Google+ Badge

Tuesday, June 7, 2016


Here’s a thread from an old patriot group that has some great info about dealing with federal charges.
1) Challenging federal jurisdiction – the first article explains it.
2) Special Appearance – I believe that EVERYONE should do it in federal court and in State courts it should be the legal ‘weapon’ of choice for NONRESIDENT ALIENS, as those have no contract with the State. Others not so much, since if you have a Driver license or other evidence of residency, court's personal jurisdiction is pretty much a moot point.
3) There’s a mention here of the USA v Braun case, where the guy went pro per and challenged the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction OF CONGRESS. It was about violating some federal law by picketing an abortion clinic. He won, while all the other guys who lawyered up, lost. And if I remember correctly, he did that by filing into the case Congress’s study about federal jurisdiction. I believe it was this one:
Of course, it’d best be ordered from the gov’t printing office, if they still have it. Seems to me that this might be useful when dealing with federal drug and gun charges.

Jerry Bookout                                               Message 1 of 6 , Aug 24, 1999


Edited And S|ubmitted By jbook

(Address delivered in open court in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division,
at San Francisco, before a group of students of Stanford
University Law School-Some Years Ago)

The problem of jurisdiction in the Federal District Courts can be
best illustrated to the Student by two quotations. The first one
is Section 37 of the Judicial Code, 28 USCA 80, enacted on March
3, 1875, and which reads:

"If in any suit commenced in a district court, or
removed from a State Court to a district court of the
United States, it shall appear to the satisfaction of
the said district court at any time after such suit has
been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does
really and substantially involve a dispute or
controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said
district court, or that the parties to said suit have
been improperly or collusively made or joined either as
plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of creating a
case cognizable or removable under this chapter, the
said district court shall proceed no further therein,
but shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the court
from which it was removed, as justice may require, and
shall make such order as to costs as shall be just."

The other quotation is from a leading case interpreting this
section (McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 1936, 298 U.
S. 178, 189). Speaking for the court Mr. Chief Justice Hughes

"The prerequisites to the exercise of jurisdiction are
specifically defined and the plain import of the statute
is that the District Court is vested with authority to
inquire at any time whether these conditions have been
met. They are conditions which must be met by the party
who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor. He
must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show
jurisdiction. If he fails to make the necessary
allegations he has no standing. If he does make them,
an inquiry into the existence of jurisdiction is
obviously for the purpose of determining whether the

facts support his allegations. In the nature of things,
the authorized inquiry is primarily directed to the one
who claims that the power of the court should be exerted
in his behalf. As he is seeking relief subject to this
supervision, it follows that he must carry throughout
the litigation the burden of showing that he is properly
in court. The authority which the stature vests in the
court to enforce the limitation of its jurisdiction
precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained
by mere averment or that the party asserting
jurisdiction may be relieved of his burden by any formal

"If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are
challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner,
he must support them by competent proof. And where they
are not so challenged and court may still insist that
the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be
dismissed and for that purpose the court may demand that
the party alleging jurisdiction justify his allegations
by a preponderance of the evidence."

Several things are implicit in the statutory enactment just read
and in the language of the court interpreting it.

In the first place they emphasize the importance of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction as the word implies (Jus dicere), literally meaning
to pronounce the law, is the right to adjudicate concerning the
subject matter in a given case. It is the power to hear and
determine. When the case comes before any court, the first thing
which must be determined is whether the court has jurisdiction.
Rightly, because the judgment rendered by a court without
jurisdiction is a nullity. No one is bound to observe it and as
the old legal saying is, "It is a dead limb on the judicial

Important as this matter is in the case of any court, it is much
more important in the case of the Federal District Courts. This
for the reason, that they are courts of limited jurisdiction and
no presumption of jurisdiction attaches to such courts. As Mr.
Justice Harlan said in a leading case on the subject (Bors v.
Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 255),

"But when the inquiry involves the jurisdiction of a
federal court, - the presumption in every stage of a
cause being that it is without the jurisdiction of a
court of the United States, unless the contrary appears
from the record."

Jurisdiction must affirmatively appear from the record and not
merely from the pleadings of findings and he who invokes it has
the burden of proving it.

