The Scam of Alleged Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction. A term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action. It is the power of the court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties. Jurisdiction defines the powers of courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions, and declare judgment. The legal right by which judges exercise their authority. It exists when court has cognizance of class of cases involved, proper parties are present, and point to be decided is within powers of court. Power and authority of a court to hear and determine a judicial proceeding; and power to render particular judgment in question. The right and power of a court to adjudicate concerning the subject matter in a given case. The term may have different meanings in different contexts.
Areas of authority; the geographic area in which a court has power or types of cases it has power to hear.
Scope and extent of jurisdiction of federal courts is governed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1251 et seq.
(Black's law Dictionary, 6th Ed, Abdg)
Just what are ALL of the presuppositions that are being made about the defendant that might possibly be the basis for inferring that jurisdiction actually exists over him or her? If we do not know with 100% certainty what they are, then how can we possibly proceed onward from that point? How can we have any amount of certainty that we are not being treated unfairly in the legal system? Are we to just leave our concerns at the courthouse steps and trust in a crooked judiciary to treat us fairly and honestly? That's quite a lot of trust to put in a system that has proven itself time and again to be exactly the opposite of those ideals.
There have been court cases where the so-called judges have refused to hear any arguments from the defendants about a lack of jurisdiction. One judge totally railroaded a man and threatened him with jail time if he didn't agree to stop badgering the so-called judge about his lack of jurisdiction in a case. This scum wrapped in a black robe would only say that he did have jurisdiction but offered up no proof of same. So it comes down to who has more guns and is more intimidating, the people who get sucked into the legal system or the ones who run the legal system for a profit? Apparently, no one has thought to demand an answer at the very beginning, to the question of exactly what silent judicial notice was being taken by the court and if it was valid to do so or not. Herein lies the rub, for without bona fide jurisdiction being firmly established at the VERY BEGINNING of any court procedure, all that comes later is just more fraud and lies built upon earlier fraud and lies. Where does it all end? Where does it all begin? Think about this long and hard, please.
If these so-called judges do in fact have a bona fide jurisdiction over the people, then why won't they just simply tell us up front where it comes from? Is it really that hard to say? Or, is it more a matter of that they don't want us to know the truth, that they have no lawful jurisdiction over us and never have? Lawful is NOT the same thing as legal, so please don't now confuse the two terms or think that they are equal. Would exposure of the facts then ruin their game of extracting time, wealth and property from the victims of the legal system?
There is this thing which is referred to as The Federal Zone, and it is a complete fraud, scam, artifice, which Americans have been made a victim of since 1940 with the passage of the Buck Act. We don't even have to characterize it as massive fraud (which it surely is) in order to vacate it. The reason why is because there is a maxim of law which states that fraud vitiates ALL that it comes into contact with. The fraud doesn't need to be thoroughly stirred into the mix of ingredients, it only needs to just touch it in the slightest degree or amount to nullify the entire thing. Why is that? It's because it's completely impossible to be able to measure in any way how much fraud is allowable and how much is too much. There is no weight scale, measuring stick, container or anything else that can measure out an acceptable amount of fraud consistently so that each man or woman receives their just amount, no more and no less. And once fraud has been shown to have occurred, then all bets are off. The alleged crime or breach of the alleged contract is vacated at the instant that any aspect of fraud on the part of the plaintiff has been exposed. It is as if it had never existed in the first place or ever occurred!! By what line of logic and reasoning can it be otherwise? It is because of the utter simplicity of fraud canceling everything which it contacts that so many people miss it entirely. It's right there out in the open, but no one sees it because they weren't taught how to recognize it. People aren't taught how to think in the public fool system.
Most people are taught to look only for the complexities in life and to ignore the things that are simple. Quite often, the simple truths in life seem to be the most powerful ones. Maybe that's why we have the saying about "out of the mouths of babes". Babies are usually seen to be simple, innocent things, not yet jaded or worldly, so they are more able to see what's right before them for what it is.
In the definition of jurisdiction, we see several words within it that are clues to the wise and wary. Wise to the fact that words have more than one meaning, and that the intent of what is written depends to a great degree upon which meaning of the words used is intended. This is why Voltaire said that if someone wanted to debate with him, that they would first have to define their terms. For how can there be a real debate, meaningful dialog, if all of the meanings of the terms are not in agreement? One is saying one thing, and the other party thinks that another thing is being meant. This would result in utter confusion and chaos. In mathematics and its sister subject logic, exact and precise definitions of each term are known and agreed upon and they are strictly adhered to at all times. If they are not, then no progress can be made. The need for such a strict confine for other subjects is not seen to be very great, but it surely is!! Is this perhaps a major reason for all of the unrest in the world? If it's not a major reason for so much chaos in the world, then what else can it be? As to the other point, we need to be wary enough to look for these things with probing questions that have been sharpened fine enough so as to pierce even the thickest of veils placed upon anything. The piercing of these veils of secrecy which hide things from our view is of the utmost importance. These lances touch that which others wish to remain untouched. The reason is because they derive some kind of profit from them being hidden from the rest of the world.
Who is able to decree how much fraud someone may commit and how much fraud we must endure? From where do they get that kind of power and authority? Who died and made THEM God?