SuiJurisForum

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Are you trying to tell me that Subject-Matter Jurisdiction *isn't* a secret? EVERYBODY knows about it??

Gimme a break!

How do you transform a routine tenet of law into a secret?

[Nikki]

InFieldPop is likely totally unaware that there are government employees who are paid (far too little considering the damage done to their brains) to sit and surf the Internet, monitoring sovereignoramus, paytriot, and other sites.

[webhick]

I checked out their TOS and this stood out:

*ACCESS MONITORING* We don't care who you are when you visit the website, except for one exception "government agencies." Anyone that is being paid by taxpayers and is surfing the web while on the job, will have their information publicly posted. All other visitors we never have and never will post or disclose your information to anyone, period!

Apparently they don't realize that some public-access library computers are hooked up through a generic government account. That's not technically accurate, but I've got a lot of sh*t going on here right now and my brain is on overload. You get my point, though.

Do regular "civilians", "citizens", et al. count as "government agencies"?? ... and are they being "paid" by taxpayers to use their own computers at their own library??

You missed my point entirely. You clearly state:

Anyone that is being paid by taxpayers and is surfing the web while on the job, will have their information publicly posted.

Let's say I go down to the library to use one of their computers to visit your site during what you might consider to be a work day. If you trace back the IPs on the posts I made from that computer, it may say that the computer was on govnamehere.gov network. It would certainly look like I was a government employee surfing the net on the job even though that wasn't the case. You have absolutely no way of knowing if a person was surfing your site on the job, whether they were a government employee, or whether or not they were on the clock while surfing.

Also, I've noticed that some of your ilk post from .gov addresses. Will you be exposing them too, or are you going to overlook it because you think they're on your side?

One last thing before I log out for the night: Do you really think that anyone from the government who monitors sites like yours are going to be so stupid as to leave their location unmasked (except to maybe prove a point)? I mean, the government has a habit of being unable to find their asses with both hands most of the time, but these folks are pretty good at what they do.

[wserra]

I thought this new forum deserved its own thread, especially since we have what appears to be the admin of that forum posting here. So I collected these posts from a couple of different threads.

Now that we've done that, allow me to repost a couple of unanswered questions.

One:

I've had success with challenging subject-matter jurisdiction the day of the de novo trial.

Cite, please? It isn't in the thread to which you link. Court, caption, docket/index number.

Two:

I prefer many other types and forms of Law than private U.S. law...

What might they be? And what is "private U.S. law"?

Three:
Prof: Is one of these forms of law what you prefer, grndslm? Could you identify the country or area where your "preferred" form of law is in use?

Four:

...
Are you trying to tell me that Subject-Matter Jurisdiction *isn't* a secret? EVERYBODY knows about it??

Gimme a break!

Judge Roy Bean: How do you transform a routine tenet of law into a secret?

[The Observer]

Is it just coincidence when these questions were posted across the various threads, grndslm seemed to vanish into thin air?

It might be time for Dr. Caligari to rouse the Circus Cavalcade o' Crickets from their slumber.

[Pottapaug1938]

I suspect that Grandslam is the latest in a long line of drive-by trolls that come onto Quatloos, post a few idiotic items, and then vanish back under their bridges, bragging about how Brave and Courageous they were as they faced the Quatloosian Minions of the Financial Devil.

[Nikki]

Count coup

Courageous & Brave ([cocoanut hoofbeats] Sir Robin runs away ... [/hoofbeats])

[grixit]

They'll be back-- they just went to Denny's for a "common law court" meeting and another helping of their namesake.

[grndslm]

I am curious enough to ask 2 questions:
1. What is "private U.S. law"?
2. What "other types and forms of Law" to you prefer?

...

A response would be appreciated.

I was going to give a rather long answer, but my dinner appears to have thawed out sufficiently, so I will get back to the kitchen.

My short answer is...

1. Admiralty / Maritime Law and all Statutes that "We the People" did not accept into the Constitution.
2. The kind of Law I prefer is, of course, the kind that Christ Jesus simplified for us a couple thousand years ago. Common Law & Constitutional Law aren't half bad either.

