Lacking any of the
seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or
unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution
(double jeopardy); to inform 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. After
you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to see a copy of
“regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules” Also Canons 1 through 9.
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. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.
NOTE: Today the
courts are unconcerned with questions such as whether or not the 16th or
17th amendments were ever lawfully ratified. If the courts were to
address this type of question honestly, the government, with its huge
bureaucracy and patron special interests would be placed in jeopardy.
This potential threat is not allowed nor will it ever be. It is much
easier for the courts to label such potential threats as political
questions, point to the lateness of the clock and refuse to hear or
rule.
Whatever the political juggernaut does, it uses the facade of law
to justify or reconcile it. The only way such questions will have force
and effect is if the general public becomes aware and concerned with
justice being based upon law and not just policy based on a facade of
law.
If you doubt such words, please be assured that they are not just
words but are, in fact, and articulation of the unwritten, unspoken,
present public policy, as enforced by the courts in dealing with
challenges to governmental acts and authority. For documentation, see US v
WAYNE WOJTAS, 85 CR 48 in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division and Judge Shadur’s opinion on the
16th Amendment. You will see the beginnings and threat of disbarment of
a certain “aggressive” licensed attorney.
To be truly effective in the courts in any challenge to governmental
power and authority, the challenger must possess a good understanding of
politics. This is especially so since government and the courts are
primarily concerned with a public perception of the balancing of the
scales of justice rather than the attainment of true justice under the
law.
Once it is realized that the court is primarily concerned with
politics, it then becomes necessary for any challenger to become
proficient in the political arena. By politics, we speak not of the
electoral process, but of the politics of association and public
opinion. Exposure is the only cure for corruption.
Keeping this in mind, and truly understanding the concept, a man
accused of breaking a “rule” for which he may suffer penalties of
imprisonment, fine and costs without benefit of trial or Constitutional
safeguards, may very will consider bringing a criminal charge against
himself directly in court and thereby blunt his adversaries’ attack. To
the uninitiated, this may sound like madness, but to the political
scholar destined to appear before a “master” to answer to alleged rule
violation of the unauthorized practice of law, the self-accusatory route
to the courts may be the only hope of victory; both legal and
political.
Source: http://www.wesleyhoyt.com/?page_id=321
No comments:
Post a Comment