Man declares sovereignty, challenges jurisdiction of court

While I was in town court today on my own matter, I witnessed something I never thought I would see. I wish I had a video camera, and more details actually, because it would have certainly been a hit piece here on ATS.

When the man was called forth, he challenged the judge to produce evidence that he had the authority to hear the case against, this "flesh and blood man." The judge was not sure at all how to proceed. He kept baiting the man with various questions, but the man only replied with lines like, "You have not answered my question Judge," and "You have a serious jurisdictional problem here Judge."

And by the way, he didn't even approach the bench where the lawyers were standing. Instead, he stood at one end of the center aisle, and shouted his responses across the courtroom.

The ADA told the judge to have the man locked up for psychological evaluation, to which the Judge replied, "We already did that. He's been found competant." All they could do was tell the man when to be back in court.

Afterward, I overheard the Judge confide to the town police officer who stands in at court, "I really don't know how to proceed with this. He makes every appearance."

So what really gets my goat here, is that this man was locked up in a psych ward for expressing the rights that everyone else seems to have forgotten. I wish I had been there the day this guy first popped off with this challenge to the court. I would have loved to see the look on the Judge's face.

I guess the Judge has some homework to do. Too bad for the defendant though, he didn't do all of his. This town court happens to be the only one I know of that does not have the gold-fringed national flag.

I like the story, assuming the validity (no offense), but I fail to see what his point was, even if it was a federal judge? Sorry, I feel up on my "rights" but not sure what this means...

reply to post by jasonjnelson

---

It means that he can't use this excuse as his defense:

www.apfn.org...

reply to post by jasonjnelson

---

All courts in the US are corporate entities operated by officers of the BAR. They only have jurisdiction over incorporated US Citizens, as identified by their given name printed in all capital letters and by their SS number. Not over sovereign persons. Your identity is a straw man, and you act as the chief officer of your own corporation. If you choose not to act as that officer, you are not bound to the obligations nor are you entitled to the privileges.

But of course I am not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice in any way.

Here's another thread i started which touched on some of this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

EDIT to add: No offense taken.

[edit on 5/21/0808 by jackinthebox]

Very interesting. I really do wonder from where an individual believes they get their authority to lord over another human being, if not by outright force.

I have a suspicion that those people who exercise "power" over others are really just people who are terribly afraid of being weak... so their actions are merely attempts are reassuring themselves that they have some measure of control in this world.


Are we not equal? Perhaps the defendant should lecture the judge on how to live, or decide punishment.


Certainly there are some rules we need to agree on. But at the same time, who decides?

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ianr5741]

reply to post by ianr5741

---

Well, it used to be the Constitution that decided, a long time ago. Now it's up to cops, judges, and lawyers, to decide arbitrarily. Whatever their own interpretation is of what is in the best interest of the public.

Take something as seemingly well within your rights, such as body gesture. If you look at someone the wrong way, a cop can arrest you for it, and legally claim that he had reason to believe you were making a threat, or trying to intimidate someone.

A cop can always find a reason to arrest you if they want to. I actually saw someone get a ticket one time, because their window inspection sticker was out of place by a centimeter, and the inspection stations are the ones that put it in, not the owner/operator.

On the note of cops being able to find reasons to arrest you, I was informed by a local politician here the other day that Pennsylvania actually has a "windshield wiper law" that states if it's overcast and you're driving, your wipers have to be set to "medium speed."

No idea if it's true, but if it is, it really highlights that point.

Anyways, so if this man is "sovereign," does that mean that he can claim diplomatic immunity? Does it mean that normal Constitutional rights don't apply to him?

reply to post by mattifikation

---

In New York State, you have to turn your headlights on when it rains. As far as having your wipers on when overcast, I would protest on the grounds that it could damage the blades riding across a dry windshield and be an unnecessary disraction as well.



In a sense. He does not recognize the juristiction of the court which can make him immune from prosecution in that court. Courts in the US today are not sovereign courts of the people. They are a corporate enterprise operated by officers of the BAR Association, under military authority. That is why the people can't elect judges who aren't lawyers who have been admitted to the BAR. And this is why a friend who happens to know a lot about the law can't represent you in court, for example.



No, it means normal Constitutional rights don't apply to you, or to anyone else having a case heard in that court. You only have "civil" rights, which is not really the same thing at all, though we are led to believe that it is.

He is invoking his Constitutional rights.

Courts can't prosecute you as a person. They can only prossecute and/or judge your corporate non-sovereign identity. You just so happen to be the sole agent of that identity, which is designated today by your SS number and given birth name printed in all capital letters. They prosecute you as an agent of your corporation, not as a sovereign person, because they can't prosecute a sovereign.





[edit on 6/14/0808 by jackinthebox]

Another good thread that re-enforces what this is all about is right here. From this thread you can gain an idea of what this man is upholding...That the Federal Government is not operating under Constitutional Jurisdiction & cannot bind American Citizens under Unconstitutional laws, some of which are discussed in that linked thread. That thread will also give you some good starting points on how to research & learn how to untangle this deception.


The thread I linked above contains links to some of the legal info to support what you've said here.
One such reason is that graduates of the BAR are given "foriegn titles" (such as Esquire, for example) Such a lawyer is strictly prohibited by the Constitution by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8:

Take note that at no time has Congress enacted any legislation to counter that clause & are Constitutionally prohibited from doing so on any large scale...This can only be granted on a case-by-case basis, due to the use of the phrase "No Person holding..."


Actually, it means the exact opposite, because it's the Federal Government (including the Supreme Court) that's not operating under Constitutional Jurisdiction! He's upholding his Constitutional Right not to be tried by a foreign legal entity (ie: the Federal Government as a whole).


