And so it goes…
Someone on Facebook reached out to me today to take a look at a video from his first court appearance for several “transportation” related allegations that have been made against him by the State of Arkansas. This is the video of that court appearance. Turn the volume up if necessary and listen well to the verbal exchanges that takes place between the Individual and the Judge presiding over the hearing.
Which brings us to the rest of today’s lesson in how to go to court and how to make a proper challenge to said court’s presumption of jurisdiction in these sorts of matters.
The individual who posted this video has received numerous comments from the Patrinut crowd cheering him on and telling how great a job he did in addressing the court and making his challenge. In order to understand the magnitude of the educational issues that we face in getting people properly prepared for these Ponzi schemes that are our lower courts, I have chosen to post ALL of the top level comments that were made.
Few will gain what I just said.
HIDE with this stupidity. (See my discussion posted below these comments).
So, you can plainly see that there are many in the Patrinut community that have absolutely no clue about law or how it works, much less what they are talking about in relation to all the other stuff they were commenting with. But, what they do have in abundance is way more mouth than they know what to do with when it comes to telling someone else how they should construct their own platform for legal failure. It completely amazes me how they egg each other on in their commission of legal suicide by the demonstrable ignorance and stupidity they propagate, and all because they are just too damned lazy to learn the proper methods and procedures for winning their case on appeal, or possibly even before it begins with a properly established affirmative defense and/or jurisdictional challenge.
Understand, this article isn’t for those of you that know how and why you have to make a proper record for appeal, it’s for those that haven’t a clue. Especially those Patrinuts that are under the mistaken and far more often delusional belief that they are grand champion players of these games. To actually win on appeal, it is imperative to understand how to properly make the record, because the lower courts are not designed to comply with the law or to administer any real justice of any kind. No sir/ma’am. They are there to siphon money from an unsuspecting public that has no clue how to play their legal games by the standardized rules, especially when the lower courts are not acting in compliance with those rules themselves.
After he made this post, the Individual PM’d me. This is the conversation that took place between myself and the Individual directly. Please pay attention to his comments where I used a bold and underlined font to make them more visible. Even more to the point, pay closer attention to my explanation of what to put in a proper Motion to challenge the courts jurisdictional presumptions, which will look just like this text.
- Conversation started today
What state is this in?
Also, do you see all those comments on your post for the video? Just HOW much of that EXTREMELY bad advise did you attempt to actually use?
Did you file anything in writing in this matter?
Arkansas and I did a conditional acceptance notice
I must also assume that this was your first appearance on the citations in question?
Try not to take this the wrong way, but there are some things I need to ask you up front.
Sure go ahead
Have you even bothered to see WHAT the subject matter is that is being regulated by the statutes you are charged under?
Yes in my conditional acceptance
They have failed to state and are in default
Okay, try to understand that you NEED to forget that shit. It is a totally INCORRECT methodology for dealing with these ass-hats. If you are going to insist on listening to that crap and doing it anyway, then there is nothing that I can say that is going to make one damn bit of difference for you. And if you believe it will work, then proceed as you have and let me know how that actually turns out for you. Deal?
Now, do you even realize that it is “TRANSPORTATION” that the statutes themselves proclaim as being the regulated subject matter over which they have jurisdiction?
In other words, the code is regulating ONLY those engaging in the BUSINESS of transporting persons, goods, or property from one place to another FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE as a CARRIER.
Deal and yes I comprehend that. So go to trial and and have them prove I was engaging in commerce?
Did I say “commerce” in this instance? NO! The term is “transportation” as THAT is the specific term being used to describe the regulated subject matter. And while they ARE related, the specific subject matter title is the issue to remain focused on.
Let me show you something here that is STRAIGHT out of your own state code that would have ended this bullshit at your first appearance if you had only NOT used that damned Patrinut crap and simply used their own bullshit regulations against them:
2. A.C.A. § 23-2-201 (2016), Title 23 Public Utilities and Regulated Industries, Subtitle 1. Public Utilities And Carriers, Chapter 2 Regulatory Commissions, Subchapter 2 -- Transportation, 23-2-201. Definitions., Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated Official Edition © 1987-2016 by the State of Arkansas All rights reserved. (1) "Department" means the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and (2) "Transportation" means the carriage of persons and property for compensation by air, rail, water, carrier ...