Catch ya after dinner...

[Nikki]

1 - That's interesting since the Constitution established a specific framework and process for enacting laws and statutes. So, despite that, you're proposing that anything not specifically written in the Constitution is, somehow, 'private' law -- which you have yet to define. But, accepting your interpretation, are you accepting the amendments to the Constitution, some of them (and how and where do you draw the line), or none of them? Answer carefully.

2 - Ignoring your plea for a theocracy, you have jsut exhibited a further degree of your total lack of understanding of law in general. For one, did you know that common law is the body of law which was decided by courts at the whim of judges and not some mystical collection of laws which sprang into existence by itself? Also, you seem to have contradicted yourself with your stated preference for Constitutional law which incorporates all legitimately enacted statutes that have not been delclared unconstitutional by the judicial system.

You really need to finish that remedial Civics course. Or, better yet, go back to one of your sovereignorami forms where you won't be challenged by people who rely on facts as opposed to hyperbole.

[Dr. Caligari]

1. Admiralty / Maritime Law and all Statutes that "We the People" did not accept into the Constitution.

Mr. Slam is evidently confused, because "We the People" did explicitly accept Admiral/Maritime law in the Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to ... all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

[grndslm]

I'm not all that confused. "Common Law" is mentioned in the Constitution as well. So what??

Surely you've seen this little chart before...

God
- Divine Law
-- Natural Law
--- Common Law
---- "We the People" <<-------- ARE YOU HERE??
----- U.S. Constitution
------ U.S. Government
------- U.S. Statutes
-------- U.S. citizen <<--------- OR ARE YOU HERE??

Just because the Constitution is the foundation for other types of law doesn't mean I need to subject myself to them. Constitution *is* Common Law, yet Common Law had its own understanding before the creation of the Constitution.

Yadda yadda... NOBODY is forced to submit to statutes against their will, for that would break rules of Common Law and a number of Amendments to our Constitution.

But you guys already knew all that... so why not tell me what this term in Black's Law Dictionary means... "Out of the State" ???

[wserra]

1. Admiralty / Maritime Law and all Statutes that "We the People" did not accept into the Constitution.

There are no statutes at all in the Constitution. "All Statutes that "We the People" did not accept into the Constitution" is like "All propellers that Ford did not put in the Mustang". And, as Dr. C pointed out, admiralty is in the Constitution (although not as a statute).

2. The kind of Law I prefer is, of course, the kind that Christ Jesus simplified for us a couple thousand years ago.

And for people who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus? For them, how is what you prefer different from the Muslim who prefers Sharia?

Common Law

Do you mean the same common law that prescribed the death penalty for many, many crimes, down to and including larceny (especially if the larceny was from a noble)?

and Constitutional Law aren't half bad either.

If you believe that the Constitution contains statutes, you know little constitutional law.

[wserra]

Surely you've seen this little chart before...

Actually, no, I haven't. Are you claiming you found that in the Constitution? If not, why should anyone pay any attention to it?

Constitution *is* Common Law

A written constitution not only is not common law, it is antithetical to common law. The home of common law - England - to this day does not have one.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm not all that confused. "Common Law" is mentioned in the Constitution as well. So what??

Surely you've seen this little chart before...

God
- Divine Law
-- Natural Law
--- Common Law
---- "We the People" <<-------- ARE YOU HERE??
----- U.S. Constitution
------ U.S. Government
------- U.S. Statutes
-------- U.S. citizen <<--------- OR ARE YOU HERE??

Just because the Constitution is the foundation for other types of law doesn't mean I need to subject myself to them. Constitution *is* Common Law, yet Common Law had its own understanding before the creation of the Constitution.

Yadda yadda... NOBODY is forced to submit to statutes against their will, for that would break rules of Common Law and a number of Amendments to our Constitution.

But you guys already knew all that... so why not tell me what this term in Black's Law Dictionary means... "Out of the State" ???