Two other principles flow, however, from this, when we consider
the Federal District Courts. One of these is the continuing duty
of the court itself to inquire into jurisdiction. This is
expressed very well in the language of Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
which I have read. But there is another corollary of these
principles which is that the higher courts, i. e. the Circuit
Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court will raise the question
although it was not raised or stipulated to by the litigants in
the court below (Lion Mfg. Co. v. Chicago Flexible Shaft Co.), 7
Cir., 1959, 106 Fed (2nd) 930, 933). Thus, in a three judge case
on which I sat, although the challenge for jurisdiction had been
withdrawn and was not repeated when the case reached the Supreme
Court they raised the question of jurisdiction saying:

"But on the argument, it appearing doubtful whether the
'matter in controversy' exceeded 'the sum or value of'
$3,000, _24(1), we raised the question whether the
jurisdictional amount was involved, as was our duty."

(Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 1939, 306 U. S. 583, 588.)

In a case now famous which originated in this circuit, Ivos,
Inc., v. Associated Press, 1939, 299 U. S. 269, the Supreme Court
dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction although the Circuit
Court of Appeal had found that the matter in controversy exceeded
the jurisdictional minimum.

In another case doubt having arisen as to jurisdiction, the court
sent the case back to the district court with instructions to
determine and make appropriate findings "on the question whether
the jurisdictional amount is involved" (Read v. Dickerson, 1941,
312 U. S. 656).

Ordinarily you can rely on your adversary not taking advantage of
his own act. Not so in our court when it comes to jurisdiction.
He who invokes it may recant and repudiate it after losing the
case. The guardian of a child brought suit in our district
against a Los Angeles store for injuries suffered by the child
while playing on a escalator. After plaintiff rested I granted
non suit on the ground that no negligence had been shown. While
a motion for new trial was pending, new counsel who had been
employed in the case moved to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction. Having dismissed the cause, and entered a judgment
of dismissal following a granting of a non suit, I decided to re-
dismiss it upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction, but the
Circuit Court thought otherwise and returned the case to me with
an order to re-dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction (Katoaka v.
May Department Store, 9 Cir., 115 Fed. (2nd) 521).

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad was sued in Superior
Court of the State of California for Los Angeles County for
personal injuries. It being a Foreign Corporation, It removed
the case to the Federal District court. After trial before a
jury a verdict of $35,000 was returned against the railroad. On
Appeal the railroad argued that the case was improperly removed
to the Federal District Court. The Circuit Court agreed,
reversed the judgment and ordered the district court to remand it
to the Superior court (Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe v. Francom,
9th Cir., 1941, 118 Fed. (2nd) 712).

In both of these cases the winning party was robbed of his
victory through lack of jurisdiction. And in both instances, the
party who invoked the jurisdiction turned defat into victory by
challenging the jurisdiction they themselves had invoked.

So you see what pitfalls lurk in your path as you approach our
court. when Dante approached the Inferno, he found this
inscription on its portals: "Lasciate Ogni speranze voi chi
intrate" (Abandon hope all ye who enter here).

There are no such foreboding warnings on the portals of our
courts. Yet they are as imperative. they say, Stop and ponder
as you approach. Be sure you have the right to enter or you will
be cast out of this temple of Justice and your client scourged
with costs.
Message 2 of 6 , Aug 24, 1999 
View Source
Your article was very good, but it only looked at Jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts from the plaintiff's side.
From the defendant's side there is the case of United States of America Vs 
Robert C. Braun et al wherein 6 men picketed an abortion clinic, and all were 
charged with a federal crime. 5 of the 6 pled guilty and were sent to prison. 
Robert C. Braun, pro per contested jurisdiction and after many briefs were 
filed, the federal judge ordered that there was no jurisdiction, threw the 
case out and set him free.
the case number was 94-CR-140 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Those that were still in prison were let go, but some had already served
their sentences.
I have a whole book describing Federal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts, with
the winning briefs etc and can make it available to those that want it.

