurisdiction. Now, you are saying that the defendant can show up under Special Appearance only, and not General Appearance, and that will not grant the court personal jurisdiction.

Maybe, but I think a judge can go one of two ways here. You say you are not the person in "ALL CAPS" or are not a "US Citizen," or whatever. The judge will either say that is irrelevant and you have appeared in court (in which case, what are you gonna do, since there is nothing on the record that says otherwise), or the judge can agree that the person being sued/prosecuted did not show up. In which case, the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest. You can believe that when the sheriff (or court bailiff) is given and order to arrest YOU, they will not be asking if your name is in ALL CAPS.

As a practical matter, I don't think it is a good method because it does not get at the heart of the issue. It is an attempt to "play games" as the court/any judge would see it. I know of people who have gotten into worse trouble than they started with doing that.

So, I think it misses the mark, legally.

Besides personal jurisdiction over the parties, a judge also needs:

• (b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction -- legal authority to preside over THIS PARTICULAR CASE. Attorneys get this wrong all the time. They think that any bankruptcy judge can hear any bankruptcy case, any criminal court judge can hear any criminal case, etc., and this is SMJ.

Acutally, that is venue, not SMJ. SMJ is about whether or not the judge has authority to act as a judge in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

And THAT is determined by the pleadings of the parties in the potential case. Why? Because the legislature that created that court (per the Constitution) said so, along with the Supreme Court in their Rules of Court Procedure.

It is the law itself that says so, not an attempt to "play games" as they would likely see it.

The reason SMJ is the achilles heel is because the system has become so corrupt that they no longer respect the rights of the people and what is SUPPOSED to happen. Instead, they take shortcuts to make their own jobs easier.

In the process, they VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.

Violation of Due Process means loss of SMJ, which means the END of the case.

It is a MATTER OF LAW, not a way of trying to play keep-away-from-the-judge.

In other words, they can't hear a word you're saying, regardless of how solid your argument is. They will often just ignore it and proceed as if you've said nothing at all.

VERY TRUE!

And that bothered me for a long time.

Until ...

I watched those Robert Fox seminar videos. He explains EXACTLY WHY this happens -- but not to HIM (once he figured it out).

And it is why I previously said here that it doesn't matter what you say to the judge ... IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONY.

ONLY testimony can be EVIDENCE. Everything else is heresay. And only EVIDENCE (and law and adhering to court rules) can win a case.

When you tell the judge that if it is a civil case then there must be a contract, and you never signed a contract. So what? The judge can pretend you never said it because ... IT IS HERESAY.

OTOH, if you created an affidavit to this set of facts AND you turned it into testimony IN THE COURT ROOM, then that would be a different situation. Then you would have the ONLY evidence in the case, and the judge would have to rule in your favor ... AS A MATTER OF LAW (that he knows the appelate court judges will uphold if he rules against you -- and he could be sanctioned by the judicial review board).

operating in the CAPACITY of a MAN, not a lowly citizen

I take issue with this because the Founding Fathers did not see a citizen as a lowly position. It was the citizens who created the government. Maybe being a "subject" was bad, but a "citizen" was something to be proud of.

"Natural born citizen," after all ...

I said nobody told me that the DL app was a CONTRACT ... It's FRAUD without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Puts the judge up against it to claim otherwise and can really get him in hot water if he tries to persuade you otherwise.

My take is that you should not be debating the judge at all. Our system is an adversarial system. It is you against me. Or the prosecutor against you. The judge is supposed to be a neutral third party, and should not be engaging in this sort of debate in the first place.

Yes, I know that happens all the time, but pointing out that the judge is acting outside of his authority by asking if he is my adversary should get his attention, and should make him think twice about what he is doing.

It should make him think that maybe you know more than he would assume you do, and that you could cause him some trouble if he does not follow his oath of office a little more closely.

You can come back at the judge for furthering a fraud if he somehow tap dances around the fact that the DL app was a contract.

And how EXACTLY are you gonna do that? File an appeal? On what grounds? You have none. No judicial error was preserved on the record for appelate review.

Are you going to sue the judge in a collateral action? If you knew you could do that, you would just get him to violate Due Process because that would be more of a slam dunk.

The judge knows full well it isn't a contract. It's not even debatable. What choice does he/she have once he/she has admitted it isn't a criminal proceeding and you've pointed out there's no contract as a basis for a civil/criminal offense?