Your ignorance is breathtaking, Whiffedonthreepitches. For starters, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land; so your fanciful chart listing God, Divine Law, Natural Law and Common Law carries no legal impact whatsoever.

Next, the Constitution *IS NOT* Common Law. Common Law, such as it is, comes from judge-made legal precedent, as set forth in recorded legal decisions, and changes constantly. The Constitution does indeed make mention of the common law; but it mentions statutory law as well; and if either one contravenes a provision of the Constitution, that law is no longer valid.

And yes, you DO have to subject yourself to the laws enacted under the Constitution, whether not that is with or against your will, simply by virtue of being a U.S. citizen or even simply being physically present within the United States or subject to its protection. People have to submit to statutes all the time, Sparky. The name for the alternative is "anarchy"; and I don't think you'd like it very much.

I don't know what you mean by placing "we the people" above the U.S. Constitution, and then "U.S. Citizen" at the bottom of your chart; but you act like it's some sort of fact of Great Legal Significance, instead of some meaningless piffle completely unsupported in the law or the Constitution.

Finally, I don't particularly care what your quote from Black's Law Dictionary says. Any first-year law student will tell you that Black's is only a legal reference, and not a source for the law which can be cited in the way that appellate court decisions are cited. If you are writing an appellate brief and use only entries from Black's as your citations, you'll be lucky to escape with only a summary ruling against you.

[grndslm]

1. Admiralty / Maritime Law and all Statutes that "We the People" did not accept into the Constitution.

There are no statutes at all in the Constitution. "All Statutes that "We the People" did not accept into the Constitution" is like "All propellers that Ford did not put in the Mustang". And, as Dr. C pointed out, admiralty is in the Constitution (although not as a statute).

Nobody said anything about anything being "in" the Constitution.

Someone asked what I considered "private U.S. Law". That bit that you quoted was my answer.

If the question were... "What is "public U.S. Law'?", then you would have seen "the Constitution" somewhere in my answer, ol' buddy.

2. The kind of Law I prefer is, of course, the kind that Christ Jesus simplified for us a couple thousand years ago.

And for people who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus? For them, how is what you prefer different from the Muslim who prefers Sharia?

Perhaps those people, who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, might prefer to believe in the divinity of all men, as Christ Jesus also taught in the Lord's Prayer. It begins with... "OUR FATHER". All Christians should believe that, at least.

As for Sharia Law, perhaps you can check this thread out and explain to me what "assimilation" is... http://www.suijurisforum.com/sharia-law ... -t554.html ???

Common Law

Do you mean the same common law that prescribed the death penalty for many, many crimes, down to and including larceny (especially if the larceny was from a noble)?

Who cares what the punishment is if you abide by the Law?? If you need to know what the punishment is in order to not break the Law, then you're probly a bad apple...

How about my Common Law Right to Duel?? That's still in full force with my unlimited capacity to contract, I hope??

and Constitutional Law aren't half bad either.

If you believe that the Constitution contains statutes, you know little constitutional law.

You deleted the rest of my comment, which was in response to which Law I prefer. Never have I ever spoke about the things you're claiming I have spoken about. Quit being a nuisance.

Surely you've seen this little chart before...

Actually, no, I haven't. Are you claiming you found that in the Constitution? If not, why should anyone pay any attention to it?

Did you see me make such a claim?
If you didn't, why the implication?

Better yet... do you see anything wrong with that structural system of Law? Are you of the type that believes that Life, Liberty, and Property were created by the U.S. Government!??!

Constitution *is* Common Law

A written constitution not only is not common law, it is antithetical to common law. The home of common law - England - to this day does not have one.

Since you know the history of Common Law, perhaps you're better of telling us what it IS, then??

[grndslm]

Your ignorance is breathtaking, Whiffedonthreepitches. For starters, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land; so your fanciful chart listing God, Divine Law, Natural Law and Common Law carries no legal impact whatsoever.

No legal impact, sure. But the FIRST AMENDMENT carries enough lawful impact to put my religious beliefs above any statutory "obligations" or "rules of court" that you think I'm bound by. Say, wearing a cap in court, for example... I just might do that as an Active Christian Anarchist... whereas you cannot, because you AGREED to those rules. I only agree to do the will of my Father.