If any one on the defendants had filed a paper with the court in the 
beginning, called a "Special Appearance" contesting Jurisdiction, all of them 
would have been let go. 
Whenever you are charged in any court, with an offense or crime, ALWAYS file 
a Special Appearance contesting jurisdiction, since the laws state that the 
Federal Govt. only has jurisdiction when the crime occurs on Federal 
Property, unless there is a specific FEDERAL statute giving the Federal Govt.
Jurisdiction, and if there is still file a Special Appearance, since this
gives the judge a way out to dismiss and clear his calendar so he can go
golfing (drinking?).
Bill Drexler
3368 Governor Dr. #186
San Diego, Ca. 92122

Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd
Message 3 of 6 , Aug 24, 1999 
View Source
You may want to look at the United States of America as a moving party.
Check out Dan Meadors information. United States of America is not correct.
Also you will find that up to the civil war, the moving party was "THE
UNITED STATES" and later it was the UNITED STATES and now if you look in
fed 2d or 3rd etc, in the title of the case you will see UNITED STATES of

the best

Charles Marcus
Message 4 of 6 , Aug 25, 1999 
View Source
> From: JDre105140@...
> Your article was very good, but it only looked at
> Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts from the plaintiff's side.
> From the defendant's side there is the case of United States
> of America Vs Robert C. Braun et al wherein 6 men picketed an
> abortion clinic, and all were charged with a federal crime. 5
> of the 6 pled guilty and were sent to prison. Robert C.
> Braun, pro per contested jurisdiction and after many briefs
> were filed, the federal judge ordered that there was no
> jurisdiction, threw the case out and set him free. the case
> number was 94-CR-140 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
> Those that were still in prison were let go, but some had
> already served their sentences. I have a whole book
> describing Federal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts, with the
> winning briefs etc and can make it available to those that
> want it.
This case did NOT challenge the jurisdiction of the
COURT, it challenged the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction OF

Big difference...

Message 5 of 6 , Aug 25, 1999 
View Source
Any criminal case whatsoever involving a common person in a State is
not a case in law and equity, nor is it a case affecting an ambassador,
other public minister or consul. The judicial power of the United States
simply does not extend to a criminal case involving a common person. On the
other hand if a judge is a public minister the supreme Court of the United
States, and only that court has original jurisdiction of a criminal case
against him or her. Judges are not privileged from arrest. They are not
sovereigns, or holders of titles of nobility. Judges who commit crimes do
not represent a State. No corporation is a State within the meaning of the
Constitution even if that corporation has a States name.
What happens in many Federal and State criminal cases is an illusion of
a criminal prosecution. An ignorant enforcer seizes a person, sometimes
without due process of law. The imprisoned person is offered his freedom in
exchange for his signature on a contract. The Contract, called a bond,
obligates the person to show up for court and abide by the ruling of the
court. A lawyer representing the accused tries to make the best deal
possible with the accusing party. If a case does go to an illusion of a
trial by jury, the contract authorizes the judge to override the jury if
their ruling doesn't suit him. In most cases the accused volunteers for his
punishment to avoid harsher punishment. Things like jurisdiction and
constitutionality are seldom mentioned when making deals.
Message 6 of 6 , Aug 25, 1999 
View Source
You are exactly right in that the case challenged the legislative authority 
of Congress to make a law that it had no power to do. 
What I'm saying is that this pro se litigant did not have to go through all 
of this trouble if he had filed a ""Special Appearance", right off the bat 
stating that the court had no jurisdiction over him and the subject matter, 
and later on in his motions, etc., he would then lay out the reasons why. 
When a "Special Appearance" is filed by a defendant, the judge then has to
make a quick decision and hold an immediate hearing regarding jurisdiction
(whether it is Legislative Jurisdiction, Judicial Jurisdiction, etc).
The judge is made aware that should he find that THERE IS JURISDICTION, when 
in fact there is NO JURISDICTION (for what ever reason), THE JUDGE loses ALL 
IMMUNITY, and can be personally sued for money damages. 
In this case, there was NO 
Special Appearance" filed by any defendant, so the judge need not worry about
his personal liability. Judges are terrified that they can be sued, (even if
they win the case) since they are then brought into court as a "Civil"
defendant and are subject to Depositions, Interrogatories, Cross Examination,
and Demand for protection of Documents, plus other discovery, and their whole
life is laid bare, for all to see, and possibly use against them at some
future date.
Judges have unlisted phone numbers, and are very secretive about their
investments, friends, hobbies, home addresses, and rightly so, since some
criminal defendant that feels that he was wronged may try to "hunt him down"
after release from a long prison sentence, and of course he would be a
sitting duck, if all of his personal information was made part of a public
record, sitting in a court file exhibit, for anyone to read.
When a person is charged with a crime, he does not immediately know all the 
law about all of the defenses available to him, and will often overlook a not 
so obvious defense, which would set him free if he knew about it. The filing 
of a "Special Appearance," preserves his right to bring the newly discovered 
Defense into his case at any time, and the judge then has to rule on it. 
By not filing a "Special Appearance" at the BEGINNING, (even before he pleads
to the charge), HE WAIVES HIS RIGHT to bring it later.

