THE 7 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

THE 7 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION LAW AND POLITICS

THE 7 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

Specifically, before an individual can be charged and convicted with a crime, the government official or agency must prove jurisdiction.

In fact, jurisdiction is almost never even addressed.   But to win, jurisdiction MUST be challenged by the individual, and if challenged successfully, the case is dismissed.

 There are seven elements of jurisdiction, all of which must be proved by the prosecution if challenged. If not challenged, it will ALWAYS be assumed by the court that competent jurisdiction is proved and accepted by all parties. If any element of the seven is not proven on the record, the case must be dismissed.

If jurisdiction is to be successfully challenged, it must be at the commencement of proceedings, but it can be challenged at any time. To allow the trial to continue at all is to admit to jurisdiction. Below are the seven issues of jurisdiction in any and every court case. Remember, if any one of these seven are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the case cannot continue.

 

1. The accused must be properly identified; identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity.   For stop and identify issues (4th Amendment) see Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.

 

2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient.   In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law. Indictment or information is defective unless every fact, which is an element in a prima facie case of guilt, is stated. The assumption of an element is not lawful. Otherwise, the accused will not be thoroughly informed. It is the judge’s job to assure that justice is accomplished.

 

3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.

 

4. The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a third party. Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse. Some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injuredparty (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that he heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.

 

5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.

 

6. To comply with the five elements above, that is, for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom. All political dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.

 

7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (Article III judge). Without the limiting factor of a court of competent jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty being imposed at any bureaucrat’s whim. It is conceivable that the procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.

 

   The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue of personal jurisdiction. The seventh element (also element #2) addresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by acts controlled by law; territorial jurisdiction attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court and to any trans-jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties (extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial long-arm statutes).

 

SUMMING UP the LAW and the POLITICS

 

   Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, andcharge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, information is being filed and prosecuted by “accepted practice” rather than due process of law.

 

   See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called “wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to see a copy of “regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules”; Also Canons 1 through 9.

 

   Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)

   Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See: McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

 

NOTE: The only way such questions jurisdiction will have force and effect is if the general public becomes aware and concerned with justice being based upon law and not just policy based on a facade of law.

Thomas Hobbes

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*