Next, the Constitution *IS NOT* Common Law. Common Law, such as it is, comes from judge-made legal precedent, as set forth in recorded legal decisions, and changes constantly. The Constitution does indeed make mention of the common law; but it mentions statutory law as well; and if either one contravenes a provision of the Constitution, that law is no longer valid.

You just said yourself that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. How is that not COMMON among the 50 nations that make up the united States of America??

The Constitution sets up PROPERTY RIGHTS -- life, liberty, & property. Does the Common Law disagree with such rights? Doesn't it, likewise, protect those VERY SAME RIGHTS??

And yes, you DO have to subject yourself to the laws enacted under the Constitution, whether not that is with or against your will, simply by virtue of being a U.S. citizen or even simply being physically present within the United States or subject to its protection. People have to submit to statutes all the time, Sparky. The name for the alternative is "anarchy"; and I don't think you'd like it very much.

I have not one single problem with the Constitution. It's all great. It allows me to choose my own name, my own citizenship, to travel, to associate with certain groups, to not associate with cops and lawyers, to protest, to carry a gun, to remain silent, to keep cops out of my automobile, home, etc.

It's beyond great, actually... IT'S WONDERFUL!!

Anything beyond that and you're going to need my consent, I'm afraid. "'People' have to submit to statutes all the time", sure.... because they want a nice J-O-B or B-E-N-I-F-I-T. I'd rather grow my own fruits and vegetables, raise my own chicken & goats, build my own automobiles, defend my own rights, worship my own God, live with my own wife & kids, etc... all without government assistance, thanks.

As for "the alternative being 'anarchy'", I'd have to disagree with you there. I prefer the term, "anarchism", as a method for reaching statelessness... and there are MANY forms of anarchism. I prefer Libertarian-Socialism, as there is still a Platform, or Constitution if you will, of basic rules.. and all the people are involved, if they so choose, in Direct Democracy. The main premise is to destroy the concentration of power, as THAT is the main problem with current societies.

HOW a society could build such a Platform, I will save for another day. I'll let your minds work on overdrive to create your own Platform where all people are equal. I've imagined one that could work by simply amending our Constitution... and it could work alongside the other two houses of Congress. It wouldn't be 100% Direct Democracy, but it'd be a start... and it could even work without internet/electricity.

Perhaps all the other forms of anarchism seem perverted, but I've only met a handful of people who've ever heard of Libertarian-Socialism, so I'll let you research a bit before I continue.

I don't know what you mean by placing "we the people" above the U.S. Constitution, and then "U.S. Citizen" at the bottom of your chart; but you act like it's some sort of fact of Great Legal Significance, instead of some meaningless piffle completely unsupported in the law or the Constitution.

Well.... We the People have RIGHTS. U.S. Citizens have privileges. It is of "Great Legal Significance", yes. Nobody can be a U.S. Citizen without his/her own consent, wouldn't you agree??

Finally, I don't particularly care what your quote from Black's Law Dictionary says. Any first-year law student will tell you that Black's is only a legal reference, and not a source for the law which can be cited in the way that appellate court decisions are cited. If you are writing an appellate brief and use only entries from Black's as your citations, you'll be lucky to escape with only a summary ruling against you.

I do believe that Black's Law definition includes court decisions, which are Common Law, no?? Did you care to look up those cites? I thought you guys were good workers...

grndslm, try your bullsh*t in most countries you will get a serious beat down and some jail time.

You know, I think Dubai could really use a person of your caliber. May I suggest you get there soonest.

I'd prefer to remain "Out of the State" on American Land, if you catch my drift...

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
I'd prefer to remain "Out of the State" on American Land, if you catch my drift...

Another doofus for the ignore category.

Seriously 'grndslm' ... can't you guys come up with someone who might even be intellectually challenging?

[wserra]

1. Admiralty / Maritime Law and all Statutes that "We the People" did not accept into the Constitution.

Nobody said anything about anything being "in" the Constitution.

