Court Jurisdiction is a matter of law
.... and most States provide this by subject matter and have statutorized it.READ these two conditions carefully....
(1) When a court for example convicts for an alleged offense that it is without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate...it is said the conviction is void. (2) Likewise, if a court convicts for an alleged crime that is not known to the law....again the court is without subject matter jurisdiction...and the conviction is void.
People become cannon fodder for the "bench & bar gang" purely due to their own short comings and not wanting to admit to error in their reasoning and these gang members just have a good laugh at your expense.
In a criminal prosecution it is fundamental that a conviction can not stand UNLESS all of the elements are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is condition 2 that gross misapplication of the law is appropriate in cases of IMAGINARY offenses. Like it or not you have to answer to criminal allegations....so get over it!
NOTE!!!!....every Tom, Dick, and Harry are not known to the law only specifically defined 'person or persons' in accordinance with a specific set of facts.... if you'll pay attention to what you are reading 'person or persons' is defined by a specific set of facts.
Let me show you what I mean....In oder to keep the post as short as possible I am going to refernce applicable law by number.
FACT & the Charge: unlawful carry....38 special....seen on your seat during a traffic stop.
Charging Instrument: 46.02. Unlawful Carrying Weapons (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.
Applicable law: Texas Constitution, Texas Penal Code.
Fact: Texas Penal Code Chapter 46
Fact: Texas Constitution Article I Section 23
Texas is a place (a WHERE) and the Constitution provides that it is in fact lawful to keep and bear arms for your own protection and defense of the state, but it has a clause that the legislature can regulate the wearing of arms with the view to prevent crime, which means specifically name WHERE you cannot wear/bear arms. Chapter 46 enumerates the places where it is unlawful to carry (bear; carry; wear) arms and guess what...on or about your person does not INCLUDE on the seat of your 1980 Dodge?. In the above circumstance state actors are attempting to convert a right or if you prefer that which is lawful, to a crime.....in another words it is IMAGINARY.....therefore NOT known to the law....a fiction.
Court is WITHOUT subject matter jurisdiction......proper answer WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS challenging jurisdiction of the court. People we are getting screwed by the criminals because we are NOT prepared to defend our rights.....with a writ of habeas corpus there will be NO record altering no listening to a blabbering official who just wants your money!!!!
Filing a motion with the court is IMPROPER...... the remedy is a writ!!!
The original and correct meaning of personam jurisdiction is jurisdiction that follows the person wherever he goes, regardless of the territory where he may be or have committed the offense. It is a common mistake to conflate it with custody of the accused or with the venue of the court, but those are
distinct concepts. Locum jurisdiction is properly the jurisdiction that follows the territory, regardless of the persons involved. Generally, personam and locum jurisdiction are exclusive, although in principle they could overlap.
A court proceeding goes through several phases, and the jurisdictions may differ from one phase to the next. Initially, during the examination phase,
the court presumes personam jurisdiction over persons in the custody of officers associated with it, until the jurisdictions for a hearing or trial can be determined and the proceeding move into the trial phase. To do that, it is supposed to determine that it has subjectam jurisdiction and either personam or locum jurisdiction.
In the United States, almost all criminal jurisdiction is supposed to be locum. The only personam jurisdiction, beyond national territory, is over military personnel and civilians bound by contract that subjects them to military discipline (such as some embedded reporters and contractors). The position that the United States has some criminal jurisdiction over U.S. citizens for their actions anywhere in the world is unconstitutional.
