No fictitious entity, has jurisdiction over people. Fictitious entities are merely ink on paper. The court would not have been able to prove it, because there is already case law that upholds the fact that the court cannot have jurisdiction over people, since "we the people" are sovereign having the same authority as kings. The reason for challenging jurisdiction is people are human beings and human beings having natural rights, not to be confused with civil rights, are not subject to any equity court jurisdiction. The prosecutor would have had to have people who was wronged by the so called defendant.
A crime is only committed when one of the people "commits" a crime against another one of the people. A crime is not committed when a statute has been "violated" by a people, because statutes do not apply to people, they only apply to "citizens" and other fictitious entities , such as licensed companies. Of course, people, being sovereigns, have the right to subject themselves to anyone or any thing they so desire.
Another reason that the "government" does not have jurisdiction over people is just about every government entity in the united kingdom incorporated. According to the bank of England, government corporations do not have any more authority granted them in their originating charter. As a corporation, they waive whatever sovereignty they had prior to their incorporation.
The law provides that once Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven, Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided, there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.
A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking, burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction, if the issue is presented in any way the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon him who invokes it, When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted, no officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril.
Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities.
They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal.
They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers, 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, a court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.
No comments:
Post a Comment