An American Perspective: Granted Authority

Chapter 4 - Jurisdiction

§1. Granted Authority

Jurisdictio est potestas de publico introducta, cum necessitate juris dicendi.
Jurisdiction is a power introduced for the public good, on account of the necessity of dispensing justice.226

“A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil actions for his acts.”227

Jurisdiction determines the granted authority of a public office, and the venue of which a law is applicable and how a court of justice is to proceed, such as in a military tribunal, civil suit, common law, etc., etc. It is the first part of the court process, and perhaps, one of the most important opportunities to avoid further controversy. Every part of the court hangs on the ability for you to grant jurisdiction to them. Unless there is an injured party with a signed criminal complaint or affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury, making a direct claim against you, there is no basis for suit against you, and any court proceedings are presumed to be under color of law, or according to the terms of a pre-existing contract in place between the parties. Although the current state of courtroom proceedings subtly breezes through the issue, jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime.

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime.”228

Jurisdiction is paramount in any legal proceeding. It is the essential element of
which all agencies, including any officers or representatives, are able to interact with you.
If there is no jurisdiction, there can be no proceeding in any suit in a court of law. Of course, there will always be those who will not have your best interest in mind, to say the least, and who will operate outside of their delegated jurisdiction.

“Judges not only can be sued over their official acts, but could be held liable for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney’s fees.”229

“Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.”230

“An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.” 231

Coram non judice – In presence of a person not a judge. When a suit is brought and determined in a court, which has no jurisdiction in the matter, then it is said to be coram non judice, and the judgment is void.232

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.”233

As was reviewed earlier in Chapter 1, §7, the State and National (federal) Constitution(s) emanated from the People, and they are the highest authority of the Nation in the hierarchy of this constitutional republic. The federal government’s judicial cognizance was decreed in Article III, Sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, as discussed earlier in Chapter 3, §2. The several States’ jurisdiction is thus decreed also in their own Constitutions, which also emanated from the People, and must be in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."234

“Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people. But let everything else be subordinate to the state.” 235

[226 Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pg. 766 (1979)
227 Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)
228 Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910, 10th cir. (1974)
229 Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829; 190 Cal.App3d 15 (1987)
230 In re McCowan, 177 C. 93, 170, p. 1100 (1917)
231 Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp. 94 (1964)
232 Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pg. 305 (1979)
233 Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026 (1974)
234 Justice Antonin Scalia, Mack v. United States – (1997)
235 Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @SLL (1793) p. 2 U.S. 455 ]