He has a very easy out. He just says that the motor vehicle statute says you must not drive above the posted speed limit, and the cop says you did.

No contract needed for a civil lawsuit.

If you are my neighbor and I am playing loud music all night, you can sue me for breach of quiet enjoyment. You are likely to point to a city ordinance against noise.

We never had a contract. Not a written one, anyway. This is under that heading of "social contract" that is promoted by the loonies.

I did have a duty not to interefer with your rights to peace and quiet, especially at night.

BUT ... there was no contract. You could still file a civil lawsuit against me.

Could you or I act as "Counselor at Law" for another without finding ourselves in hot water for "practicing law without a license"

Robert Fox claimed he did that in 5 states. Sat right next to the defendant in the court room.

How? Because the 6th Amendment provides that a defendant has a right to "assistance of counsel" ... NOT to an "attorney at law."

Also, the US Supreme Court had a decision many years ago that practicing law is a common law right and no license can be required.

They do it, but only in violation of law. Who challenges it? Nobody.

A violation of a right that goes unchallenged will stand.

Sleep on your rights and you lose them (at least for that moment). That is also a principle of the common law.

I'd say 99 out of 100 times the person in trouble runs straight to an attorney - game over.

Absolutely. Frederick Graves, inventor of Jurisdictionary and an attorney for many years, said: "If you want to throw your money away, go buy an attorney."

The whole legal realm despises "pro se" (or "sui juris") appearances and makes sure to levy the heftiest fines and penalties possible when such an interloper enters their domain. One wrong step, one minor slip-up and its game over for the rookie/novice/newcomer. The pit of serpents usually finds a way to extract its pound of flesh.

True, but our generation has something that no other generation in human history ever did: the Internet.

We can communicate these ideas and share strategies and experiences.

That has potential to change the game, and clean up the corruption.

Even if Q team succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, We the People will STILL have to stand up and do our part.

Blackstone, who wrote the legal encyclopedia that the Founding Fathers relied on said, "The courts are the theater of the power of the People."

He said nothing about voting.

The Founders' generation were learned in the law, which is what made them "lawyers," even though most had never been to a formal law school.

So my question to you would be, how do we get people interested in this subject who aren't presently in any legal trouble?

The more we talk about it, the more might be open to learning more.

Ideally, we set up a simplified structure for people to learn.

Jurisdictionary is a very good tool for routine civil law cases (you vs. me, but not vs. the government).

When the goverenment becomes the predator, I think that learning where their weakness is in not following the law (i.e. procedure) is probably the key.

I heard someone talking a few years ago (don't remember the name), but he said, "Find the first flaw in their case. Attack that flaw, and do not let go."

By that, he meant that if there is a flaw in their legal paperwork (such as not fulfilling the requirements for the court to obtain SMJ), then do not even discuss the facts (i.e. whether or not I ever signed a contract with the DMV). Focus on that flaw, and that is where you win.

In my traffic ticket case, I never got to trial. I think it is because they were not sure what to do. Maybe they were just "too busy" to spend resources on my case.

But what if 1,000 other people with tickets did the same?

When I refused to settle for $20, I suspect that raised a few eyebrows.

I will never know, but I do think this is the path.

I am enjoying the debate and intellectual challenge.

In that spirit, I think we are mostly in agreement, with some minor differences around the edges.

I do want to drive home the point of Subject Matter Jurisdication, as I think that it is the achilles heel in the entire corrupt legal industry.

I don't think you have this right. The WHOLE POINT of filing notice of SA is to argue they have no jurisdiction. Point being, once you show up GA, you've already tacitly agreed to the diminished serf status and they can and often will walk right over you.

I do not think this is correct.

My understanding is that any court (judge) must have jurisdiction in order to proceed and make any ruling or do anything with regard to any case.

"Jurisdiction" just means the legal authority to act in a judicial capacity. Just because Joe Blow was hired on as a judge and collects a paycheck at the courthouse and wears a black dress and sits on a high chair does NOT mean he has legal authority to act in a judicial capacity in a particular case.

He must have two types of jurisdiction:

• (a) Personal jurisdiction -- legal authority over the parties to a case. He must have legal authorty to make BINDING orders for one party to give evidence to another party, or both parties to show up for a hearing at a specific time and date, etc. The plaintiff/prosecutor grants the court personal jurisdiction by filing the Complaint and asking the court to adjudicate. That is easy.

