Me and my friend have been "using" a method to drive WITH a licence but, in effect, use jurisdiction for our "short comings" (e.g. not going by the rules, unchecked behavior and a host of other things like, parking in handicap spots, ect)..
This is done very easily: We get driver's licence from a state we DO NOT reside in, plates, and state flags (from that state) and drive home..
Say, I get stopped the first thing out of mouth is, "sorry officer.. is their a problem?" Then, the question's but, I stick to ONE SCRIPTED: Am I under arrest? Do you have jurisdiction? And I am i'm compliance with state of ohio (where I get the licence, from) and its code's and law's.... Most cop's get irrated and throw me in jail...
In front of the judge, its time for 'light hearted entertainment'... The first thing I ask the assistant DA is, "where is my driver's licence issued from?" They (foolishly) answer, "from ohio". I ask, "is it apart of the record?" and he replies, "of course!" Thats the best of it out because, he RIPPED the jurisdiction RIGHT OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH!
How did he do that? Easily.. He ADMITTED (on the record) that, my licence was not issued within the state of illinois (where, I locally drive around at) and the state of ohio, is what the record, REFLECTS..
After questioning by the judge, I proceed to make him or her REPEAT what I asked.... And of course, the same answer's... I've beaten the court on OVER 17 case's from driving in the wrong lane (not honoring such silliness but, I wanted to be pulled over!!), parking in a handicap space, and a host of other things I can not to remember... The best part of the 'proceedings' is when I ask the assistant DA what flag was flying (on my car), when I was stopped? That commonly, buries him and the judge does what a smart judge SHOULD DO: Dismiss With Prejudice...
With Prejudice mean's, I can park in a handicap space and not get charged for it, again (i'm not a thief, just had something to 'prove')..... Jurisdiction is ALL ABOUT how has the 'proper claim' and I used another state's jurisdiction to confused, irritated and upset some 23 assistant DA attorney's (in all) for a period of 4 and a half, year's....
Hope, some can use this information while, other's, get a better understand of the system'[s], you serve!!
The Man- Politics & MoneY
312-521-0462
markgilmore0@gmail.com
7 comments:
Are you talking the state's want of jurisdiction over a citizen of another state? I.e. the complaint needs to be filed in Federal court by claiming diversity jurisdiction???
Nonsense, don't believe it for a second!!
First of all, its not about federal jurisdiction (you have the 2, mixed up!).. Secondly, your using one jurisdiction (state) over another (state) in which, you are IN TITLED to do so without revocation of another state under most Foreign Judgement Acts (like, here in illinois: http://judgments.uslegal.com/foreign-judgements/illinois-foreign-judgments-law/ ...)
This mean's (in short) if, the DMV, state, or county you live in (in which, you were suspended from driving, got a bunch of tickets or simple, were revoked from drunk driving or the like) DOES NOT FILE a Foreign Judgement Act within the state you will get your NEW driver's licence from then, that state will not enforce a judgement in that state (e.g. it DOES NOT apply in another state unless, it is recognized by that state or is implied that, that state has the right to refuse on the merits of another jurisdiction..).
Do some research and maybe, have a ex-offender (such as known drunk driver) to get a driver's licence from another state (do recommend to NOT state you have been revoked or whatever situation your in, to be stated), my Anonymous Blog Reporter!! LOL!
The Man- Politics & MoneY
312-521-0462
markgilmore0@gmail.com
First off, NEVER ask if you are under arrest, because the law says that an arrest is engaged the moment the red lights were activated and directed at you.
"A seizure occurs if "'in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.'" State v. DeArman, 54 Wn. App. 621, 774 P.2d 1247 (1989) (quoting State v. Aranguren, 42 Wn. App. 452, 455, 711 P.2d 1096 (1985) (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, 100 S. Ct. 1870 (1980)))
The want of jurisdiction is that, a foreigner, has proper jurisdiction as long as a Foreign Judgement Act is beginning USED (benefits to a beneficial interest e.g. entitlement of international, private and public law forms) in exchange of the jurisdiction, beginning sought, after...
Its really, based on opinion but, to 'create' a venue is no different then, doing business, in another country (e.g. 2 different states, are 2 countries in respects to international law)..
Again, do some research!
The Man- Politics & MoneY
929-268-6767
commonbonding@gmail.com
The want of jurisdiction is that, a foreigner, has proper jurisdiction as long as a Foreign Judgement Act is beginning USED (benefits to a beneficial interest e.g. entitlement of international, private and public law forms) in exchange of the jurisdiction, beginning sought, after...
Its really, based on opinion but, to 'create' a venue is no different then, doing business, in another country (e.g. 2 different states, are 2 countries in respects to international law)..
Again, do some research!
The Man- Politics & MoneY
929-268-6767
commonbonding@gmail.com
The want of jurisdiction is that, a foreigner, has proper jurisdiction as long as a Foreign Judgement Act is beginning USED (benefits to a beneficial interest e.g. entitlement of international, private and public law forms) in exchange of the jurisdiction, beginning sought, after...
Its really, based on opinion but, to 'create' a venue is no different then, doing business, in another country (e.g. 2 different states, are 2 countries in respects to international law)..
Again, do some research!
The Man- Politics & MoneY
929-268-6767
commonbonding@gmail.com
Post a Comment