Standing in living status as Man and Woman

Jurisdiction is the Key
Your jurisdiction determines your “standing”, or your lack of “standing”

jurisdiction

A man or woman who “acts” in “joinder” to a legally generated “artificial person” created and controlled by the state has “legal status” in the Admiralty/Maritime/Commercial Jurisdiction – the international “Law of the Sea”

1. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders.
2. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999)

Legal Jurisdiction over a man/woman derives from consent to contract into legal fiction commerce. If there is no valid contract, there is no jurisdiction. The legal system pertains to the fictional theatre of “artificial persons”. When a man or woman consents to “act” in “joinder” to an “artificial person”, they cease to “live” in their “private capacity” “possessing unalienable rights and properties” and volunteer to “act” in a “public capacity” “granted revocable privileges and benefits”. Entering the legal system is by contract, or “legalisation”, usually via: “registration”, “licensing”, “certification”, “securitization”, or “general deposit”. In the legal fiction system, consent to contract can be presumed by “silent acquiescence”, unless a “man” or “woman” “rebuts the presumption” of “joinder” to an “artificial person”. All “artificial persons” are created legally without any inherent “productive capacity” and are therefore “debtors” by default and “limited liability” entities. They function as “transmitting utilities” to transmit “human energy” into commerce. Living people “energize” legal fiction commerce, knowingly, or unwittingly by deception, which is fraud

A man or woman who “lives” naturally in their sovereign body possessing all their unalienable rights and powers has “lawful standing” in the Common Law Jurisdiction – the national “Law of the Land”

Lawful Jurisdiction over man/woman derives from causing unreasonable harm to a living soul. If there is no human victim, there is no jurisdiction. The law pertains to the real world of living men and women. Lawful jurisdiction is subject to the “due process” of the Common Law whereby no crime is attributable to a man or woman unless they cause “intentional and measurable” harm to another man or woman, not reasonably caused by self defense. To prove a crime of harm there must be an “injured party” willing and able to “swear under oath” to the facts of that harm, “upon penalty of perjury” in a properly convened de jure “Court of Record” (Common Law court with a jury of one’s peers), or witness testimony equally-bound, or irrefutable evidence. In any detention/seizure/arrest, the accuser must have “probable cause” and/or a “reasonable suspicion” that the accused is committing, or is about to commit, a crime against a human victim. The accuser bears the burden of proof. Any forced detention/seizure/arrest without a human victim, by any Public Servant, is coercion, duress, treason, and a breach of their Oath and fiduciary duty as Trustee

No legal or lawful matter can proceed without jurisdiction

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

“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.” See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. And Maxfield’s Lessee v. Levy, 4 US 308

“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

“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910

Only you can challenge jurisdiction when you do not consent

A simple jurisdictional challenge can quickly stop any legal matter:

“As the Director and Beneficiary of my legal person/corporation/trust, I give you 21 days to respond in writing providing proof of claim with evidence as to your legal or lawful jurisdiction over me, failing which you will become liable for any damages I may suffer.”

Memorise this powerful sentence, or keep a note of it

You can say this to legal actors face-to-face, or write it on their legal “offer” document (any legal ticket, fee, penalty, tax, summons etc.). This removes their presumption of jurisdiction and places the burden of proof on the claimant where it belongs. You may need to do this three times, adding “I do not consent to proceed until your jurisdiction is proven with evidence.” Legal actors in commerce do not have legal or lawful jurisdiction so they will be evasive. When they fail to respond you can serve a notice of default for the record. You can also charge them for any damages you suffer, although do not expect them to be honourable

Rebut the Presumption
The presumption of “joinder” to the “artificial person” NAME causes living men and women to unwittingly become the “surety” for the corporate debt of YOURNATION (INC.) in a global system of debt-money bondage

All legal person actors operate on assumptions and presumptions, whether they are serving an incorporated government, a known corporation, or an “administrative court”. When presenting claims (presentments) in commerce, face-to-face or by post, they make the “presumption” that you are “acting” in “joinder” to the “artificial person” NAME. Jurisdiction is attached to the NAME, so when you rebut the presumption they have no jurisdiction and cannot proceed. Any further action is fraudulent