LOOK at number TWO in this text. WHAT does it say “transportation” IS?
Look at the whole thing as it appears in the code:
Title 23 Public Utilities and Regulated Industries Subtitle 1. Public Utilities And Carriers Chapter 2 Regulatory Commissions Subchapter 2 — Transportation
A.C.A. § 23-2-201 (2016)
As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Department” means the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and
(2) “Transportation” means the carriage of persons and property for compensation by air, rail, water, carrier pipelines, or motor carriers.
HISTORY: Acts 1957, No. 132, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 73-151.The term “carriers” as used here is PLURAL, as in applicable to EACH of those things listed, i.e. “AIR carrier,” “RAIL carrier,” “WATER carrier,” “pipelines,” or “MOTOR carrier.” You get that?
I see. So how would I use this in court?
So, how about you STOP looking for magic beans and silver bullets and use their own statutory scheme to beat the shit out of them so you can sue them for malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment, and constructive FRAUD!!
Make them prove I was transporting ?
You file a WRITTEN “Motion for Discovery,” citing this statute and demanding that the prosecutor turn over ANY evidence in their possession or of which they have knowledge that shows that you were engaging in “transportation” for purposes of receiving compensation or “for hire” as a “carrier.”
THEN, after they CAN’T provide you with that evidence, you file another WRITTEN “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” that challenges both the subject matter and personal jurisdiction like so:
===========================The prosecution has provided no discovery showing the existence of any facts substantiated by eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that proves Respondent was engaging in any acts of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.Further, the prosecution has alleged no facts and provided no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that would implicate Respondent as having ever engaged in “transportation” as that term is defined and used within A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2) in relation to the allegation(s) being made, which Respondent believes is a necessary fact element essential to the State’s claim of both subject matter and in personam (personal) jurisdiction.There is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that Respondent was ever being paid to transport persons, goods or property for compensation or hire as is required in order for Respondent to have been engaging in any form of “transportation” as that term is defined and used within A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2) in relation to the allegation being made.There is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence in the form of a Bill of Lading, Passenger Manifest, Commercial Logbook, or any admission by Respondent himself or that of an eyewitness that Respondent was ever being paid to transport persons, goods or property for compensation or hire or was acting as a “carrier” for such purposes.As there is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that Respondent was ever engaged in “transportation” as defined in, and for the purposes stated in, A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2), then there is no evidence of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in the instant matter.
As no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence of subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent exists, the State has no standing to bring an action against Respondent in any matters relevant to “transportation,” including any alleged offenses defined thereunder within the laws and statutes of “this state.”
Furthermore, absent subject matter jurisdiction, and absent any facts or evidence proving that Respondent was ever engaged in “transportation” as defined in, and for the purposes stated in, A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2), then there is no evidence of the existence of in personam jurisdiction over the Respondent in the instant matter.
Therefore, this court lacks subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, the two primary elements of jurisdiction over Respondent.
As neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction exists over Respondent in this instant matter, and the State lacks subject matter standing to prosecute the matter, there is no justiciable issue before the court, thus depriving the court of the final element of jurisdiction.
Whereby Respondent moves the court to immediately dismiss this matter with prejudice.
I will do just that. Thank you very much for your help.
There is one thing that you need to understand and expect; the lower court isn’t going to care about or respect the law. THAT is why you do EVERYTHING in writing, so that the higher court can see what actually happened when it goes to appeal. STOP worrying about losing at trial. The game is RIGGED to virtually ensure that you DO lose at trial in the off-chance that you can’t or won’t get your appeal done in the manner and time required.
I am tired of never getting anywhere with the patrinut stuff. Want to be able to defeat them the right way and I am tired of being martryer
So make damn sure to STUDY and faithfully follow the procedures for perfecting and getting your appeal. Start reading and learning about that NOW, BEFORE you actually need it. Make notes, recheck them, study them, then make sure you follow them.
Yes I comprehend I will have to appeal. I will lol up the timeline houses for appeal in Arkansas
Just promise one other thing if you don’t mind…?
Tell everyone else about how the Patrinut bullshit DOESN’T work, and that you CAN beat them at their own game IF you will just learn HOW. Because there simply ISN’T any shortcuts in the form of magic paperwork or legal silver bullets to getting it done.