But the defendant is not easy. He does not want to get sued or criminally prosecuted. He does not really want to cooperate. In order for Joe Blow to have judicial authority over Mr. Defendant, the physical person, the court must have personal jurisdiction. This is obtained when the defendant i served a summons AND shows up in court.

It is at that moment that the judge obtains personal jurisdiction. Now, you are saying that the defendant can show up under Special Appearance only, and not General Appearance, and that will not grant the court personal jurisdiction.

Maybe, but I think a judge can go one of two ways here. You say you are not the person in "ALL CAPS" or are not a "US Citizen," or whatever. The judge will either say that is irrelevant and you have appeared in court (in which case, what are you gonna do, since there is nothing on the record that says otherwise), or the judge can agree that the person being sued/prosecuted did not show up. In which case, the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest. You can believe that when the sheriff (or court bailiff) is given and order to arrest YOU, they will not be asking if your name is in ALL CAPS.

As a practical matter, I don't think it is a good method because it does not get at the heart of the issue. It is an attempt to "play games" as the court/any judge would see it. I know of people who have gotten into worse trouble than they started with doing that.

So, I think it misses the mark, legally.

Besides personal jurisdiction over the parties, a judge also needs:

• (b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction -- legal authority to preside over THIS PARTICULAR CASE. Attorneys get this wrong all the time. They think that any bankruptcy judge can hear any bankruptcy case, any criminal court judge can hear any criminal case, etc., and this is SMJ.

Acutally, that is venue, not SMJ. SMJ is about whether or not the judge has authority to act as a judge in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

And THAT is determined by the pleadings of the parties in the potential case. Why? Because the legislature that created that court (per the Constitution) said so, along with the Supreme Court in their Rules of Court Procedure.

It is the law itself that says so, not an attempt to "play games" as they would likely see it.

The reason SMJ is the achilles heel is because the system has become so corrupt that they no longer respect the rights of the people and what is SUPPOSED to happen. Instead, they take shortcuts to make their own jobs easier.

In the process, they VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.

Violation of Due Process means loss of SMJ, which means the END of the case.

It is a MATTER OF LAW, not a way of trying to play keep-away-from-the-judge.

In other words, they can't hear a word you're saying, regardless of how solid your argument is. They will often just ignore it and proceed as if you've said nothing at all.

VERY TRUE!

And that bothered me for a long time.

Until ...

I watched those Robert Fox seminar videos. He explains EXACTLY WHY this happens -- but not to HIM (once he figured it out).

And it is why I previously said here that it doesn't matter what you say to the judge ... IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONY.

ONLY testimony can be EVIDENCE. Everything else is heresay. And only EVIDENCE (and law and adhering to court rules) can win a case.

When you tell the judge that if it is a civil case then there must be a contract, and you never signed a contract. So what? The judge can pretend you never said it because ... IT IS HERESAY.

OTOH, if you created an affidavit to this set of facts AND you turned it into testimony IN THE COURT ROOM, then that would be a different situation. Then you would have the ONLY evidence in the case, and the judge would have to rule in your favor ... AS A MATTER OF LAW (that he knows the appelate court judges will uphold if he rules against you -- and he could be sanctioned by the judicial review board).

operating in the CAPACITY of a MAN, not a lowly citizen

I take issue with this because the Founding Fathers did not see a citizen as a lowly position. It was the citizens who created the government. Maybe being a "subject" was bad, but a "citizen" was something to be proud of.

"Natural born citizen," after all ...

I said nobody told me that the DL app was a CONTRACT ... It's FRAUD without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Puts the judge up against it to claim otherwise and can really get him in hot water if he tries to persuade you otherwise.

My take is that you should not be debating the judge at all. Our system is an adversarial system. It is you against me. Or the prosecutor against you. The judge is supposed to be a neutral third party, and should not be engaging in this sort of debate in the first place.

Yes, I know that happens all the time, but pointing out that the judge is acting outside of his authority by asking if he is my adversary should get his attention, and should make him think twice about what he is doing.

It should make him think that maybe you know more than he would assume you do, and that you could cause him some trouble if he does not follow his oath of office a little more closely.

You can come back at the judge for furthering a fraud if he somehow tap dances around the fact that the DL app was a contract.