Presumption n. a rule of law which permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance (greater weight) of evidence which disproves or outweighs (rebuts) the presumption. Each presumption is based upon a particular set of apparent facts paired with established laws, logic, reasoning or individual rights. A presumption is rebuttable in that it can be refuted by factual evidence. One can present facts to persuade the judge that the presumption is not true

To rebut the presumption it is only necessary to verify the facts

When a legal person actor presents an alleged claim by post, you should respond within three (3) working days, following a legal/lawful written process of “conditional acceptance” upon verification of the alleged claim. See Conditional Acceptance

When a legal person actor presents an alleged claim face-to-face, it is important to remain calm, polite, and reasonable, because legal person actors, especially those who are your public servants, are routinely trained to expect submission and compliance

Here are some examples of rebuttal verbiage following a process of identification, verification, and declaration. Such a complete process is seldom necessary. These steps may be used in part as appropriate:

1/ Identify with whom you deal
“Who are you?” Get their full name, job title, public ID details, and their full address for registered/signature required mail. If a court is involved, get their insurance bond number with which you can potentially make a claim for damages. You have the right to make a video, a voice recording, or take notes

2/ Confirm whom they seek
“Who is the claim against?” Unless they are seeking a living man or woman for an alleged crime against a potential or actual injured party, there is no valid claim. Remember that as a man or woman in your living private capacity, you are not a dead legal fiction NAME, nor should you answer to such a thing

3/ Verify the injured party
“Who is the injured party?” There can be no valid claim against you as a living man or woman unless another living man or woman has been injured (harmed) by you and is willing to come forward to verify their claim against you, under penalty of perjury, accepting their full commercial liability. Who are they? Where are they? What is their injury?

4/ Decline their contract offer
“I don’t consent to your contract offer.” Every claim presented by a legal person actor to a living man or woman is an offer of contract into legal fiction commerce through “joinder” to the legal fiction NAME

5/ Declare your living standing
“For and on the record, I am a living man/woman, and that is my only capacity in this matter. I reserve all my rights waiving none, including my right to remain silent, without prejudice.” This declares your living standing, avoids the presumption of consent by silent acquiescence, and prevents anything from you, written or verbal, from being used against you in COURT

6/ Invoke their Oath of Office
“I accept your Oath of Office and bind you to it. I remind you of your fiduciary duty, and I extend to you my sovereign immunity while you carry out my orders.” (Now politely issue whatever orders provide a remedy.) This is for your Public Servant Trustees, including any Officer of the Law, whether on the highway or in the courtroom, when they are breaching their fiduciary duty by causing you harm. This is especially powerful when directed at a Judge

SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of “wrong party” defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a person’s proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th Amendment; also 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. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: colorado National Monument Superintendent’s Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.
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/she may be an officer or a third party, but 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 injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they 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, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
   “The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend.” Simon v Craft, 182 US 427.
   “one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)
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.
   Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant’s duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge 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, informations are 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.
   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. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424

“JURISDICTION. The word is a term of large and compre­hensive import, and embraces every kind of judicial action. Federal Land Bank of Louisville, Ky. v. Crom-bie, 258 Ky 383, 80 S.w.2d 39, 40. It is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases. Board of Trustees of Firemen’s Relief and Pension Fund of City of Marietta v. Brooks, 179 Okl. 600, 67 P.2d 4, 6; State v. True, Me., 330 A.2d 787. The legal right by which judges exercise their authority. Max Ams, Inc. v. Barker, 293 Ky. 698, 170 S.w.2d 45, 48. 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. United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother, 342 Mo. 1155, 119 S.w.2d 762, 765; Harder v. Johnson, 147 Kan. 440, 76 P.2d 763, 764. Power and authority of a court to hear and determine a judicial proceeding. In re De Camil-lis’ Estate, 66 Misc.2d 882, 322 N.Y.S.2d 551, 556. the right and power of a court to adjudicate concerning the subject matter in a given case. Biddinger v. Fletcher, 224 Ga. 501, 162 S.E.2d 414, 416.

