Subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction

[who wants to know?]

it all hangs on that? so what do you say to the judge,. i don't grant subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction!, repeat to any question a judge asks until you carted off to the mental home?

[komurchu]

By simply bringing yourself to court you are granting smj. The idea is to not recognise any of it. When you are dragged in and your name is called you simply ask the judge "are you addressing me?" upon his response or the very next words from his lips you state "I object", when asked the nature of your objection you ask "is it civil or criminal".....civil-there must be a signed contract, criminal -there must be an injured party/complainant.
At the end of the day its all about your conduct. I personally know 5 guys who have walked out of court using this process. Keep it simple and forget about affidavits of truth,nouicor, magnacarta hibernica etc,stc,etc.

[who wants to know?]

So just to re-cap what komurchu has been saying on two similar threads......

.

Don't recognize anything of the government, anything its all fictional bullshit. Obviously never carry any government ID of any kind, licenses etc, you may have them but don't carry them around with you.

.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (SMJ)

.

Never ever go to court or you have there by already granted SMJ, so the government agents will come and take you away from your home and drag you before a judge for the said 'crime'........

.

When 'your' name is called you simply ask the judge "are you addressing me?"

.

Upon his response or the very next words from his lips you state "I object".

.

When asked the nature of your objection you ask "is it civil or criminal?".....

.

CIVIL - There must be a signed contract. You state that you recall signing no such contract, show me the said signed contract.

.

CRIMINAL - There must be an injured party/complainant. you ask the judge if he has a complaint against you. which he doesn't unless you did harm.

.

Walk out the door....

.

At the end of the day its all about your conduct. you at no stage pay any attention to what any other man or woman may say to you in the courtroom be they clerk, prosecutor or anyone as this would recognize them and grant SMJ. Remember it is between you and the judge.

[Eamonn O Brien]

Hello there, I've been looking at Dean Clifford's videos and he;s very good and clear...If a summons is sent to your house and you dont go to court you're entering into a dishonorable position. Anyone can go to court its a public court. There's more to it than just objecting to the judge calling the name. The name he's calling is the legal title that you are privileged to represent should you want to. You have to make this clear to the judge that you understand the difference. Otherwise he might put the case down as a no show and they'll pull you out of your bhouse with a bench warrant... Once you establish who the accused is and that you're the benefiary to that title you have informed the court that they are the trustee...If they want you to represent the title you can charge the state money to do so cos at the end of the day they just wanna do some business with the title. The same way you can get a solicitor to represent you in court, a solicitor isn't representing you they're claiming liability for the title, but solicitors operate under limited liability so they pass the buck onto you when the judge makes his judgment via a fine etc...

Appearing in court is all about title and who you are representing in court. You dont have to say john of the doe family or that. You just have to clarify what title the judge is referring to when he calls the case. State for the record your given birth name is John for example. Thats all you gotta say, who else has the authority to tell you thats not your name? No one.

Ive only ever had run ins with the guards while in my car. The road traffic act states that it applies to people working in public service or to vehicles owned by the state. So if they can prove you were representing the title by conducting public business when stopped they can charge you with any provision of that act. They can prove this by a payslip from your job which states you pay tax. Or by signing on each week...So its a case of declaring your well capable of looking after yourself, you dont need the state spoon feeding ya anymore, give them back their PPS card and cancel the number til further notice. No ties to acts apply...Ya can roll down the street smokin indo sippin on gin n juice all ya want, provided your respecting other people rights of course :)

Love a good rant I do...

who wants to know? said:

So just to re-cap what komurchu has been saying on two similar threads......

.

Don't recognize anything of the government, anything its all fictional bullshit. Obviously never carry any government ID of any kind, licenses etc, you may have them but don't carry them around with you.

.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (SMJ)

.

Never ever go to court or you have there by already granted SMJ, so the government agents will come and take you away from your home and drag you before a judge for the said 'crime'........

.

When 'your' name is called you simply ask the judge "are you addressing me?"

.

Upon his response or the very next words from his lips you state "I object".

.

When asked the nature of your objection you ask "is it civil or criminal?".....

.

CIVIL - There must be a signed contract. You state that you recall signing no such contract, show me the said signed contract.

.

CRIMINAL - There must be an injured party/complainant. you ask the judge if he has a complaint against you. which he doesn't unless you did harm.

.

Walk out the door....

.

At the end of the day its all about your conduct. you at no stage pay any attention to what any other man or woman may say to you in the courtroom be they clerk, prosecutor or anyone as this would recognize them and grant SMJ. Remember it is between you and the judge.

[Howard Crane]

To be honest I'm waiting for the slightest bit of evidence that either approach to abduction actually gets the desired result.
And it's kinda up to the people who say these things to back them up with such evidence because right now it just looks like two apposing suggestions from two complete strangers on how to deal with a life-threatening scenario - who do we believe? The Existentially dirempt piece of crap or the guy who watched a few Youtube videos?