And how EXACTLY are you gonna do that? File an appeal? On what grounds? You have none. No judicial error was preserved on the record for appelate review.

Are you going to sue the judge in a collateral action? If you knew you could do that, you would just get him to violate Due Process because that would be more of a slam dunk.

The judge knows full well it isn't a contract. It's not even debatable. What choice does he/she have once he/she has admitted it isn't a criminal proceeding and you've pointed out there's no contract as a basis for a civil/criminal offense?

He has a very easy out. He just says that the motor vehicle statute says you must not drive above the posted speed limit, and the cop says you did.

No contract needed for a civil lawsuit.

If you are my neighbor and I am playing loud music all night, you can sue me for breach of quiet enjoyment. You are likely to point to a city ordinance against noise.

We never had a contract. Not a written one, anyway. This is under that heading of "social contract" that is promoted by the loonies.

I did have a duty not to interefer with your rights to peace and quiet, especially at night.

BUT ... there was no contract. You could still file a civil lawsuit against me.

Could you or I act as "Counselor at Law" for another without finding ourselves in hot water for "practicing law without a license"

Robert Fox claimed he did that in 5 states. Sat right next to the defendant in the court room.

How? Because the 6th Amendment provides that a defendant has a right to "assistance of counsel" ... NOT to an "attorney at law."

Also, the US Supreme Court had a decision many years ago that practicing law is a common law right and no license can be required.

They do it, but only in violation of law. Who challenges it? Nobody.

A violation of a right that goes unchallenged will stand.

Sleep on your rights and you lose them (at least for that moment). That is also a principle of the common law.

I'd say 99 out of 100 times the person in trouble runs straight to an attorney - game over.

Absolutely. Frederick Graves, inventor of Jurisdictionary and an attorney for many years, said: "If you want to throw your money away, go buy an attorney."

The whole legal realm despises "pro se" (or "sui juris") appearances and makes sure to levy the heftiest fines and penalties possible when such an interloper enters their domain. One wrong step, one minor slip-up and its game over for the rookie/novice/newcomer. The pit of serpents usually finds a way to extract its pound of flesh.

True, but our generation has something that no other generation in human history ever did: the Internet.

We can communicate these ideas and share strategies and experiences.

That has potential to change the game, and clean up the corruption.

Even if Q team succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, We the People will STILL have to stand up and do our part.

Blackstone, who wrote the legal encyclopedia that the Founding Fathers relied on said, "The courts are the theater of the power of the People."

He said nothing about voting.

The Founders' generation were learned in the law, which is what made them "lawyers," even though most had never been to a formal law school.

So my question to you would be, how do we get people interested in this subject who aren't presently in any legal trouble?

The more we talk about it, the more might be open to learning more.

Ideally, we set up a simplified structure for people to learn.

Jurisdictionary is a very good tool for routine civil law cases (you vs. me, but not vs. the government).

When the goverenment becomes the predator, I think that learning where their weakness is in not following the law (i.e. procedure) is probably the key.

I heard someone talking a few years ago (don't remember the name), but he said, "Find the first flaw in their case. Attack that flaw, and do not let go."

By that, he meant that if there is a flaw in their legal paperwork (such as not fulfilling the requirements for the court to obtain SMJ), then do not even discuss the facts (i.e. whether or not I ever signed a contract with the DMV). Focus on that flaw, and that is where you win.

In my traffic ticket case, I never got to trial. I think it is because they were not sure what to do. Maybe they were just "too busy" to spend resources on my case.

But what if 1,000 other people with tickets did the same?

When I refused to settle for $20, I suspect that raised a few eyebrows.

I will never know, but I do think this is the path.

I am enjoying the debate and intellectual challenge.

In that spirit, I think we are mostly in agreement, with some minor differences around the edges.

I do want to drive home the point of Subject Matter Jurisdication, as I think that it is the achilles heel in the entire corrupt legal industry.

I don't think you have this right. The WHOLE POINT of filing notice of SA is to argue they have no jurisdiction. Point being, once you show up GA, you've already tacitly agreed to the diminished serf status and they can and often will walk right over you.

I do not think this is correct.

My understanding is that any court (judge) must have jurisdiction in order to proceed and make any ruling or do anything with regard to any case.

"Jurisdiction" just means the legal authority to act in a judicial capacity. Just because Joe Blow was hired on as a judge and collects a paycheck at the courthouse and wears a black dress and sits on a high chair does NOT mean he has legal authority to act in a judicial capacity in a particular case.

He must have two types of jurisdiction:

• (a) Personal jurisdiction -- legal authority over the parties to a case. He must have legal authorty to make BINDING orders for one party to give evidence to another party, or both parties to show up for a hearing at a specific time and date, etc. The plaintiff/prosecutor grants the court personal jurisdiction by filing the Complaint and asking the court to adjudicate. That is easy.

But the defendant is not easy. He does not want to get sued or criminally prosecuted. He does not really want to cooperate. In order for Joe Blow to have judicial authority over Mr. Defendant, the physical person, the court must have personal jurisdiction. This is obtained when the defendant i served a summons AND shows up in court.

It is at that moment that the judge obtains personal jurisdiction. Now, you are saying that the defendant can show up under Special Appearance only, and not General Appearance, and that will not grant the court personal jurisdiction.

Maybe, but I think a judge can go one of two ways here. You say you are not the person in "ALL CAPS" or are not a "US Citizen," or whatever. The judge will either say that is irrelevant and you have appeared in court (in which case, what are you gonna do, since there is nothing on the record that says otherwise), or the judge can agree that the person being sued/prosecuted did not show up. In which case, the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest. You can believe that when the sheriff (or court bailiff) is given and order to arrest YOU, they will not be asking if your name is in ALL CAPS.

As a practical matter, I don't think it is a good method because it does not get at the heart of the issue. It is an attempt to "play games" as the court/any judge would see it. I know of people who have gotten into worse trouble than they started with doing that.

So, I think it misses the mark, legally.

Besides personal jurisdiction over the parties, a judge also needs:

• (b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction -- legal authority to preside over THIS PARTICULAR CASE. Attorneys get this wrong all the time. They think that any bankruptcy judge can hear any bankruptcy case, any criminal court judge can hear any criminal case, etc., and this is SMJ.

Acutally, that is venue, not SMJ. SMJ is about whether or not the judge has authority to act as a judge in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

And THAT is determined by the pleadings of the parties in the potential case. Why? Because the legislature that created that court (per the Constitution) said so, along with the Supreme Court in their Rules of Court Procedure.

It is the law itself that says so, not an attempt to "play games" as they would likely see it.

The reason SMJ is the achilles heel is because the system has become so corrupt that they no longer respect the rights of the people and what is SUPPOSED to happen. Instead, they take shortcuts to make their own jobs easier.

In the process, they VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.

Violation of Due Process means loss of SMJ, which means the END of the case.

It is a MATTER OF LAW, not a way of trying to play keep-away-from-the-judge.

In other words, they can't hear a word you're saying, regardless of how solid your argument is. They will often just ignore it and proceed as if you've said nothing at all.

VERY TRUE!

And that bothered me for a long time.

Until ...

I watched those Robert Fox seminar videos. He explains EXACTLY WHY this happens -- but not to HIM (once he figured it out).

And it is why I previously said here that it doesn't matter what you say to the judge ... IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONY.

ONLY testimony can be EVIDENCE. Everything else is heresay. And only EVIDENCE (and law and adhering to court rules) can win a case.

When you tell the judge that if it is a civil case then there must be a contract, and you never signed a contract. So what? The judge can pretend you never said it because ... IT IS HERESAY.

OTOH, if you created an affidavit to this set of facts AND you turned it into testimony IN THE COURT ROOM, then that would be a different situation. Then you would have the ONLY evidence in the case, and the judge would have to rule in your favor ... AS A MATTER OF LAW (that he knows the appelate court judges will uphold if he rules against you -- and he could be sanctioned by the judicial review board).

operating in the CAPACITY of a MAN, not a lowly citizen

I take issue with this because the Founding Fathers did not see a citizen as a lowly position. It was the citizens who created the government. Maybe being a "subject" was bad, but a "citizen" was something to be proud of.

"Natural born citizen," after all ...

I said nobody told me that the DL app was a CONTRACT ... It's FRAUD without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Puts the judge up against it to claim otherwise and can really get him in hot water if he tries to persuade you otherwise.

My take is that you should not be debating the judge at all. Our system is an adversarial system. It is you against me. Or the prosecutor against you. The judge is supposed to be a neutral third party, and should not be engaging in this sort of debate in the first place.