Areas of authority; the geographic area in which a court has power or types of cases it has power to hear.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. (1979), p. 766, Title “Jurisdiction.”

The last paragraph of this definition is somewhat of a misnomer and relates technically to venue and not jurisdiction (e.g. the geographical area in which the court has power or types of cases it has power to hear.).

The definition of jurisdiction appearing in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed. (1859) is much more comprehensive and inform­ative.

JURISDICTION, practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a “judge or magistrate, to take cogni­zance of. and decide cases according to law. and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction.

1. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, & c., C, et seq.; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2.
2. Jurisdiction is original, when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is called original jurisdiction; (g.v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the judgment of another court. Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of a criminal nature; or crJLmJLnaI, where the court is to punish crimes. Some courts and magistrates have both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is also concurrent, exclu­sive, or assistant. Concurrent jurisdiction is that which may be entertained by several courts. It is a rule that in cases of concurrent jurisdictions, that which first seized of the case shall try it to the exclusion of the other. Exclusive jurisdiction is that which has alone the power to try or determine the suit, action, or matter in dispute. Assistant jur.isd.ict.ion is that which is afforded by a court of chancery, in aid of a court of law; as, for example, by a bill of discovery, by the examination of witnesses de Jbene esse, or out of the jurisdiction of the court; by the perpetuation of the testimony of witnesses, and the like.
3. It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes IN. 7 M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J.J. Mash. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Lift. 303; Kirby, 111; I Breese, 32; 2 Yerg 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdic­tion. he may waive the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W.C.C.R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213.
4. Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear upon the record. 5 Cranch, 172; Pet. C.C.R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86; 11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; j verm. il4; io Conn. 514; 4 John 292; 3 Yerg. 355; Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267. But the legislature may, by a general or special law, provide otherwise. Pet. C.C.R. 36. Vide 1 Salk. 414; Bac. Ab. Courts, & c.,C,D; Id. Prerogative, E 5; Merline Rep. h. t.; Ayl. Par. 317, and the art. Competency.
   As to the force of municipal laws beyond the territorial juris­diction of the state, see Wheat, Intern. Law, part 2, c.2, § 7 et seq.; Story, Confl. of Laws. c. 2; Huberus, lib. 1, t. 3; 13 Mass. R. 4; Pard. Dr. Corn. part. 6, t. 7, c. 2, § 1; and the articles Conflict of Laws; Courts of the United States. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t. 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 683, 8th Ed. (1859), title “Jurisdiction.”

The above definition also confuses venue with jurisdiction where it speaks of the “territorial jurisdiction” of a judge. What Bouvier calls territorial jurisdiction should technically be defined as a part of venue.

The important points of the Bouvier’s definition of juris­diction above concern courts of limited or special jurisdiction.

Courts having statutory jurisdiction, as opposed to general jurisdiction conferred by constitution, are courts of limited or special jurisdiction and the facts which prove their jurisdiction must appear on the face of the record of such tribunals.

Also notice that the Bouvier’s definition is only speaking of courts of judicial power where it is talking about “constitu­tionally conferred” powers.

Jurisdiction ”in personam” means jurisdiction of the person when the court is hearing a case where the judgment rendered will be against the person as opposed to property.

“IN PERSONAM. Against the person. Action seeking judgment against a person involving his personal rights and based on jurisdiction of his person, as distin-ginRhiad from a judgment against property (i.e. in rem) type of jurisdiction or power which a court may acquire over the defendant himself in contrast to jurisdiction over his property.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. (1979), p. 711, Title “In personam.”

“IN PERSONAM, remedies. A remedy in personam is one where the proceedings are against the person, in con­tradistinction to those which are against specific things, or in rem (q.v.) 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2646.” 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 615, 8th Ed. (1859), title “In Persona”.

In order for a court to render a judgment against a person the court must have obtained jurisdiction of the person by some means.