Either there are more than one of you, or you're confused.

Perhaps those people, who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, might prefer to believe in the divinity of all men, as Christ Jesus also taught in the Lord's Prayer. It begins with... "OUR FATHER". All Christians should believe that, at least.

You miss the point. If the law you endorse is "the kind that Christ Jesus simplified for us a couple thousand years ago", aren't you endorsing a theocracy? If so, why should I go with you, rather than Mohammad?

Who cares what the punishment is if you abide by the Law?? If you need to know what the punishment is in order to not break the Law, then you're probly a bad apple...

You miss the point again. Or is it really OK by you to behead a man for poaching the King's deer?

How about my Common Law Right to Duel?? That's still in full force with my unlimited capacity to contract, I hope??

No. In most jurisdictions, if you kill someone during a duel, it's some degree of homicide.

Surely you've seen this little chart before...

Actually, no, I haven't. Are you claiming you found that in the Constitution? If not, why should anyone pay any attention to it?

Did you see me make such a claim?
If you didn't, why the implication?

Because, if it doesn't come from an authoritative source, what does it have to do with the law?

Better yet... do you see anything wrong with that structural system of Law?

Yes, quite a few things.

Are you of the type that believes that Life, Liberty, and Property were created by the U.S. Government!??!

No. I am, however, "the type" that believes it's pretty meaningless to speak of a legal right to life, liberty or property without a government to enforce the right.

Since you know the history of Common Law, perhaps you're better of telling us what it IS, then??

Yes, I probably am.

From my alma mater's online legal research guide:

A system of law that is derived from judges' decisions (which arise from the judicial branch of government), rather than statutes or constitutions (which are derived from the legislative branch of government).

Emphasis supplied.

[Pottapaug1938]

Your ignorance is breathtaking, Whiffedonthreepitches. For starters, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land; so your fanciful chart listing God, Divine Law, Natural Law and Common Law carries no legal impact whatsoever.

No legal impact, sure. But the FIRST AMENDMENT carries enough lawful impact to put my religious beliefs above any statutory "obligations" or "rules of court" that you think I'm bound by. Say, wearing a cap in court, for example... I just might do that as an Active Christian Anarchist... whereas you cannot, because you AGREED to those rules. I only agree to do the will of my Father.

No, it doesn't; and anyone who has ever taken a course in Constitutional Law can tell you that your religious beliefs are not a blanket ticket to disregard the Constitution and the laws enacted under its authority. Your religion may ordain that you engage in public nudity, marriage of middle-aged men to pubescent girls, or the unrestricted consumption of the pharmaceuticals of your choice; but the laws can and do prevent you from acting on those beliefs with impunity.

Next, the Constitution *IS NOT* Common Law. Common Law, such as it is, comes from judge-made legal precedent, as set forth in recorded legal decisions, and changes constantly. The Constitution does indeed make mention of the common law; but it mentions statutory law as well; and if either one contravenes a provision of the Constitution, that law is no longer valid.

You just said yourself that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. How is that not COMMON among the 50 nations that make up the united States of America??

No, Sparky. There are NOT '"50 nations" making up the united States of America. There are 50 STATES making up the United States of America.

The Constitution sets up PROPERTY RIGHTS -- life, liberty, & property. Does the Common Law disagree with such rights? Doesn't it, likewise, protect those VERY SAME RIGHTS??

Yes, the common law does deal with property rights; but the Constitution and the laws enacted under it can and do abrogate those rights. Remember that common law is nothing more than a compendium of judicial precedent. Nothing prevents a legislature from codifying, altering or abolishing those rights, barring a constitutional provision prohibiting such actions. And, the mere fact that the rights under the Constitution are "common" to all DOES NOT transform the rights into "common law". See wserra's definition for what common law REALLY is.

And yes, you DO have to subject yourself to the laws enacted under the Constitution, whether not that is with or against your will, simply by virtue of being a U.S. citizen or even simply being physically present within the United States or subject to its protection. People have to submit to statutes all the time, Sparky. The name for the alternative is "anarchy"; and I don't think you'd like it very much.

