Saturday, April 29, 2006

Challenge Jurisdiction

Imagine presenting this jurisdictional challenge at arraignment.

Your honor, I challenge your jurisdiction to hear this case. You are obligated under the law to prove your jurisdiction, once challenged, and if you do not prove it sufficiently, I shall challenge it further. In order to eliminate my concerns about jurisdiction, I need to see incontrovertible proof of the following:

  • that you and all other officers of and in this court have sworn an oath or otherwise affirmed your agreement to support the Constitution of the USA and of the State of Florida, as required, respectively, by those documents.
  • that your oaths include the agreement to support all historical forms of US and State constitutions that have not been specifically repealed by subsequent forms.
  • that you and all prosecutors are covered by surety bonds as required by the State Constitution.
  • that you have properly filed your personal and campaign financial disclosures, and that they are accurate and current.
  • that you did indeed graduate from an accredited college of law.
  • that you did indeed pass the bar examination of this state.
  • that you are a member in good standing of the bar association of this state.
  • that the State Supreme Court has licensed you as an attorney and counselor at law in this state.
  • that you have received an appointment by duly constituted authority or been elected to serve as a judge.
  • that you have accepted that appointment or elected position in writing.
  • that your membership in the bar association, your long time personal relationship with the prosecutor, and the fact that you both work for the state that now opposes me in this case, all of which taken together constitute probable cause of prejudice against me, thereby preventing me from receiving justice in this court, do not constitute prejudice against me or for the state.
  • that this is a court of common law, equity, admiralty, or otherwise.
  • whether this court operates under Article III of the US Constitution, or under statute pursuant to the US Constitution.
  • that this court does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case.
  • that this court does in fact have territorial jurisdiction over the instant case.
  • that the court will say or do nothing to prevent the jury from being made fully aware of its constitutional and historical rights to the following:

  • examine and decide on both fact and law in this case,
  • determine the applicability of code, public law, case law, or history underpinning the law, to this case,
  • acquit in spite of judicial instructions if they believe that is necessary to see justice done,
    question witnesses themselves,
  • ask for additional witnesses or discovery,
  • overturn what they consider to be bad case law that might be offered as legal evidence
    block any gag order if they believe it is in the public interest to know the events of this trial
  • be composed of peers who, if possible, know or know of the defendant - people in his socioeconomic class from the neighborhood of his domicile.

No comments: