It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
CHALLENGES TO THE COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS CAN START
1. A. Your Honour and the prosecutor have taken oaths of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and that of this state. Is that correct?
B. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths, in the performance of your official duties, including those before this Honourable Court. Is that correct?
2. I, John R. Doe, hereby notify this Honourable Court that I am a living, breathing, natural-born American Citizen, with, and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the federal and state Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled in upper and lower case letters, not as it appears on the court documents.
Originally posted by nivekronnoco
Yeah...that's a great idea...
you should totally do it.
Originally posted by derickonfire
From my experience with judges (nothing major, but a lot of small violations) he would just get mad and sentence you to the maximum fine/ penalty - which he probably wouldn't have done otherwise.
It would then be up to you to get a damn good lawyer to sue on the grounds of an illegal hearing.
Originally posted by derickonfire
From my experience with judges (nothing major, but a lot of small violations) he would just get mad and sentence you to the maximum fine/ penalty - which he probably wouldn't have done otherwise.
It would then be up to you to get a damn good lawyer to sue on the grounds of an illegal hearing.
Challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to loose! If they attempt to tell you that you can't question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!
"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.
"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.
Originally posted by kaspermartyrphantom
7. A. Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state that is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?