One of the things we need to do to get to a voluntary society, is to relentlessly attack the false presumption of legitimacy people called “governments” still enjoy. As long as enough people believe they are some kind of moral authority, then they will continue to exploit that and keep forcing us to give them money. That’s why I want to address two common lies told by lawyers, judges in particular: 1. that jurisdiction is a trial issue, and 2. jurisdiction is an issue of law, not fact. If you are attacked and have to go to court, challenge jurisdiction and you’ll hear one or both of these lies.
Now, you should immediately notice a serious contradiction with the two lies. Yes, if jurisdiction is an issue of law, then why would it be a trial issue when trials are for issues of fact? They are liars, just not very good liars.
So you get to court for an initial appearance, remember you’re forced to appear or a warrant for your arrest will be issued “authorizing” the use of deadly force to get you in there. The judge is under the impression the prosecutor has already presented evidence to support his argument the court has jurisdiction. If not, why else would they be forcing you to appear? Why else would he give a police officer a
arrest death warrant if he didn’t believe he had jurisdiction?
You challenge jurisdiction by asking: “Has the prosecution presented any facts to support his argument the court has any jurisdiction over me? The judge refuses to answer, saying this is an arraignment, we’re only taking pleas. He may lie insisting he has jurisdiction and enter a plea for you, again lying that you are refusing to plea. Most likely, when you ask for the facts proving jurisdiction, the judge will say:
Jurisdiction is a trial issue.
They may “good cop” you and say things like you have every right to challenge the prosecutor at trial, but when you get to trial, they will lie again saying, “Sorry, jurisdiction is a pretrial issue.” And if you don’t like it, appeal it. They are a funny bunch of psychopaths aren’t they?
Jurisdiction, from the moment it’s asserted against you, is subject to challenge. That is why the unsigned plea of guilty is so effective, it cuts out the the lie that jurisdiction is a trial issue. If there is jurisdiction to force a plea, then there must be evidence proving there is jurisdiction and that is subject to challenge. Just because these lawyers wear black robes and call themselves “honorable” doesn’t mean they are not liars. The fact they can lie with impunity is not lost on them, they lie constantly, as do all politicians.
To prove this is a lie, all we need to do is look at what politicians and bureaucrats do when a complaint is filed against them; I like using the ACLU v. NSA 493 F.3d 644 case as an example. Did the NSA have to go to trial in order to challenge jurisdiction? No, of course not and why? Because jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and should be challenged as soon as it is asserted.
Can you imagine all those complaints filed against IRS agents having to go to trial before jurisdiction could be addressed? How about complaints against judges and prosecutors? It would be nice if they had to also go to trial to raise jurisdiction issues, such as immunity from suit.
We can also prove it by showing demurs and motions to dismiss are pre-trial pleadings. So when some black robed attorney snaps at you that jurisdiction is a trial issue, you snap back:
Objection, that’s not true and you know it. If I filed a complaint against you, then you’d file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Yes, judges lie, they lie all the time. Get used to it, it makes it easier to defend yourself when you know about everything judges say is a lie. When any truth comes out it is usually irrelevant.
Just as important, there is the issue about the jurisdiction of the agency who did the investigation and filed the complaint. Way before any trial, the cop on the street or the IRS agent ordering you to come to their office for interrogation, there must be jurisdiction over you. Jurisdiction is not just an issue for the courts, it applies to every government agency. Ask them, they’ll tell you.
So cops and low level bureaucrats are making legal determinations there is jurisdiction over you; they are insisting the constitution and laws apply because we’re physically in Arizona. Again, that is an argument, not a statement of fact, and is subject to challenge.
So the claim jurisdiction is a trial issue? I think all reasonable people can see there is no merit to it.
Next, this is another big, though common lie, the standard:
Jurisdiction is an issue of law, not of fact.
This is pure garbage, it’s lawyer speak for: we can’t support the argument. Because that’s all it is, an argument, a claim put forth by a cop and, or prosecutor.
It rests on the false argument that if you’re physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws apply to you. I have plenty of objective records showing they cannot provide any facts to prove their argument is true; there are no facts and no rational basis. This is not a philosophical issue here, I’ve done a tremendous amount of investigatory work to confirm everything on three continents. When a cop argues the court has jurisdiction, he is arguing the constitution and laws apply to me because I’m physically in Arizona and the court has jurisdiction over me.
That is an argument, a claim. As with any argument, it must be supported by facts and logic. Otherwise, you have an unprovable, subjective claim. There is a Latin phrase for this:
vox et preterea nihil “Voice and nothing more; that is, nothing but wind.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1354.
Or the more common “Because I said so”. My argument is right because I said so, and other lawyers also said so. When you claim other lawyers “said so”, the technical word is “precedent.” It makes lawyers feel superior and that they have valid arguments. It looks like this:
The constitution and laws apply to you because you are physically in Arizona.
Why is that argument true, what facts is it based on?
No facts or logic, it’s not provable objectively, you must take our word for it, it’s true because we say so.
Just because you say so?
Well, other lawyers said so also.
Judges spew this this lie to cover for the prosecutor because the prosecutor’s argument has no support, there are no facts and no logic. Don’t buy into the double-standard fallacy either, that the argument there is jurisdiction is somehow different than other arguments, it’s not. Look at the NSA case above, it was tossed out because the ACLU could not provide any facts to support their argument the court had jurisdiction, only a “well-founded belief”. See only prosecutors get a free pass to use a belief instead of facts:
You’re honor of course this court has jurisdiction, I believe the courts have already ruled on this issue.
Such dishonesty is accepted if the one making the argument is a prosecutor. Put forth your own belief and see what happens. Sir, I have a well-founded belief the court does not have jurisdiction.
DENIED! Pay the clerk on your way out you guilty bastard.
So when you hear these lies from the lawyers, object and call them on it. Jurisdiction, once asserted against you, is just an argument and is subject to challenge, it is not only an issue for trial. As with any argument, it must be proven with facts and logic, it’s not just an issue of subjective opinion.
If they force you into their proceedings, then expose them for the criminals they are. Hopefully you can expose them in front of a crowded room so their would-be victims can see who the real criminals are.
[For some reason youtube is not letting me post videos over fifteen minutes, the claim is I’ve posted “spam”. So this video had to be cut into two parts, that’s why it was not posted on Sat. after the show.]