:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hope you enjoy your experience here.

We hold free conference calls every Monday through Thursday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).
Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our conference calls;

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

foundational law vs. judicial system

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Medutch1
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Wednesday May 5th, 2010 9:16 am MDT

foundational law vs. judicial system

Postby Medutch1 » Thursday July 15th, 2010 5:51 am MDT

First I'd like to give thanks for all the good work you do.
I have a general understanding of foundational law which was incorporated into our original Constitution by the Framers. At present, our current judicial system under Corp. U.S. functions under civil/admiralty law. That being the case, if one was to invoke foundational law in a court setting, what is to prevent the powers-that-be from ignoring foundational law in favor of current judicial precedence?
medutch1

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: foundational law vs. judicial system

Postby Admin » Sunday July 18th, 2010 8:39 am MDT

:h: Medutch1:
The setting of a court requires several things; several of which require jurisdiction. Jurisdiction has three elements:
  1. Venue;
  2. Subject Matter; and,
  3. Personal.
Venue is almost purely a geographic matter; so, it is the least difficult to establish. Subject matter is set by the charge of the Plaintiff/Petitioner. And, personal jurisdiction is established by a properly served Summons/Complaint.

Your inquiry referred to: “our current judicial system under Corp. U.S.” as if it were “our system”; however, the Corp. U.S. judicial system is Corp. U.S.’ system and the only way into it is through a properly submitted and or served Summons/Complaint.

That matter, in and of itself, requires a presupposed relationship with Corp. U.S. and or with the parties to such an action.

Accepting that presupposition, we can then look at the nature of the cases reviewed by such courts and they include a far broader body of law than just civil or admiralty styled cases; among those are administrative, equity (contract law) and criminal cases. Further, most of the cases people relate to as if they were admiralty cases do not have anything to do with Admiralty Law; which is the same as Maritime Law—that is to say, having something to do with the ocean or ocean going vessels.

What they are actually referring to is, cases like those held in Traffic Court and insurance related cases; which respectively follow the traffic code and or insurance law; each of which form a contractually construed law base that is also sometimes called quasi-criminal; because they follow the admiralty styled process, rules and remedies.

Such courts do not usually have jurisdiction to rule in accord with Foundational Law because it is foreign to the basis of their subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, in most cases, if a party were to raise Foundational Law in such a court, the court would be required to give that little or no regard unless that law base was elemental to the agreements of all of the parties involved; in which case, Foundational Law could have a controlling effect.

To delve into that matter any further requires Team Law beneficiary support; so, we will have to leave it at that at this level of forum access.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Besum1
Registered
Posts: 3
Joined: Saturday April 14th, 2012 11:05 am MDT

Re: foundational law vs. judicial system

Postby Besum1 » Tuesday April 17th, 2012 1:06 am MDT

How do the rulings of courts since their respective organizational structures were reformed under corporate status serve as reliable precedents for those looking to unseat its government's power; or further, how can we even expect those same courts to rule "fairly" given their corporate jurisdiction? It seems like a case of the hen asking the fox for protection.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: foundational law vs. judicial system

Postby Admin » Tuesday April 17th, 2012 11:17 am MDT

:h: Besum1:
The presuppositions of your inquiry make its understanding difficult. So we will first address those presuppositions. You presupposed that the organizational structures of the courts were “reformed”; however, we are not aware of any such thing happening. The Corp. U.S. and corporate state courts were set as they are in the first instance (as those respective bodies were formed and in accord with their formative documents (constitutions, statutes, regulations, etc.)). Respectively, there was no such reformation.

Further, we do not understand the meaning of the phrase: “serve as reliable precedents for those looking to unseat its government's power”. One of the most difficult parts of that phrase to understand is your use of “its”; accordingly, we wonder: “To what is that pronoun referring?” Is it referring to the courts, to the decisions of the courts or to those that are looking to so “unseat”? We imagine you intended “it’s” to refer to the said courts.

That being the case, we have several questions; the answers of which are elementally necessary for understanding such an inquiry:
  1. To what court decisions are you referring?
  2. What “government power” are you presupposed here?
  3. Why are those so looking interested in corporate court rulings to serve such an end; instead of looking directly at law itself?
  4. Why are those so looking intent on ‘unseating’?
As a precursor to acquiring answers to those questions it may be helpful if we clarify our previous response in this topical thread and then focus that towards what we imagine you are inquiring after here:

We previously noted that all actions in any lawful court are based on the three elements of jurisdiction: venue; subject matter; and, personal. Related to that, we noted: “Subject matter (jurisdiction) is set by the charge of the Plaintiff/Petitioner.” By way of clarification we add to that: “The subject matter jurisdiction of each court is also limited by the laws that set that court with authorizing it to hear causes of action within specific subject matter parameters.”

For example: the Corp. U.S. Tax Court is an Administrative Court that is only authorized to hear actions contesting: Notices of Deficiency or Notices of Determination regarding one of the following three issues: 1. a request for relief from joint and several liability related to a tax liability burdened upon a spouse; 2. due process violations within a Collection Due Process hearing; or, 3. worker classification. Another example: Traffic courts are usually limited to hear cases regarding Traffic Code violations.

However, jurisdiction in any case, in any lawful court, will always come from charges of some trespass alleged by the plaintiff/petitioner against the defendant/respondent; and it will always be the trespass so alleged that charges the court with the governing authority to hear the case and so compel its proceedings. Thus, anytime there is a trespass, a respective obligation for remedy automatically applies to the trespasser; which obligation the trespasser agrees to remedy by making the trespass in the first instance. Thus, when a court action begins, the trespass alleged in the complaint/petition instigates the court’s authority to take action and exact a remedy.

Thus, though the existence of any particular court having the nature of its jurisdiction set by statute does not affect the fact that within the latitude of that statutory (law based) setting the sole source for authority for any court to take action and exact remedy (regardless of whether the court is a Corp. U.S., corporate state, or original jurisdiction court) remains the governing authority the court gains from the parties in the case itself and not from any other governmental source. That is to say, the governmental source for any court’s authority to hear an action and exact a remedy comes from the trespasser and applies to the party against whom the trespass was made.

Thus, it is incomprehensible that governmental power could be “unseated” from any court; and, we cannot comprehend why anyone would desire such a thing. Of course, the way a court is kept from having governmental power to hear an action is twofold, either:
  1. Avoid trespassing; or,
  2. Don’t file an action contesting a trespass.
However, if what you were referring to with “unseating” was intended to address the process of reseating the original jurisdiction government and some presupposed element of potential for court action related to that process; again, we do not understand to cause for such a concern. The process for reseating the original jurisdiction government is well established in our laws. As such, all the people have to do to accomplish that is: “Learn the law and apply it.” Of course, that is where Team Law comes in on the matter. We help people learn how to learn the law firsthand from their own hands on study of the law itself.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest