Comment: A court's subject matter jurisdiction

(See in situ)


A court's subject matter jurisdiction

must come from a valid cause of action. A court does not have a valid cause of action if there is no accuser who is invoking the agency of government.

There is one exception to this valid cause of action that the 'court's' currently presume is correct jurisdiction and that is if one is a 14th amendment "person" who is a "citizen of the United States". Their entire presumption from the start is that one is that 'person'. This is how every court is operating. By Organic Law the court's are required to have "consent of the governed". Right now they get this 'consent' through registration and presumption one is the 14th amendment person. I am a full liability man and I do not recognize the 14th amendment itself as being valid or therefore applicable and it is my understanding that this is proof of on-going criminal fraud by those in the system. This means the facts are that they do not have subject matter jurisdiction because there is no consenting party to any agency they falsely claim even though they fraudulently claim the plaintiff is the "People of the State of X". So the entire basis of there claim is not true. Another fact most people are totally clueless on is the fact that under the 14th amendment fraud the 'court's' understanding is that you the defendant are your own accuser. Let me repeat that: their presumption is that "if you are a taxpayer then you are your own accuser" That is an exact quote from the judge in open court when asked "Who is my accuser". I have this same answer in one form or another from at least three courts in three different states.

So, when they initiate a case without any agency to a liable identified principal amongst the people and then they presume that the defendant is a taxpayer who is the accuser (the principal) who issued the required consent of the governed and then they are notified that this is false and incorrect information then EVERYTHING changes. The court has no accuser, no consent of the governed, no lawful agency, no valid cause to be doing ANYTHING to you whatsoever.

How is it different when I AM THE ACCUSER accepting full liability for my accusation against them for the ACTUAL INJURY that has been documented and the accompanying crimes that they committed and provided me with documented and voice corroborated proof of their criminal intent and criminal actions they performed? The answer should be completely obvious because in this case I am NOW initiating they do have everything required for a case to be brought to justice. So they didn't have everything when they initiated the case against the 'person' but went ahead anyway only to eventually shoot me out the side door by physically making officers leave the court so they have some OTHER documented reason to abort the case instead of preceding like they do with every other victim, BUT when I seek justice with all exact items needed for a case to move forward they do gymnastics to the days end to obstruct justice from ever proceeding.

See the difference. The difference is huge and there is a pattern of crime they are committing that can be systematically revealed by very explicit logical steps and the number of people documented to be involved in the crime can be rapidly expanded because of their chosen technique of obstructions they send you around to different departments that ALWAYS inevitable lead to a circle through departments who is the one to handle such issues. This means large swaths of individuals in the system can be intersected by having them TELL you to GO TO THAT DEPARTMENT. You have a reason to expand the criminal investigation and an opportunity to inform more people in the system about the on-going crimes and the individuals perpetrating those crimes.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...