The Legal Deceptions - Always CHALLENGE JURISDICTION. "Where a court failed to observe constitutional safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." - canadian government conspiracies

Go to content

The Legal Deceptions - Always CHALLENGE JURISDICTION. "Where a court failed to observe constitutional safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris."

Home
The Legal Deceptions!
last revised October 14, 2019
   
There is no court left standing in Canada where there in not a member of the self-governing bar association representing 2 of the 3 constitutionally required independent branches of government in the proceeding with their victims caught in the middle! As is well known the first duty of a bar member is to the bars' administrative law not the rule of law!

LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS ARE NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW THE NATURE OF LAWYER-CRAFT IN AMERICA AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239)
 
The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))
 
The "CERTIFICATE" from the State ONLY authorizes, to practice Law "IN COURTS" As a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND (SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)
 
"CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!
 
The "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!! It is a "UNION DUES CARD". The "BAR" is a "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION";
No other association, EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own license. ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE STATE.
 
The State Bar is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION - and dues must be current to sustain membership.
 
The State Bar is; an unconstitutional Monopoly. AN ILLEGAL Et CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE;
 
There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive within a state as the BAR is attempting. BAR members have invaded all branches of government and are attempting to control de jure government as agents of a foreign entity which is treason under the constitutions rule of law!
 
It is quite simple to see that a great fraud and conspiracy has been perpetrated on the people of Canada.

"A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an unconstitutional law, and thus, an offense created by an unconstitutional statute, is no longer a crime and a conviction under such statute cannot be a legal cause for imprisonment." State v. Benzel, 583 N.W.2d 434, 220 Wis.2d 588 (1998)
 
The Bar is the only one that can punish or disbar a Lawyer.
 
The people must stop thinking that lawyers are better than they are and can do a better job than they can before the courts.

Under the Common Law, no where is it expressly given for anyone to have the power or the right to form a Corporation.
 
Corporations are given birth because of ignorance on the part of the Canadian people and are operating under implied consent and power which they have usurped and otherwise stolen from the people. By RIGHT AND LAW THEY HAVE NO POWER, AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION, and must be put out of business by the good Citizens of Canada in their fight for FREEDOM
 
The Canadian Constitution GUARANTEES to every state in this Dominion a common law government. Any other form of government is FORBIDDEN except in Quebec.  
 
When the courts belong to the people, as the Canadian Constitution REQUIRES! We the people, would NEVER rule against ourselves.
 
In these unconstitutional courts, foreign tribunals (hoodlum centers), "men" in black dresses, that are unconstitutional ROBES OF NOBILITY, dispense a perverted ideology, where the people are terrorized by members of the BLACK ROBE CULT (lawyers and lawyer judges in the courtrooms).
 
The legislative branch of government does NOT have the Constitutional Power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of Orders to people, as a fiction court or a court/corporation for profit and gain cannot reach parity with a lawful man.
 
Citizens are not permitted to act like people in the courts. The Citizen (2nd class) is told that he does not know how to fill out fancy lawyer forms; that he is not trained in the law; that he does not know court rules and procedures; etc. This is unconstitutional "lawyer system" only HEARSAY SUBSTITUTES (lawyers) NOT under oath, have access to the fiction/for profit and gain courts, even though ONLY sworn testimony and evidence can be presented in court.
 
The Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other HEARSAY SUBSTITUTE. The accused ONLY has the right to the ASSISTANCE of counsel and this ASSISTANCE of counsel CAN BE ANYONE THE ACCUSED CHOOSES WITHOUT LIMITATION.

Charter Section 10 - Arrest or detention
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention:
  1. to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
  2. to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
  3. to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Canadian Bill of Rights
Construction of law
2 Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
  • (a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;
  • (b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
  • (c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
    • (i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,
    • (ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
    • (iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;
  • (d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;
  • (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
  • (f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or
  • (g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.
 
LAWYERS and LAWYER-JUDGES: Created unconstitutional "lawyer system" pre-trial "motions" and "Hearings" to have eternal EXTORTIONISTIC litigation's, which is BARRATRY and also is in violation of the Constitution, as this places defendants in DOUBLE JEOPARDY a hundred times over. Defendants only have a right to A TRIAL, NOT TRIALS.
 
