150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

1. Plan
2. Equip
3. Rehearse
4. Execute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

They did,,unknowingly but I did a little search on Supreme Court rulings, jurisdiction can be challenged any time, even on appeal. And there is no statute of limitations. Its late, I am going to sleep. Tomorrow I will search for some cases and post them.

---

Challenge Jurisdiction
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.


"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.


A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).


"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).


"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.


"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.


"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).


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


"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)


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


"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.


"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.


"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.


"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.


"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.


"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." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.



"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.



"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.


"The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void.


Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn't exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. ...without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be "sovereign." At best, to proceed would be in "excess" of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State's/ USA 's cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government's cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).

http://www.abodia.com/court/files/Challenge%20Jurisdiction.htm

I have seen and previously cited those same quotes on Jurisdiction and I have also seen where the court just ignores the challenge to its jurisdiction and proceeds to run over the person.

In the Kent Hovind case, Paul Hansen had forwarded a letter of notice of conflict of interest for which they convicted him of contempt of court. The court just said the time was past when he could challenge jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

I have seen and previously cited those same quotes on Jurisdiction and I have also seen where the court just ignores the challenge to its jurisdiction and proceeds to run over the person.

In the Kent Hovind case, Paul Hansen had forwarded a letter of notice of conflict of interest for which they convicted him of contempt of court. The court just said the time was past when he could challenge jurisdiction.

---

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach them how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here. I have all the trappings of authority over you so there. If you don't like it I'll talk even more sternly to you and have my bailiff whap your peepee."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnight rambler

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here."

---

Apparently there is remedy for that as well by filing a claim against the judge in his or her personal capacity. But before getting that far you should be going after the prosecutor in his or her personal capacity (There is no such thing as public immunity in common law).

My brother had challenged jurisdiction (He was using Marc Stevens methods) and the judge ignored all documentation and found him guilty when he couldn't even find the paperwork. He said he didn't want to pursue it anymore (it had gone on for over 6 months by this point) so he just paid his fine.

I would of kept going and charged the judge for violating his oath of presuming innocents and rendering judgement without jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I would of kept going

---

Instead you file article III in the supreme court where the case will be filed until the (un)civil war gets settled and a true article III court can sit to hear it. Expect to be long dead by that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palani

Instead you file article III in the supreme court where the case will be filed until the (un)civil war gets settled and a true article III court can sit to hear it. Expect to be long dead by that time.

---

They did not disband common law courts. I wouldn't even bother trying to get an Article III court to hear the case for the exact same reasons you stated so why bother even pursuing that avenue? Filing a claim against "John Smith" (The judge in this case) puts him into a position of being a defendant and you aren't going after his office, but him personally. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this, you would then be in the position of plaintiff and they in the position of defendant. The Judge is then regulated to the status of a referee and the jury has final say (when demanding a court of record) which is not subject to an appeal. The court building is nothing more than Public property it is you who creates the court. Use your 7th Amendment right using the claims process, filing complaints gets you no where.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnight rambler

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach them how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here. I have all the trappings of authority over you so there. If you don't like it I'll talk even more sternly to you and have my bailiff whap your peepee."

---

Thanks for providing the fact you don't research and instead listen to conspiracy.

Represetative Walden's speech in Congress last night

Hot air

http://www.c-span.org/video/?402734-...tandoff-oregon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2

Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men


BURNS, OREGON (The Borowitz Report)—A majority of Oregonians favor building a twenty-foot wall along the border of their state to prevent angry white men from getting in, a poll released on Monday shows.


The survey indicates that Oregonians are fed up with irate male Caucasians pouring into their state and bringing with them guns, violence, and terrorism.


“This used to be such a nice state,” said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a pro-wall lawmaker. “Since the angry white men came here, parts of it are unrecognizable.”


But even as support for the Oregon wall grows, critics of the proposal say that it does nothing to address the fact that there are already thousands of angry white men living in the state.


Those critics favor forcibly removing the angry white men through mass deportations and resettling them elsewhere, possibly in Texas.
While some argue that the deportation of angry white men would separate them from their families, others believe that their families would be O.K. with seeing them go.

---

Well, then I propose Oregon build a direct train line from all inner cities (Detroit, LA, Miami, Chicago, etc.) to Oregon to displace all the "angry white men".