I have not one single problem with the Constitution. It's all great. It allows me to choose my own name, my own citizenship, to travel, to associate with certain groups, to not associate with cops and lawyers, to protest, to carry a gun, to remain silent, to keep cops out of my automobile, home, etc.

No, it doesn't. You can either find that out the easy way, or the hard way. Your choice.

It's beyond great, actually... IT'S WONDERFUL!!

Anything beyond that and you're going to need my consent, I'm afraid. "'People' have to submit to statutes all the time", sure.... because they want a nice J-O-B or B-E-N-I-F-I-T. I'd rather grow my own fruits and vegetables, raise my own chicken & goats, build my own automobiles, defend my own rights, worship my own God, live with my own wife & kids, etc... all without government assistance, thanks.

As for "the alternative being 'anarchy'", I'd have to disagree with you there. I prefer the term, "anarchism", as a method for reaching statelessness... and there are MANY forms of anarchism. I prefer Libertarian-Socialism, as there is still a Platform, or Constitution if you will, of basic rules.. and all the people are involved, if they so choose, in Direct Democracy. The main premise is to destroy the concentration of power, as THAT is the main problem with current societies.

HOW a society could build such a Platform, I will save for another day. I'll let your minds work on overdrive to create your own Platform where all people are equal. I've imagined one that could work by simply amending our Constitution... and it could work alongside the other two houses of Congress. It wouldn't be 100% Direct Democracy, but it'd be a start... and it could even work without internet/electricity.

You've never been to a New England Town Meeting, I take it. After seeing copious amounts of time taken up in petty squabbles and power struggles, you'd quickly realize that "100% Direct Democracy" wouldn't be the panacea that you view it to be.

Perhaps all the other forms of anarchism seem perverted, but I've only met a handful of people who've ever heard of Libertarian-Socialism, so I'll let you research a bit before I continue.

I don't know what you mean by placing "we the people" above the U.S. Constitution, and then "U.S. Citizen" at the bottom of your chart; but you act like it's some sort of fact of Great Legal Significance, instead of some meaningless piffle completely unsupported in the law or the Constitution.

Well.... We the People have RIGHTS. U.S. Citizens have privileges. It is of "Great Legal Significance", yes. Nobody can be a U.S. Citizen without his/her own consent, wouldn't you agree??

No, I don't agree. You are a United States citizen because you are born within its territory, are not a member of an untaxed Indian tribe, and are not the child of a foreign diplomat. You can only choose not to be a United States citizen by physically leaving the United States (that includes and of the 50 states and any territory, Sparky) and following the procedures to renounce your citizenship while still in a foreign country. As for your fondly-held fantasy about "we the people" having "rights" and "U.S. citizens" having "privileges", that distinction appears NOWHERE in the law. "We the people" is merely a phrase that appears in certain documents, like the Preamble. IT HAS NO LEGAL MEANING OTHERWISE.

Finally, I don't particularly care what your quote from Black's Law Dictionary says. Any first-year law student will tell you that Black's is only a legal reference, and not a source for the law which can be cited in the way that appellate court decisions are cited. If you are writing an appellate brief and use only entries from Black's as your citations, you'll be lucky to escape with only a summary ruling against you.

I do believe that Black's Law definition includes court decisions, which are Common Law, no?? Did you care to look up those cites? I thought you guys were good workers...

Black's does include court decisions; but often those decisions are from foreign jurisdictions, and often have been modified or even reversed by later rulings. Black's includes common law, but also statutory law; and in any event it is NOT designed as an authoritative legal resource. ONLY appellate court decisions serve that purpose; so if you are going to cite precedent for something, you'll need to come up with something of the sort.

grndslm, try your bullsh*t in most countries you will get a serious beat down and some jail time.

You know, I think Dubai could really use a person of your caliber. May I suggest you get there soonest.

I'd prefer to remain "Out of the State" on American Land, if you catch my drift...[/quote]