The ONLY silver bullet comes AFTER you have kicked their asses on the law repeatedly, THEN they will avoid you like the plague.
You have my word I will.
Cause none ice it has worked for me so far and I’ve been trying for close to 8 years
The only thing that I heard you do properly and for the right reasons in that video is to begin with “I’m here by special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court in the instant matter.” Everything else was wasteful and self-prejudicial bullshit.
Right. I am still learning.
Now, I posted the same thing I wrote here for you as a comment on that video link you sent over. Let me know how that all goes over with the Patrinut crowd that has collected there.
I appriciate your straight forward not beating around the bush answers.
I will keep you posted.
Also, may I use that as a group discussion lesson on my wall, legal discussion group, and my blog? Better to use it to teach others what NOT to do as well as what TO do.
Your video I mean?
That’s part of why I do what I do
If you don’t mind, is it small enough to email or do you have it in DropBox or somewhere online that I can link directly to it?
It isn’t easy to download one from Facebook is why I’m asking.
Uploading to YouTube now I can email it to you if I can figure out how
If it’s on YouTube then that is enough. Just send me the link once its up.
Also, would you mind if I use this chat session to show your thoughts on the matter?
You need to amend one of the paragraphs to read thus:
As no jurisdiction exists over Respondent in this instant matter, and the State lacks standing to prosecute the matter, there is no justiciable issue before the court, thus depriving the court of the final element of jurisdiction.
Use what ever you need. And I just got the first call saying to make the judge pay the taxes on the charges. Jean Keating work.
As you read in his own comments, for almost eight years the Patrinut crap simply hasn’t ever worked for him, and it certainly doesn’t work in the manner that its many uneducated and illiterate-in-law advocates would like you to believe it does. If it did, then they would be doing nothing but posting win after win by doing the things they do. And they simply don’t, because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because it doesn’t properly address the issues being litigated. It doesn’t work because their methods simply don’t follow LAW. Which is an issue that I’ve addressed on this blog before in another article.
So, if you aren’t willing to even read the laws and statutes that the other party is trying to use against you in these courts, just how do you ever intend to understand the allegations and fight back against them? Osmosis? It’s like playing a new board game you’ve never seen and don’t have the first clue about what the rules are, or even the point of the game. And yet, using only a plethora of magic Patrinut paper incantations and origami non-pleadings, you expect to beat all the other vastly experienced players by simply saying “I win, you lose!” And just in case that sounds somewhat familiar, that’s because you have probably heard something similar before:
As you can see from the Arkansas statutes themselves, he already had an affirmative defense that would have served him well and most likely gotten the Judge’s attention enough that the jurisdictional challenge during his court appearance might have ended both the proceeding and the matter much more in his favor. Especially if he went to the appellate court with a documented case of having properly made the oral objection and jurisdictional challenge in open court as well as in a properly written Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Two things that will never help you win a court case is willful ignorance and being too damned lazy to learn how to do something properly that needs to or must be done in relation to the case being adjudicated and prepared for appeal.
Therefore, I issue a call to action! PATRINUTS UNITE!!
Then, PLEASE, hold each others clammy and pasty little hands while crossing the legal streets, and march your ill-informed and unstudied asses right down to your local law library and learn to frickin’ READ already!!
Just once, for your own sake and the sanity of those of us that have actually made the effort and sacrifices necessary to really and truly understand the fallacies of your arguments and position, TRY to comprehend how law is supposed to actually work!! Especially before you open your miseducated and unprepared mouth and provide useless disinformation to otherwise innocently ignorant individuals as if you know what the hell you’re doing!! STOP trying to make people believe that you have actually done the dumb-ass shit that you are proclaiming and that it’s legally infallible, which I would wager considerable money that none of you actually have. And if you did, then there is even better money to be made betting that it has never worked any better for you than it will the poor schmuck that is dumb enough to believe you know WTF you’re even talking about.
Doing this crap doesn’t make you look intelligent the way you think it does. Just the opposite in fact. But what it does do is literally make you a stumbling block to others in understanding the true nature and function of law as well as making you a direct danger to the legal safety, health, and welfare of your fellow man.