Yes, I know that happens all the time, but pointing out that the judge is acting outside of his authority by asking if he is my adversary should get his attention, and should make him think twice about what he is doing.

It should make him think that maybe you know more than he would assume you do, and that you could cause him some trouble if he does not follow his oath of office a little more closely.

You can come back at the judge for furthering a fraud if he somehow tap dances around the fact that the DL app was a contract.

And how EXACTLY are you gonna do that? File an appeal? On what grounds? You have none. No judicial error was preserved on the record for appelate review.

Are you going to sue the judge in a collateral action? If you knew you could do that, you would just get him to violate Due Process because that would be more of a slam dunk.

The judge knows full well it isn't a contract. It's not even debatable. What choice does he/she have once he/she has admitted it isn't a criminal proceeding and you've pointed out there's no contract as a basis for a civil/criminal offense?

He has a very easy out. He just says that the motor vehicle statute says you must not drive above the posted speed limit, and the cop says you did.

No contract needed for a civil lawsuit.

If you are my neighbor and I am playing loud music all night, you can sue me for breach of quiet enjoyment. You are likely to point to a city ordinance against noise.

We never had a contract. Not a written one, anyway. This is under that heading of "social contract" that is promoted by the loonies.

I did have a duty not to interefer with your rights to peace and quiet, especially at night.

BUT ... there was no contract. You could still file a civil lawsuit against me.

Could you or I act as "Counselor at Law" for another without finding ourselves in hot water for "practicing law without a license"

Robert Fox claimed he did that in 5 states. Sat right next to the defendant in the court room.

How? Because the 6th Amendment provides that a defendant has a right to "assistance of counsel" ... NOT to an "attorney at law."

Also, the US Supreme Court had a decision many years ago that practicing law is a common law right and no license can be required.

They do it, but only in violation of law. Who challenges it? Nobody.

A violation of a right that goes unchallenged will stand.

Sleep on your rights and you lose them (at least for that moment). That is also a principle of the common law.

I'd say 99 out of 100 times the person in trouble runs straight to an attorney - game over.

Absolutely. Frederick Graves, inventor of Jurisdictionary and an attorney for many years, said: "If you want to throw your money away, go buy an attorney."

The whole legal realm despises "pro se" (or "sui juris") appearances and makes sure to levy the heftiest fines and penalties possible when such an interloper enters their domain. One wrong step, one minor slip-up and its game over for the rookie/novice/newcomer. The pit of serpents usually finds a way to extract its pound of flesh.

True, but our generation has something that no other generation in human history ever did: the Internet.

We can communicate these ideas and share strategies and experiences.

That has potential to change the game, and clean up the corruption.

Even if Q team succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, We the People will STILL have to stand up and do our part.

Blackstone, who wrote the legal encyclopedia that the Founding Fathers relied on said, "The courts are the theater of the rights of the People."

He said nothing about voting.

The Founders' generation were learned in the law, which is what made them "lawyers," even though most had never been to a formal law school.

So my question to you would be, how do we get people interested in this subject who aren't presently in any legal trouble?

The more we talk about it, the more might be open to learning more.

Ideally, we set up a simplified structure for people to learn.

Jurisdictionary is a very good tool for routine civil law cases (you vs. me, but not vs. the government).

When the goverenment becomes the predator, I think that learning where their weakness is in not following the law (i.e. procedure) is probably the key.

I heard someone talking a few years ago (don't remember the name), but he said, "Find the first flaw in their case. Attack that flaw, and do not let go."

By that, he meant that if there is a flaw in their legal paperwork (such as not fulfilling the requirements for the court to obtain SMJ), then do not even discuss the facts (i.e. whether or not I ever signed a contract with the DMV). Focus on that flaw, and that is where you win.

In my traffic ticket case, I never got to trial. I think it is because they were not sure what to do. Maybe they were just "too busy" to spend resources on my case.

But what if 1,000 other people with tickets did the same?

When I refused to settle for $20, I suspect that raised a few eyebrows.

I will never know, but I do think this is the path.

I am enjoying the debate and intellectual challenge.

In that spirit, I think we are mostly in agreement, with some minor differences around the edges.

I do want to drive home the point of Subject Matter Jurisdication, as I think that it is the achilles heel in the entire corrupt legal industry.