Near the bottom of your linked-source, it mentions something about the "missing 13th Amendment." There has been extensive investigation into this issue & more info about it appears here.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Actually. I think the "entitlement" clause you have cited (link doesn't work by the way,) is from the "missing" 13th Amendment.

And lest anyone forget:

From a section in our very own "United States Code":

15) "United States" means -
(A) a Federal corporation;


Title 28, Section 3002

Wouldnt they then put you under "John Doe" if you didnt go by a given name?

When I was in court they never referred to me by any name. Not the name I stated for the record. I mean, doesnt it not matter what name or no name you go by aslong as the court directs it's questions to the "Defendant" or lawyers client? Everyone in the court room is in the know of who the defendant and particular lawyer's client is based upon what side they are sat on.

The judge askes the Lawyer something like will your client or the defendant be testifying?

All that talk about not going by a name in all capital will do nothing for whoever is the person treated as a defendant.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Mabus]

reply to post by Mabus

---

No, because "John Doe" is not a corporate entity which they have juristiction over. Your name printed in all caps along with your SS number are the identifiers. They cannot sanction something they have no juristiction over.

If you are robbed by someone with brown hair, they can't just prosecute some person with brown hair. Identification must be made.

EDIT to add: That is actually the crux of this man's declaration in fact. That the court has not properly identified him as a living man, which they have no authority over. They are attempting to identify him as an agent of his own corporate identity.


[edit on 6/15/0808 by jackinthebox]

I don't have anything to ad other than courts continually squash people who get before them. The united states court system is maritime admiralty law. Thats according to Jordan Maxwell in his video Occult World of Commerce pt 1.

YouTube Link

what about UCC 1-207.4? regarding jurisdiction etc...?
If he was forced to sign a citation or documents that mandates his appearance in court or charged with a crime, complaint or other? Questions such as; What is he in court for? What court is the hearing before?
Could you view the docket for that court on that day and determine the case number for more info? It would be great to have details of what brought him in front of a Judge in the first place...
Interesting nonetheless.

Which is why, when I'm trying to avoid that specific definition, I use "States United." As far as "legal definitions" go, this is the usage to indicate non-incorporated States as a non-incorporated Union. This usage also includes the fact that upholds what sovereinty the States actually have under the Constitution.



Actually, this much of your statement is more true than I thought...Up until last night. Check out this thread, which shows some diligence in researching Black's Law Dictionary to be a hoax! "capitus diminutio" is not a valid legal term.


You're quite correct in that the UCC only determines jurisdiction over those who submit to Commercial Law, which is distinctly separate from Constitutional Law...As far as I know, there's only one way to appear in a commercial/maritime court & still uphold Constitutional Rights is that, whenever you're forced to sign any document whatsoever that could get you dragged in there, you need to include these phrases next to your signature: "Under Duress" & "All Rights Reserved UCC 1-207 & UCC 1-203."

You should use these phrases, even when it comes time to register your car & get it licensed...And even when you sign your own driver's license too! Every time you try to get a bank loan, for any reason!...Aw, hell...Anytime at all except perhaps when you sign your name on a personal letter to a friend.

Another side note...When you fill out the names & addresses on the envelop, never use the two-letter designation for your State because that indicates to the Federal Mail that your State has been "incorporated" under Federal Jurisdiction. I think that the zip code also indicates something like that too, but I'm not certain from the top of my memory.

The "under duress" means that you signed your name under the "duress" of being systematically but unjustly harassed by authorities if you didn't sign your name...The other phrase invokes the UCC codes that cover the "remedies" & "recourse" under UCC law that still protects your Constitutional Rights.

In all cases where I state something that has even a hint of legal information in my posting, I urge you to not take my word for it but to research it yourselves & consult a Constitutional Lawyer (if you can find one ).

reply to post by imd12c4funn

---

I wish I knew, but it must have been something serious enough to have him remanded to an intstitution temporarily to determine his psychological stability. I also believe there may have been some bail invloved. But he was free to walk out of court that day, with the judge not knowing how to proceed and setting a new appearance date. The judge also commented that the man had made every ordered appearance, so I gather that this has been going on for some time.



A local town court.



His was actually the last case to be called, so there was no one else in the courtroom really. I don't think this was done on accident, so I don't think the court will be very forthcoming with any requests for information. I didn't catch the guys name either. I walked in just after he was called, sort of in the middle of all this. I had to talk to my lawyer who was still there, and had come back with some paperwork to give her. That's the only reason I was there.

I really do wish I had more details about the case, and of course how it was/is/will be resolved.

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

---

The zip code does indeed demarcate a Federal district, specifically for the purposes of taxation by the IRS.



Important note here, but please do not construe this is legal advice. Lawyers are members of the BAR. Their allegiance to the BAR and the integrity of the court supersedes the Constitution and the needs of their client, regardless of whatever oaths may be cited to misdirect you from this fact. In other words, if you try to get a lawyer to represent you along the lines that this man is trying to persue, you'll get double-crossed. Or at the very least they will tell you that you can't do that.

Most lawyers are...But perhaps I should have specified looking for a lawyer that practices Common Law, because it's directly related to Constitutional Law. BTW, there are a few of these working in Washington D.C. for those all too rare occurrences when our...cough...cough...esteemed leaders...hack...hack...decide they need Constitutional advice.

That's why the man never stepped fully into the courtroom...Doing so indicates that he's willingly putting himself into foreign jurisdiction so that they can refer to him any way they wish.


It would have been more help if he'd asked the local newspaper to send a reporter with him to court...At least some details would come out for the enlightenment of the general public.

Perhaps a better way to CYA anywhere within the "injustice system" may be to write up one or more affidavits to aid in the defense of your Rights.