The mere filing of a "Special Appearance," puts the Judge on notice "that he 
must go very carefully" on this matter, and even investigate all possible 
Jurisdiction matters himself, or he could be in deep trouble later.
Judges are always watching their calendars, and want to clear the calendar of
all cases as fast as they can, so they can take time off, or do other things
such as study briefs, take time off, etc.
I've won more cases by just filing a "Special Appearance" in ALL criminal 
cases, so now the Judge has a reason to dismiss the case, and the Prosecutor
cannot complain, nor will he complain about the dismissal of the charges.
Usually, one Prosecutor brings the charges, but another Prosecutor will be
assigned to try the case (and he may have more pressing things to do and not
feel as strong about the case, as the "charging" prosecutor does, and would
secretly like to dump it, but also would hate to lose it if it is tried. He
just loves it when he can say, "The judge dismissed the case," I think he had
some reason but he didn't want to tell me." The "Trial Prosecutor" is
thrilled to get out of all that work, and now he can take a few days off to
spend with his family, attend his son's graduation, go watch his daughter in
a school play, or mow his lawn, etc.
Defendants have got to make it easy for the Prosecutors to get out of work,
without the blame falling on them, since they have to maintain their
reputations as being "tough."
I'm glad I had the opportunity to explain this further, since when I wrote
before, I was pressed for time to keep an appointment, and could not do the
job I really wanted to do.
I again commend your ability to know that the challenge was to THE CONGRESS
and not specifically to the court's jurisdiction, since I wanted to clear
this up.
If you file a "Special Appearance" and there is no grounds for it YOU LOSE 
NOTHING, so my advice is to FILE IN EVERY CASE. If you do not file, you 
forever waive the right to file later. 
Good luck and God bless
Bill Drexler
If I remember correctly, for example California has jurisdictional challenge codified in CCP 410 and 418, although they don't mention Special Appearance, just point out some lame motion challenging jurisdiction, although I had no problem filing it here years ago, even though the court clerk wasn't very happy about that when I was filing it in. Plus their private, corporate court rules should have no effect on nonresident aliens, State Citizens and Inhabitants. I.e. those should be EXEMPT from those rules, as they are ON the LAND of the republic, not IN any corporate STATE. One might also try filing the ORIGINAL State Constitution into the case, which guarantees republican style of gov't, to BRING THE LAND into the case with him.
So when you're doing Special Appearance, you're basically saying that no court rules even apply to me, until you prove your jurisdiction on the record.
And it seems to me that this could also be used to challenge the LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION of State gov't. Remember, since 1933 all states were converted from states of the Union, to STATES of the United States (District of Columbia), which only have STATUTORY jurisdiction over 14th Am. federal citizens and STATE RESIDENTS. And that's because they're corporations created by the federal gov't, i.e. States of District of Columbia (United States), rather than states of the Union.
Those municipal corporations of the District of Columbia, DO NOT have jurisdiction over what happens on the LAND of state of the Union. Incidentally, that's why illegal aliens can get away with so much, and State usually doesn't prosecute them for statutory offences, only for common law crimes. So if you're a State Citizen or Inhabitant (NOT a resident), and thus have NO CONTRACT with the corporate STATE, the STATE legislature should have NO JURISDICTION over what you did on the land of the Republic.
 If you are a citizen of the District of Columbia, which is a U.S. Citizen, you have abandoned your State Nationality and Constitution. BTW, Cities and counties are CREATIONS of the Legislature. I.e. they're municipal CORPORATIONS. So they ONLY have power over other State-created legal fictions, such as RESIDENTS and federal citizens. NOT over people of the State and free inhabitants, unless those engage in commerce.
"Officers of the courts are expected and deemed to know the law." Therefore they have not any immunity when violating a Constitutional Right."
Owen v. City of Independence :: 445 U.S. 622 (1980) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court
Oh, and I'll post more about Special Appearance later.


No comments:

Post a Comment