D. Ceived (c)copyright 2011


“This means they can lie, cheat and steal when functioning in their capacity as a judge and you cannot hold them accountable for their actions.  This, the courts have ruled, is necessary to insure an independent judiciary.”


Anyone who has taken the time and exerted the energy to read the Constitution and then compares that document to the conduct of the Federal Government quickly realizes that most of what the government does today is outside the powers granted to it by the Constitution.  The question is, what can be done about it?

Many talk about a political solution, asserting that the wrong people are elected to office and that the solution lies in electing the right people to office.  However, this solution is overly simplistic and in denial of some of the basic characteristics of human nature. 

Why should we believe that a different set of elected legislators would react or behave any differently when subjected to the same temptations and pressures of elected office? 

Being subject to temptations of the flesh, there are few among us who have not stepped beyond the bounds of accepted standards of morality and would thereby have compromised our integrity in the eyes of the general public.  Fear of this exposure coupled with rewards of monetary gain or increased positions of power become the proverbial carrot and stick used to control politicians and bend them to the will of those who would control the conduct of government and frustrate the will of the people.  Precious few politicians are allowed to rise to significant positions of power unless they have been compromised and have demonstrated a willingness to submit to demands.

Those who framed our Constitution were aware of the fact of human frailty and created mechanisms to compensate for and correct the unavoidable consequences of that frailty.  That mechanism is called the rule of law and due process of law.  The Constitution, being the highest law of the land, the organic law of this nation, takes precedence over all statutes, codes and regulations.  

Further, the Constitution guarantees and defines due process of law.  This is called substantive due process.  

Both civil and criminal court procedures were created in furtherance of substantive due process . If court procedures are faithfully adhered to by the courts, the guarantees of the rule of law and due process of law will prevail.

So, where does the system fail in it’s obligation to strike down clearly unconstitutional statutes, codes and regulations?  How is it that a denial of due process, the very definition of a void and thereby unenforceable judgment, fails to render any adverse judgment void, null and unenforceable?

The judiciary is the gatekeeper of society.  Through the courts must pass all those who, contest, seek justice and affirmation of the rule of law.  Both are routinely denied, for the judiciary is subject to the same human frailty as the rest of humanity.  Additionally, judges have granted themselves immunity for their many transgressions when acting in their official capacity.  

This means they can lie, cheat and steal when functioning in their capacity as a judge and you cannot hold them accountable for their actions.  This, the courts have ruled, is necessary to insure an independent judiciary.

If judges were forced to choose between according due process of law, and prison for failure to adhere to their oath to support and defend the Constitution, within which is found your right to due process of law, you would then receive due process.  Until judges are faced with this choice, you will not receive due process and you have no remedy.  The courts have the power to right all of the wrongs. Until the people take back control of their courts, nothing will change.  So the question is, how do the people take back their courts and force judges to comply with their oaths of fidelity to the Constitution?

Jail for Judges is a concept which has gained momentum for several years.  This is legislation that, when enacted within any specific jurisdiction, will create a review board outside the judiciary, with the authority to review judges actions or negligence with an eye to correcting denials of due process and sanctioning or otherwise punishing judges up to and including imprisonment.  

Once the rule of law and due process of law are re-established in a single jurisdiction, i.e. any State of the Union, the process of unraveling the unconstitutional statutes, codes, regulations and facially void judgments of that State and all others may proceed.  People denied due process in any other jurisdiction need only move to this State long enough to meet residency requirements in order to petition the court for vacation of a facially void judgment which originated in another jurisdiction, that is, the case file of a judgment which demonstrates a denial of procedural due process. 

The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution forces all other States to honor the vacation of judgment.  The foregoing applies equally to the Federal Government.

In summation, we have both a Federal and State governments with virtually unbounded power aided and abetted by a judiciary which has bestowed immunity upon itself.  This game has been rigged by design.  The courts have the power to right all of the wrongs.  The courts are the key to take back our country. 

How do I know this? 

Judicial branch courts possess neither in-personam nor subject matter jurisdiction over alleged violations of the vehicle code. Jurisdiction is a two sided coin and a court must possess both in-personam as well as subject matter jurisdiction in order to exercise jurisdiction. In order to understand why judicial branch courts are not in possession of either side of the jurisdictional coin we must examine the source from which each is derived.

Subject matter jurisdiction derives from the legislature. 

