Accused knows more law than Fort Oglethorpe, Ga., judge Webb in case showing how small-town fleecing operations protect their own, namely a shifty officer
What I witnessed there on Thursday afternoon was more "Deprivation of rights, under color of Law".
As personnel of a Municipal corporation did all that they could to coerce a man to waive his Lawful Rights as one of the People of Georgia, and therefore yield jurisdiction/Authority with regard to him, to a corporation, that has not acquired it lawfully.
The corporation, and it's employees have been properly and lawfully challenged to prove authority/jurisdiction with regard to Michael James, a man. On the record, as required by Law.
I witnessed, and listened intently for the determination and finding that the pleadings of the plaintiff were sufficient to establish jurisdiction/authority with regard to Michael James, a man, but there was no such finding of such fact, in spite of Michael James proper and Lawful challenge.
It appears that the judge is only "so-called", having not acquired Lawful authority/jurisdiction with regard to Michael James, a man, and this case, which does not yet exist without such proof of authority/jurisdiction.
Lacking such evidence, this case is wholly VOID of Law, and by Law.
It is a principle of law that, once challenged, the person asserting
jurisdiction must prove that jurisdiction to exist as a matter of law.
“A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect” Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972). Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).
“Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed.” City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973).
“A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity” Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. – Waco 1951).
“Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time” In re Estate of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See also Steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809, (Ill. 1994).
“A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree.” Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
From Jon Luman —
What I witnessed there on Thursday afternoon was more "Deprivation of rights, under color of Law".
As personnel of a Municipal corporation did all that they could to coerce a man to waive his Lawful Rights as one of the People of Georgia, and therefore yield jurisdiction/Authority with regard to him, to a corporation, that has not acquired it lawfully.
The corporation, and it's employees have been properly and lawfully challenged to prove authority/jurisdiction with regard to Michael James, a man. On the record, as required by Law.
I witnessed, and listened intently for the determination and finding that the pleadings of the plaintiff were sufficient to establish jurisdiction/authority with regard to Michael James, a man, but there was no such finding of such fact, in spite of Michael James proper and Lawful challenge.
It appears that the judge is only "so-called", having not acquired Lawful authority/jurisdiction with regard to Michael James, a man, and this case, which does not yet exist without such proof of authority/jurisdiction.
Lacking such evidence, this case is wholly VOID of Law, and by Law.
It is a principle of law that, once challenged, the person asserting
jurisdiction must prove that jurisdiction to exist as a matter of law.
“A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect” Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972). Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).
“Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed.” City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973).
“A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity” Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. – Waco 1951).
“Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time” In re Estate of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See also Steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809, (Ill. 1994).
“A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree.” Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).