I don't think you have this right. The WHOLE POINT of filing notice of SA is to argue they have no jurisdiction. Point being, once you show up GA, you've already tacitly agreed to the diminished serf status and they can and often will walk right over you.

I do not think this is correct.

My understanding is that any court (judge) must have jurisdiction in order to proceed and make any ruling or do anything with regard to any case.

"Jurisdiction" just means the legal authority to act in a judicial capacity. Just because Joe Blow was hired on as a judge and collects a paycheck at the courthouse and wears a black dress and sits on a high chair does NOT mean he has legal authority to act in a judicial capacity in a particular case.

He must have two types of jurisdiction:

• (a) Personal jurisdiction -- legal authority over the parties to a case. He must have legal authorty to make BINDING orders for one party to give evidence to another party, or both parties to show up for a hearing at a specific time and date, etc. The plaintiff/prosecutor grants the court personal jurisdiction by filing the Complaint and asking the court to adjudicate. That is easy.

But the defendant is not easy. He does not want to get sued or criminally prosecuted. He does not really want to cooperate. In order for Joe Blow to have judicial authority over Mr. Defendant, the physical person, the court must have personal jurisdiction. This is obtained when the defendant i served a summons AND shows up in court.

It is at that moment that the judge obtains personal jurisdiction. Now, you are saying that the defendant can show up under Special Appearance only, and not General Appearance, and that will not grant the court personal jurisdiction.

Maybe, but I think a judge can go one of two ways here. You say you are not the person in "ALL CAPS" or are not a "US Citizen," or whatever. The judge will either say that is irrelevant and you have appeared in court (in which case, what are you gonna do, since there is nothing on the record that says otherwise), or the judge can agree that the person being sued/prosecuted did not show up. In which case, the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest. You can believe that when the sheriff (or court bailiff) is given and order to arrest YOU, they will not be asking if your name is in ALL CAPS.

As a practical matter, I don't think it is a good method because it does not get at the heart of the issue. It is an attempt to "play games" as the court/any judge would see it. I know of people who have gotten into worse trouble than they started with doing that.

So, I think it misses the mark, legally.

• (b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction -- legal authority to preside over THIS PARTICULAR CASE. Attorneys get this wrong all the time. They think that any bankruptcy judge can hear any bankruptcy court, any criminal court judge can hear any criminal case, and that is SMJ.

Acutally, that is venue, not SMJ. SMJ is about whether or not the judge has authority to act as a judge in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

And THAT is determined by the pleadings of the parties in the potential case. Why? Because the legislature that created that court (per the Constitution) said so, along with the Supreme Court in their Rules of Court Procedure.

It is the law itself that says so, not an attempt to "play games" as they would likely see it.

The reason SMJ is the achilles heel is because the system has become so corrupt that they no longer respect the rights of the people and what is SUPPOSED to happen. Instead, they take shortcuts to make their own jobs easier.

In the process, they VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.

Violation of Due Process means loss of SMJ, which means the END of the case.

It is a MATTER OF LAW, not a way of trying to play keep-away-from-the-judge.

In other words, they can't hear a word you're saying, regardless of how solid your argument is. They will often just ignore it and proceed as if you've said nothing at all.

VERY TRUE!

And that bothered me for a long time.

Until ...

I watched those Robert Fox seminar videos. He explains EXACTLY WHY this happens -- but not to HIM (once he figured it out).

And it is why I previously said here that it doesn't matter what you say to the judge ... IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONY.

ONLY testimony can be EVIDENCE. Everything else is heresay. And only EVIDENCE (and law and adhering to court rules) can win a case.

When you tell the judge that if it is a civil case then there must be a contract, and you never signed a contract. So what? The judge can pretend you never said it because ... IT IS HERESAY.

OTOH, if you created an affidavit to this set of facts AND you turned it into testimony IN THE COURT ROOM, then that would be a different situation. Then you would have the ONLY evidence in the case, and the judge would have to rule in your favor ... AS A MATTER OF LAW (that he knows the appelate court judges will uphold if he rules against you -- and he could be sanctioned by the judicial review board).

operating in the CAPACITY of a MAN, not a lowly citizen

I take issue with this because the Founding Fathers did not see a citizen as a lowly position. It was the citizens who created the government. Maybe being a "subject" was bad, but a "citizen" was something to be proud of.

"Natural born citizen," after all ...

