Why you want an article 3 venue

https://www.youarelaw.org/why-you-want-an-article-3-venue/

ENSURING YOUR COURT IS AN ARTICLE 3 VENUE VS AN ADMINISTRATIVE VENUE

THIS IS KEY TO GAINING CONTROL OF THE COURT.  OTHERWISE YOU ARE LIKELY IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JURISDICTION, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, WITH ANY RIGHTS PROTECTION.  IF YOU WANT RIGHTS, IT IS UP TO YOU TO SET UP THE COURT VENUE!

How do I obtain and ensure Article III venue?

Keep in mind, we are automatically defaulted into an administrative court venue, where we are viewed as something similar to a corporate entity.  More accurately we are seen as a numbered DEBTOR entity with a SSN; A VESSEL WITH A REGISTERED PROPERTY TITLE in commerce, to be “charged” with something.  We are not automatically seen as a Natural Man with Constitutional protections.  We are in their court of commerce contracts; don’t forget it.  You waive your natural rights as soon as you identify yourself under the LEGAL TITLE by which they call you.

1). As a Defendant, you should have the judge’s copy of his oath of office to enter as Exhibit A into evidence.

2. When asked to identify yourself, state as follows: “I go by (your natural man name, not necessarily by the LEGAL TITLE commonly used).

When the judge states, “Okay, are we ready to proceed?” You say, “No Sir, there are a few matters that need to be clarified before we can proceed”.  Then, hold up the judge’s oath of office and say, “You and opposing counsel have both sworn oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as your first duty.  Is that correct?” I want to enter this into the Record as Exhibit A.

“Then you and opposing counsel are required to abide by those oaths in the performance of your official duties, especially those before this honorable court.  Is that correct?  Then you know that the only court that can hear matters of the “People” is a court that conforms and complies to Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution”.  (Go ahead and paraphrase it). “Does anyone disagree with my statement?”

“Well, okay, since this is established on the Record, that this is a court of proper venue, a court of record, to hear a matter of the People, I am here by special appearance, sui juris, as one of the People, a living, natural person on the land, claiming all of my inherent, unlimited, un-a-lien-able constitutionally secured and guaranteed rights, and with my name lawfully and properly spelled only in upper and lower case letters for the record, from this point forward”. Does anyone object to my statement?”

NOTE: It likely the judge may not like this, but what can he do.  Additionally your document, if properly done, may actually remove this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and establish that you are the Creditor with standing to settle the matter, as you may have done with your previous private administrative documents.  In fact you are only remaining in the court to hear a verified claim by a damaged party who will testify under oath and bring forth evidence they were in fact damaged.  You are not going to enter pleas, you can’t, but you are simply here to accept the charges and try to settle the matter.  If no damaged party comes forth, you will “require” the judge to rule in your estate’s favor and dismiss charges.

Share

3 thoughts on “Why you want an article 3 venue

  • October 30, 2014 at 5:10 am
    Permalink

    HI TJ,
    I listened to the call tonight the October 29th and I am now confused.
    What seemed to be a simple strait forward process has became blurred.

    The guest speaker made some very good points but he is saying a lot of the same old stuff. Leaning towards the strawman concept
    .
    While I agree with most of the statements not everyone will get it.
    Seems to make a simple process difficult.
    If we was to end up, in a jury trial using this concept will not be understood by the average juror.

    Most people are moving away from this way of thinking because it is difficult to get the average guy to understand and moves us away from the constitutional protections like amendments VI and VII.

    While I agree most all government and agencies including judges and courts are a fiction in operation outside of the constitution and their oaths.

    I think that it makes more sense to make the statement that we are man and one of the People.
    This simple statement puts them on notice and pulls them back into the constitution of which they have taken an Oath to up hold is a simple but effective approach to stop the wrong doers. .

    Seems like we are change boats mid stream after weeks of hearing that we are to put the wrong doers and actors of the corporations, courts and other agencies on notice that we are man and one of the people and as so we do not consent to any actions or proceedings that are not of a court of record or not in compliance with the constitution including amendments VI And VII and that of common law.

    Are we now saying that we should abandon the common law and the constitution for to be treated as the queen of England?

    What difference does it really make if the common law has been replaces or hasn’t been used since the1830s it is still required by the Constitution?

    I know it is all intertwined and the trustee argument is right but simple is sometime better and less is more.
    Would you be willing to use the strawman concept if you were on trial before a jury or would you rather show the jury that in law the Constitution requires both the common law and an damaged party to file the claim you have an right to face your accuser? Which do you think the average juror would understand?

    Thanks for you input and God Bless

    • October 30, 2014 at 5:56 pm
      Permalink

      I think you are referring to Stan’s way of saying some things, not necessarily my words or ways o saying it. We’ll discuss some of this on an upcoming call. We are all on the same track… Proof of claim, and ways to protect yourself. The common law words are not as important as how do you distinguish the living from the dead, how did this happen (more of Stan’s explanation), and the way back. I have always suggested you need to know the procedures of their courts WHEN NEEDED. This is so you can navigate back to YOUR “court of record” …the way to access common law methods without calling it “common law”. Yes those “common law” words do not matter as much as how you established the “law” of your case in your papers. Yes, avoid court at all costs especially as a “defendant”. But as plaintiff/prosecutor, it is much simpler to declare your venue and rules, and run the enemy off before they come to court. So Stan merely has a different historical approach in his explanation, and he adds a lot of of history to it, but the actions one takes are effectively the same. If you have a claim against a living “man” then prove it!

  • October 30, 2014 at 10:56 pm
    Permalink

    Thanks for the response TJ,
    I am not sure if I should be contacting you here or by another method please let me know or you can contact me by email.

    I have been working on a case with a friend that has bee to court several times and finely got through to him that we can not keep doing the something over and over and expect a different out come. We went to court with an list of several questions to ask before we would consent to play His docket was at 9am I was coming in the door at 9:01 it was over before I got in the court.
    As soon as he asked if the Administrative Procedures Act was adopted by the court the Judge smiled and said she didn’t know what that was. He did have to ask twice before she answers.
    He hardly got the 2nd question out of his mouth about a common law before the prosecutor jumped up and before my friend knew what happened they quickly continued the case.
    I only wish I could have foreseen this I would have warned my friend not to consent to any movement until the process has bee identified and a proper case of man or woman being the injured and complaint party. Point is I just got my friend to the point of understanding that we can take control of the court and make it our court by demanding the court to disclose the operating procedures and by not consenting to anything less then what the Constitution calls for A court of record and a true damaged party man or woman complaint. He also understands that we can win by using the offense.
    I have been adsorbing as much as time will allow and trying to share it with as many as I can.
    I have been practically preaching this approach since I listened to your first show.
    I need to get this right for many more than just my friend and my self. This is why I kinda freaked out when I heard the creditor and trustee stuff last night.
    I have been around for a while and see some have success and some not so much with this stuff.
    As I said I totally believe it all intertwines but I think we are making it way to complicated.
    I don’t want to start telling everyone that I misunderstood about the application of the Constitution and the common law court of record and VI and VII amendments. Especially when we can use it to not only bring the rights of both man and one of the People into the offense but also hold the wrong doers (judge and prosecutor) responsible by way of their Oaths of office.
    I just need to make sure I know the proper way to do it.
    Can I send the judge and prosecutor any notices before court that could keep us from making and other mistakes.
    We have November 10 as a new date.
    Any suggestions you mite have would go along way towards helping me help you in your ministry and would be appreciated . more than you know.
    Thanks And God Bless

Comments are closed.

Powered by WishList Member - Membership Software