SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

An affirmative responsibility of any National or Citizen is to adhere to (and to enforce)

the principles embodied within the National Constitution of his or her National
Government, Nation State, and of Society at large. This proposition embodies a primal rule in
civilization, and involves the duties and of citizenship. Constitutions are designed to maintain
justice, peace and harmony within a Social Order or Body Politic. Therefore, for directives in
social duties; and for general inter-social instructions, the advent of the universal oriented
science of government. That science is called, Civics. Nationhood, Citizenship, Nationality,
Public Service, Politics, Economics, and organized government (in general) constitute the
science and discipline called, Civics.

Constitutions are set forth to designate authority to those who govern, and to delegate
limits of authority to each and every specific Office or Seat. The Constitution does not give
rights to the Nationals and citizens. Constitutions are in place to preserve the Divine and Natural
Rights that already exist by Natural and Divine Law. Constitutions are generally written to
harmonize with Natures Law and Natures God.

Important aspects of the American Constitution that express the essence of it construct,
are demonstrated in Article III and Article VI, in relationship to the limitations of delegated
authority. The readers and scholars will find that these Articles strongly deal with the issue of
Jurisdiction although the subject of jurisdiction is not limited to them. However, the intended
preservation of the Substantive Rights of the people have been, and are, addressed with the
established principles expressed within these Articles. Supportive of these Articles are the Bill
of Rights which is comprised of 10 Amendments. These should be studied intently whenever
any controversy arises concerning Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power to act, and more
succinctly, the authority to do or to act in relationship to the limited authority assigned to a
political seat; to a judgeship, to a court; to a trust; to any position in relationship to such
exercises. The following relate to the secured Rights of the People as embodied within the
American Constitution. Whenever anyone is accused of a crime or charged with an offence, the
following rules are to known, preserved, followed, and acknowledged, as they are firmly in
accord with the Supreme Law of the Land!

Accused Must Be Properly Identified

1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for
mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could
be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Almost always, the means
of identification is a person's proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS
EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT
DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th
Amendment; also see, Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.)

Statute of Offence Must Be Clearly Identified

2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is
insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of
statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: Colorado National
Monument Superintendent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail).
If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at
any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to
be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an
offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate
any exception found in the law.

Offence or Nature of Charge Must Be Intelligently Described

3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as
to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable
preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge
must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the
acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a
general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the
determination of probable cause.

Accuser Must be Positively Identified

4. The accuser must be named. He/she (the accuser) may be an officer or a third party, but
some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain person must
take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is
the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party
(Corpus Delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else
testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.

The Accusation Must Be Made Under Penalty of Perjury

5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the
accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.

Accused Must Be Accorded Due Process

6. To comply with the five elements above that are for the accusation to be valid the accused
must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in
bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice
procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means
may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of
defective process.
"The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend." Simon v Craft,
182 US 427.
"One is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a
direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must
determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his
refusal." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)

The Court Must Be of Competent Jurisdiction (Properly Delegated Authority / D.O.A.O.)

7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal
must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III
judge.

Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or
unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the
defendant's duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support
conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be
dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction
and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven
elements are void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often
unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the
mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have
been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today,
informations are being filed and prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than due process of
law.

Do Not Assume That Attorneys or Lawyers Are Working in the Clients Best Interest

See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's
first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client
conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former
must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship
with their attorneys.

Do Not Assume That Court Officers Are Competent or Legitimate

Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused
makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions
of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed,
especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to
take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)

Jurisdiction Must Be Proven Upon Challenge

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting
to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only
to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance
Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v.
LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424.