Many people charged with crimes or sued subject themselves to the courts jurisdiction, when the court did not have jurisdiction prior to the people being charged or sued giving it jurisdiction. When courts are in session, the courts jurisdiction may be common law, admiralty (maritime) law or equity law. If a people is in court, the jurisdiction should be common law (except in the case of Louisiana which practices napoleonic law). The court does not announce this to anyone when the court commences procedures at the beginning of its sessions. If you do not challenge the courts jurisdiction, the court presumes it has jurisdiction and you have just subjected yourself to the court voluntarily.
A perfect example of this is the case of Irwin Schiff. Irwin Schiff is labeled a tax protester by many people on both sides of the argument. He has been convicted at least twice for breaking income tax laws. During his last trial, he was not permitted to present evidence for his case to the jury. The judge, Kent Dawson, actually told him and his lawyer why, stating, “In my court I am the law.” The court that Judge Dawson was presiding over that day was an equity court, not a common law court. In a common law court, Judge Dawson would have been required to allow the defense to present case law and United States code that the court did not allow during this latest trial. It should also be noted that, according to the transcript, Schiff was not sworn in before his testimony. Since, signing a Form 1040 is testimony that the signer is a federal officer, if Schiff had been sworn in, he would have been brought up on perjury charges since his signing the form would have contradicted his testimony in the court that he is not a federal officer. The perjury trial would have exposed this little fact thus bringing the fact into the light of day for all to observe.
Schiff’s mistake was in not challenging the courts jurisdiction over him, a people. People are not subject to statutes in a republic, because a republican form of government protects people from having their rights taken by popular vote.
If Schiff had challenged jurisdiction, 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 a people, since “we the people” are sovereign having the same authority as kings.
The reason for this challenge 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 a 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 states of America incorporated. According to Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 904 904 (1824) 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 following are just a small sample of the many cases that uphold the requirement that anytime jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven.
- 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 once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
- “…there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215
- “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.” Bradbury v. Dennis, 310 F.2d 73 (10th Cir. 1962)
- The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416
- …if the issue is presented in any way the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon him who invokes it. Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188
- 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.” Melo v. United States, 505 F. 2d 1026
- 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
- No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril.” Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608
- 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. Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828)
- 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