When a criminal is freed on a TECHNICALITY, HE IS FREED BECAUSE OF A FIX and a PAY-OFF, as a defendant can only be freed if found innocent BY A JURY NOT BY ANY "TECHNICALITY."
 
Whenever a lawyer is involved in a case directly or indirectly, as a litigant or assisting in counsel, ALL LAWYER-JUDGES HAVE TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES, AS THERE CANNOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL and also there would be a violation of the conflict of interest laws, along with the violation of separation of powers and checks and balances, because "OFFICERS" OF THE COURT ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BENCH.
 
These same LAWYER-JUDGES are awarding or approving LAWYER FEES, directly and indirectly, amounting to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually, all in violation of conflict of interest laws.
 
As long as there are lawyers, there will never be any law, constitution or justice. There will only be MOB RULE, RULE BY A MOB OF LAWYERS.
 
CASE "LAW' IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: As CASE "LAW" IS ENACTED BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
 
When a lawyer-judge instructs, directs, or gives orders to a jury, the lawyer-judge is TAMPERING WITH THE JURY. He also tampers with testimony when he orders the answers to be either "Yes" or "No." The lawyer-judge also tampers, fixes, and rigs the trial when he orders anything stricken from the record, or when he "rules" certain evidence and the truth to be inadmissible. This makes the trial and transcript FIXED and RIGGED, because the jury does not hear the REAL TRUTH and ALL THE FACTS. Juries are made into puppets by the lawyers and lawyer-judges.
 
All lawyers are automatically in the judicial branch of government, as they have the unconstitutional title of "Officer of the court."
 
Citizens have to be elected or hired to be in any branch of government but non-lawyer Citizens are limited to only 2 of the 3 branches of government. Lawyers as 1st class citizens can be hired or elected to any of the three branches of government.
 
Lawyers, "Officers of the Court," in the Judicial Branch, are unconstitutionally in 2 branches of government AT THE SAME TIME whenever they are hired or elected to the executive or legislative branches. This is a violation of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the conflict of interest laws.
 
Crown attorneys have taken over the Grand Juries FROM the people, where the people are DENIED ACCESS to the grand juries when they attempt to present evidence of crimes committed in the courtrooms by the lawyers and lawyer-judges.
 
The Constitution, being the Supreme Fundamental Law, is not and CANNOT be ambiguous as to be interpreted, or it would be a worthless piece of paper and we would have millions of interpretations (unconstitutional amendments) instead of the few we have now. That is why all judges and public servants are SWORN TO SUPPORT the Constitution, NOT interpret it.
 
Under INTERNATIONAL ORDERS: ALL LAWYERS, whether they left law school yesterday or 50 years ago, are EXACTLY THE SAME. All lawyers have to file the same motions and follow the same procedures in using the same unconstitutional "lawyer system". In probate, the lawyers place themselves in everyone's will and estate. When there are minor children as heirs, the lawyer-judges appoint a lawyer (a child molesting Fagin) for EACH CHILD and, at times, the lawyer fees EXCEED the total amount of the estate.
 
An OUTRAGEOUS amount of TAX "MONEY" is directly and indirectly STOLEN BY LAWYERS. Money that is budgeted to County Boards, School Boards and other local and federal agencies eventually finds its way into the pockets of lawyers, as ALL of these agencies are "TRICKED" and "FORCED" into ETERNAL EXTORTIONISTIC LITIGATION.
 
 
Always CHALLENGE JURISDICTION
last revised October 13, 2019

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." [even before going to court - recommended] and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.
 
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 lose!
 
Their authority does not include authority or jurisdiction over a woman or a man without consent!
 
Consent coerced grants no authority or jurisdiction.
 
Their whole system is unfounded and unconstitutional
 
Any thing they try to do to you requires your consent without that freely given consent they got nothin!
 
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.
 
Read US v Lopez and Hagans v Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases, you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn't exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. ...without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be "sovereign." At best, to proceed would be in "excess" of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State's/ USA's cause. Broom v.  Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government's cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).
 
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
 
"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well-established law that a void order can be challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
 
"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
 
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150
 
"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)
 
"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
 
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
 
"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
 
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
 
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
 
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
 
"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.
 
"A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
 
"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
 
"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
 
"the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v.Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
 
 
Copyright 2015-2019 - all Human Rights Reserved
Blog
Site Map
Back to content