If I were a reasonable Human Being, going by the contents of this thread, I'd take the fine or jail time in the ass.

[Eamonn O Brien]

Watch Dean Clifford, T4TT exclusive...Do your own research on it all then. I haven't stopped learning since I did. I was arrested 3 weeks ago for not giving my address to a guard cos Id no NCT. I was pulled out of my car and infront of a judge within 2 hrs...I eventually backed down cos I had plans that night and dint wanna be in clover hill over the weekend. I signed the bail recognisance and the judge asked me if I was receiving social welfare payments, I said yes and he said well then just sign it...So it clicked with me then that obviously the fact that I'm asking them for help via the dole they can enforce whatever law they want on me...

Howard Crane said:

To be honest I'm waiting for the slightest bit of evidence that either approach to abduction actually gets the desired result.
And it's kinda up to the people who say these things to back them up with such evidence because right now it just looks like two apposing suggestions from two complete strangers on how to deal with a life-threatening scenario - who do we believe? The Existentially dirempt piece of crap or the guy who watched a few Youtube videos?

If I were a reasonable Human Being, going by the contents of this thread, I'd take the fine or jail time in the ass.

[Marcus of the clan De Bruin]

The key here, is that the first person posting is right. You cannot recognise the court. It is correct that silence is the dishonorable response. But remember a summons is an invitation. It is not a court order. You are being invited to attend. As soon as you appear in court, be you acknowledging your name or not, no matter how you introduce yourself, you are granting SMj.

If you get a summons in the post, it will be different from others. Don't open it.

Write the following on the envelope: Return to Sender. I do not recognise you. I do not understand your intent. It is not my will or wish to contract. I do not have an international treaty with you. No assured value. No liabitly. Return to sender.

The only time you ever turn up in a court room is if you are dragged there, kicking and screaming, under duress and threat of force. Maybe don't kick or scream. In fact never resist arrest. Just state you are nonviolent but you do not consent. In any event, avoid going to court unless you are forced to go. A summons is always an invitation. If you return the summons unopened with that text the judge cannot do anything. They cannot claim jurisdiction with returned unopened summonses with that text. The above is entertainment information, I don't give legal advice. I'd never do that to anyone.

[who wants to know?]

[Marcus of the clan De Bruin]

Awesome video, but it is for US constitution perspective. That said, it only needs to be tweaked for Irish courts. I am willing to work with anyone willing to work with me to put together the Irish response. By the way thank you Who wants to know. Great content. who wants to know? said:

[who wants to know?]

if you could make that video relevant to the irish system it would be a well worth it, i was laughing at the comments under it and they are giving out about the frog but for some reason our though process can take education about law easier from an animated frog than another human being, i didnt yawn once in the many times ive watched it so id have to agree with them.

 

Let me know if you need any help with the video animation and i would help for sure, but the actual wording tweeks required would best come from the people on here who can regurgitate all the relevant law and constitutuion information at ease.

Marcus of the clan De Bruin said:

Awesome video, but it is for US constitution perspective. That said, it only needs to be tweaked for Irish courts. I am willing to work with anyone willing to work with me to put together the Irish response. By the way thank you Who wants to know. Great content.
who wants to know? said:

 

 

[komurchu]

that video is rubbish and very misleading. When referring to a civil action he states that in a case that is civil in nature there must be a complaint against you.....couldnt be more wrong.
From the off he has granted SMJ by simply recognising the court.
Pure and utter tripe.

[who wants to know?]

Im just asking questions here......

 

if you dont recognise the court the why would you even ask the question about civil or criminal, is that not recoginsing the court? i dont recognise this court full stop. anything there after is recognising the court, no?

 

in civil cases they have jurisdiction in the following

 

Civil matters

Local jurisdiction

A District Court cannot hear a case that has not been commenced in the correct District Court area. The case must be brought, heard and decided in the District Court area:

• Where the defendant or one of the defendants ordinarily resides or    carries on any profession, business or occupation

Or

• If the plaintiff chooses,

  - in proceedings based on contract, where the contract was made

  - in proceedings based on tort (e.g., personal injuries actions), where    the tort is alleged to have been committed

  - in proceedings to eject a person from lands or property, where the    lands or property in question is located

 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/district...

so from above can a judge reply 'civil' ? and still be holding the a civil court for more than just breaking a contract that your asking for?                     

 

so asking for a sworn complaint from an injured party or contract in a civil matter seems logical as they claim jurisdiction for injured parties in a non crimnal cases also, i know your saying you dont recognine the court but you have by asking the question of if its civil or criminal, your asking the same questions here only he seems to have more meat and bones for the obvious line of questioning a judge is going to continue with when you go down this route.

 

komurchu said:

that video is rubbish and very misleading. When referring to a civil action he states that in a case that is civil in nature there must be a complaint against you.....couldnt be more wrong.
From the off he has granted SMJ by simply recognising the court.
Pure and utter tripe.

[komurchu]

whatever man......the main problem with all the freeman bullshit is that it overcomplicates things at every turn.