I said nobody told me that the DL app was a CONTRACT ... It's FRAUD without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Puts the judge up against it to claim otherwise and can really get him in hot water if he tries to persuade you otherwise.

My take is that you should not be debating the judge at all. Our system is an adversarial system. It is you against me. Or the prosecutor against you. The judge is supposed to be a neutral third party, and should not be engaging in this sort of debate in the first place.

Yes, I know that happens all the time, but pointing out that the judge is acting outside of his authority by asking if he is my adversary should get his attention, and should make him think twice about what he is doing.

It should make him think that maybe you know more than he would assume you do, and that you could cause him some trouble if he does not follow his oath of office a little more closely.

You can come back at the judge for furthering a fraud if he somehow tap dances around the fact that the DL app was a contract.

And how EXACTLY are you gonna do that? File an appeal? On what grounds? You have none. No judicial error was preserved on the record for appelate review.

Are you going to sue the judge in a collateral action? If you knew you could do that, you would just get him to violate Due Process because that would be more of a slam dunk.

The judge knows full well it isn't a contract. It's not even debatable. What choice does he/she have once he/she has admitted it isn't a criminal proceeding and you've pointed out there's no contract as a basis for a civil/criminal offense?

He has a very easy out. He just says that the motor vehicle statute says you must not drive above the posted speed limit, and the cop says you did.

No contract needed for a civil lawsuit.

If you are my neighbor and I am playing loud music all night, you can sue me for breach of quiet enjoyment. You are likely to point to a city ordinance against noise.

We never had a contract. Not a written one, anyway. This is under that heading of "social contract" that is promoted by the loonies.

I did have a duty not to interefer with your rights to peace and quiet, especially at night.

BUT ... there was no contract. You could still file a civil lawsuit against me.

Could you or I act as "Counselor at Law" for another without finding ourselves in hot water for "practicing law without a license"

Robert Fox claimed he did that in 5 states. Sat right next to the defendant in the court room.

How? Because the 6th Amendment provides that a defendant has a right to "assistance of counsel" ... NOT to an "attorney at law."

Also, the US Supreme Court had a decision many years ago that practicing law is a common law right and no license can be required.

They do it, but only in violation of law. Who challenges it? Nobody.

A violation of a right that goes unchallenged will stand.

Sleep on your rights and you lose them (at least for that moment). That is also a principle of the common law.

I'd say 99 out of 100 times the person in trouble runs straight to an attorney - game over.

Absolutely. Frederick Graves, inventor of Jurisdictionary and an attorney for many years, said: "If you want to throw your money away, go buy an attorney."

The whole legal realm despises "pro se" (or "sui juris") appearances and makes sure to levy the heftiest fines and penalties possible when such an interloper enters their domain. One wrong step, one minor slip-up and its game over for the rookie/novice/newcomer. The pit of serpents usually finds a way to extract its pound of flesh.

True, but our generation has something that no other generation in human history ever did: the Internet.

We can communicate these ideas and share strategies and experiences.

That has potential to change the game, and clean up the corruption.

Even if Q team succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, We the People will STILL have to stand up and do our part.

Blackstone, who wrote the legal encyclopedia that the Founding Fathers relied on said, "The courts are the theater of the rights of the People."

He said nothing about voting.

The Founders' generation were learned in the law, which is what made them "lawyers," even though most had never been to a formal law school.

So my question to you would be, how do we get people interested in this subject who aren't presently in any legal trouble?

The more we talk about it, the more might be open to learning more.

Ideally, we set up a simplified structure for people to learn.

Jurisdictionary is a very good tool for routine civil law cases (you vs. me, but not vs. the government).

When the goverenment becomes the predator, I think that learning where their weakness is in not following the law (i.e. procedure) is probably the key.

I heard someone talking a few years ago (don't remember the name), but he said, "Find the first flaw in their case. Attack that flaw, and do not let go."

By that, he meant that if there is a flaw in their legal paperwork (such as not fulfilling the requirements for the court to obtain SMJ), then do not even discuss the facts (i.e. whether or not I ever signed a contract with the DMV). Focus on that flaw, and that is where you win.

In my traffic ticket case, I never got to trial. I think it is because they were not sure what to do. Maybe they were just "too busy" to spend resources on my case.

But what if 1,000 other people with tickets did the same?

When I refused to settle for $20, I suspect that raised a few eyebrows.

I will never know, but I do think this is the path.