If the legislature deigns to pass legislation regarding a given subject, the judicial branch courts are automatically imbued with jurisdiction to enforce the legislation unless the legislature directs otherwise. In-personam jurisdiction derives from due process. Substantive due process is found in the fourth article in amendment to the constitution which states ” no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation” Procedural due process was promulgated in furtherance of substantive due process and guarantees substantive due process if followed faithfully. There are only four instruments which confer in-personam jurisdiction to the court over a specific individual, the warrant, the summons, the indictment and the civil summons. 

On the criminal side:the warrant,the summons, and the indictment

all satisfy the substantive requirement of a finding of probable cause supported by an oath, (complaint). In most states the traffic ticket qualifies as the oath, as it is signed by the complaining LEO (law enforcement officer), but where is the probable cause hearing and subsequent finding of probable cause? Many people refer to a traffic ticket as a summons, but does it meet the procedural requirements for a summons? Criminal rules of procedure require that a summons be signed by the issuing magistrate, but the only signatures on your ticket are yours and the LEO. Likewise, a warrant must be signed by the issuing magistrate and an indictment must be read in open court by the foreman of the grand jury in the presence of the prosecutor. Obviously that did not happen.

So what if the ticket is styled as a civil matter? Does it meet the procedural requirements for a civil summons? A civil summons must be signed by the clerk of court. No matter which way you turn that ticket, you’re not going to find the signature of the clerk, so it cannot be a civil summons. 

This all begs the question, what is this traffic ticket? If you look above your signature you’ll see a promise to appear, and that it all the ticket is, a promise to appear.

Typically, what happens is this. You take your ticket to the court and the clerk at the window asks you “how do you plead?” If you plead not guilty you have implicitly recognized the jurisdiction of the court over your person and waived your right to the procedural due process necessary to confer in-personam jurisdiction to the court over your person. Pretty tricky, eh-what?

So how do you appear without waiving your rights?

You must appear specially and not generally for the sole purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the court. You can file a motion to dismiss for want of in-personam jurisdiction, as a motion qualifies as an appearance. You cannot appear generally and you may not traverse within the court. 

To traverse within the court is to ask the court for ANYTHING. If you appear generally, if you defend on the merits or traverse, you have implicitly recognized the jurisdiction of the court over you and waived due process.

The rules of traffic court are brief. The rule governing entry of plea does not require an entry of plea. It reads you “may enter a plea of responsible” and in the following part reads you “may enter a plea of not responsible”. The term “may” is discretionary. The term “shall” is mandatory. A brief survey of the rules reveals that there is no provision for the court to enter a plea on your behalf should you refuse to do so. This rule exists in the criminal rules but not in the traffic rules and this fact is most revealing. If you are being charged under the criminal rules of procedure, you are appearing in court on the basis of a warrant, summons or indictment and in-personam jurisdiction has been conferred upon the court in accordance with substantive and procedural due process. With jurisdiction secured, the court is at liberty to enter a plea on your behalf should you refuse to do so. In traffic, the court has not secured jurisdiction and must depend on you to waive your substantive and procedural rights, thus, does not possess the ability to enter a plea on your behalf should you refuse to do so.

To my knowledge, found within the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) of every state, is a statute which assigns primary jurisdiction over the vehicle code to the Transportation Dept. or like administrative agency. Also within the act are found procedures for an administrative hearing in the event of a contested case. In my state there is a concurrent jurisdiction statute which confers concurrent jurisdiction on judicial branch courts, but this is trumped by another statute in the APA which states “To the extent that any other statute would diminish a right created or a duty imposed by this chapter, the other statute is superseded by this chapter, unless the other statute expressly provides otherwise.” 

What are the rights and duties referred to? 

The right to an administrative hearing and the duty of the agency to provide that hearing. Indeed, the only provision for a judicial branch court to obtain subject matter jurisdiction over an alleged violation of the vehicle code is for the accused to appeal upon final determination by the agency. 

As a result of my knowledge of these issues, I have been placed on the “do not ticket” list in my state. The courts do not want these issues to be raised. My son raised the issue of SMJ (subject matter jurisdiction) in his defense on felony vehicle code charges and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. The motion was denied in the absence of any response from the prosecutor. Due process was denied several more times during pre-trial motion practice in an effort to secure a conviction. Upon appeal, the court refused self representation and forced an attorney upon my son in order to avoid having to deal with the issues he raised and denials of due process he suffered.

 Until the courts are forced by law to choose between according litigants due process of law and going to jail for refusing to do so, we have no remedy, as the courts are currently lawless.