First Thing You Should Always Do In Court

In no way shape or form am I giving you legal advice. I am simply telling you what might be in your best interest for your own personal freedom. We have to keep in mind that basic law, and I mean basic, concludes:
Without a valid “cause of action” there’s no corpus delicti. If there’s no corpus delicti a case has no standing. There are numerous cases dealing with corpus delicti and all say the same thing. Without a corpus delicti the plaintiff has no standing.
In order to have a corpus delicti a case requires a valid “cause of action.” A valid cause of action requires three elements. The three elements are: 1) a violation of a legal right, 2) damage or injury, 3) redress-ability by the court.
I think we can all agree that unless there is an actual victim of a crime, no crime can actually exist. Its impossible. If there is no damage property, legal rights taken, or hurting of another person, no real crime has occurred. The reality is it’s not against the LAW to run a stop sign. The pavement, sidewalk, or “state” are not a victim of you passing by a red sign. On the contrary, it is against the law to run a stop sign and smash into someones car or run someone over.
Another thing to keep in mind is that no matter how many laws are on the books, you will always have criminals. Criminal literally means someone that breaks the law… even if you have one million laws it will have no effect on a criminal. Laws are merely allusions of safety created by those in power to create the delusion of government to manipulate and control by violence and force to keep their position of power.
Back to the original topic at hand, the first thing you might want to do in any court case, trial, ect. is challenge jurisdiction. Why would a group of men have authority to subject you to codes and rules without your consent? It makes no sense. On the contrary, if I were to take away your freedom of movement, your possessions, take your car, ect. It would be considered a crime. Why do you consider it good when the “government” does it and bad when the “private individual” does it? This is the indoctrination of statism.
To put things into perspective:
The distinction between a tort and a crime lies in the difference between the methods by which the remedy for the wrong is pursued; a wrong for which the remedy is pursued by, and at the discretion of, the individual injured or his representative is a tort, and a wrong for which the wrongdoer is proceeded against by the sovereign or state for the purpose of punishment is a crime.”  Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol 22, page 26 (2006 ed).  Supporting citations from text:
Ind-State ex rel Johnson v. White Circuit Court, 225 Ind 602, 77 N.E.2d 298…Mich.-People v. Veenstra, 337 Mich. 427, 60 N.W.2d 309…Pa.-Com. v. Malloy, 304 Pa.Super. 297, 450 A.2d 689…Ala.-Holland v. State, 440 So.2d 1236…N.J.- Tomlin v. Hildreth, 65 N.J. L. 438, 47 A. 649…N.C.-State Highway and Public Works Comm. v. Cobb, 215 N.C. 556, 2 SE2d 565
Parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction over subject matter where none exists Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So 2d 179 (Fla 1994) In re D.N.H.W., 955 So 2d 1236 (Fla 2d DCA 2007); and subject-matter jurisdiction may not be conferred on court by consent of parties MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So 2d 32, 35 (Fla 4th DCA 2000) 4. This Court has dismissed similar claims with the right to Amend the Complaint in HSBC Bank USA, etc. v Boone, Walton County 08 CA 557 and Lasalle Bank, etc. v. Schumacher, et al, Walton County 09 CA 247. WHEREFORE, Carroll requests that the court enter an Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without Prejudice; and granting such other or further relief as is appropriate.
Rules Of Civil Procedure 1.420(b) provides, in pertinent part, that “any party may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against that party for failure of an adverse party to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” 2. The dismissal of action or claim for failure of an adverse party to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the Court operates as an adjudication on the merits. Cash vs. Airport Mini-Storage, 782 SO.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
“Fraud on the court” con­sists of conduct: (1) on part of officer of the court, (2) that is directed to judicial machinery itself, (3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court. (Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, rehearing and suggestion for rehearing denied, certiorari denied Rison v. Demjanjuk, 115 S.Ct. 295, 513 U.S. 914, 130 L.Ed.2d 205 (Ohio) 1993.—Fed Civ Proc 2654.“. . .errors are so prejudicial and fundamental that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful, if not futile.” (Salvatore v. State of Florida, 366 So. 2d 745 [Fla. 1978], cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 177, 62 L. Ed. 2d 115 [1979]).
Are you mad after reading this? You should be. These people have been taking advantage of you for years but aren’t you to blame as well? You didn’t read the fine print. Even on the DMV registration paperwork it reads that you are indeed consenting over your vehicle to the government and it is now a motor vehicle under their authority. They have openly admitted that income taxes are voluntary, always have been. I hope you have started to see why it might be in your best interest to challenge jurisdiction. Have you been consenting away your freedom this entire time? Willfully? Perhaps its time to start looking a bit closer.

Leave a Reply

Notify of