Presentation of Jurisdictional Challenge

[idmolcom]

NOTICE TO COURT AND ALL COURT OFFICERS.

In The Matter Of

Regina
Vs.
Xxxx XXXXX

We the People of this still great country, are Freemen on The Land and
Sovereigns under GOD, require all public servants, including judges, to
abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties, including
those before the court. This protects the peoples from government and
court abuse by The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and The Principality of Wales, here in after called the United Kingdom.

Since the Constitution (based on Magna Carter 1215 and the Bill Of Rights
1688/9) cannot conflict with itself, the limited powers delegated to
government by the Constitution can never supersede the powers of and
Rights guaranteed in said Constitution to The People of the United Kingdom.

“Authority” is an extremely important word and concept. Government and
the courts without Constitutional Authority, can conduct nothing lawful, and
government has no authority to disparage ones’ Rights. Now keep “authority”
in mind as you review the following statements and/or questions.

It is my Conventio facit legem, an agreement creates the law, i.e. the parties
to a binding contract, will be held to their promises, that the case will be heard
at 10 a.m. precisely today the day of February 2011. Any delay for whatever
reason will bring into bear my Fee Schedule attached at the end of this document.

It is my intention to place all of the persons mentioned below on your FULL
COMMERCIAL LIABILITY, Under Penalty Of Perjury in the sum of Three Million
Pounds each, upon non rebuttal of all of the lawful challenges made this day, the
9th day of February 2011.


CHALLENGES TO THE COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS CAN START

1.A. My Honour, you the District Judge and the Crown Prosecutor have taken oaths
of office to support and uphold the Constitution, of the United Kingdom

Is that not correct?

B. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths in the
performance of your official duties, including those before this Honourable Court.

Is that not correct?

2. I, XXXX XXXXXX™©, hereby notify this Honourable Court that I am a living, breathing,
natural-born, flesh and blood sentient human being, a people of The United Kingdom and
claiming, all Rights and Duties guaranteed to me and my fellow peoples by the Constitution
of the United Kingdom, and with my name properly spelled in upper and lower case letters,
not as it appears on the court documents.

Is there any objection to what I have just stated?

3. This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed to People of the United
Kingdom, including due process of law.

Is that not correct?

4. I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges, presumptions and assumptions
in, by and of this court, unless proven guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a
reasonable doubt, based solely on verified evidence and proof.

Is that not correct?

5. [A] “Proof” consists of verified and demonstrated evidence, and not opinion, especially opinion
unsupported by fact, law and evidence.

Is that not correct?

[B] “Beyond a reasonable doubt” consists solely of decisions and verdicts from a well-informed
jury of my peers based entirely on proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any
reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury.

Is that not correct?

6. Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported and unverified by fact, law and
proven evidence is simply opinion, and opinion, as previously established, is not proof or factual
evidence.

Is that not correct?

7. [A] Since I, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx ™©, am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible
when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney, and all the all the witnesses against me
work for and are paid by the state, which is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this
situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial.

Is that not correct?

[B]. Further, any data used against me, Xxxxx Xxxxxx ™© is obtained from sources that, are also
paid by the state, the same plaintiff against me. At minimum, a conflict of interest arises.

Is that not Correct?

8. Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects, presumptions and assumptions of
those charges and this court, I have challenged the jurisdiction of this court, of which this court has
not been proven, on the public record. Therefore, since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the
charges and presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven, jurisdiction is
simply a presumption of this court, of which I am presumed innocent.

Furthermore, no official Oath of Office can be located anywhere, nor has one been put on the public
record. Therefore, I move for dismissal of all charges and/or warrants for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous House of Lords and any rulings of the newly constituted
Supreme Court, this case must be dismissed and any warrant issued be recalled, without prejudice,
and I hereby move for dismissal of all charges and this case, without prejudice.

Any further harassment of Xxxxx Xxxxx™© a human being by this court or any of its officers will be
construed as intentional harm, with malice and the conscious intent of inflicting both physical and mental
harm to the defendant-in-error in this matter. Copies of this document along with the attached documents
will be sent to the Office of Kenneth Clark, Justice Minister, Ministry of Justice in Westminster, in the City
of London the event that justice is not reached.

Respectfully submitted,
With Prejudice and All Inalienable Rights Reserved

________________________________

By, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx ™© (Agent)
A Sovereign Flesh and Blood Sentient Human Being, Free Man on the Land.

[enegiss]

hi idmolcom, be interesting to read if anyone goes that route, wish i had a court case, ide swing with it so to speak good stuff. peace and light

[huntingross]

There is a lot of case law for the points mentioned, proof of jurisdiction, rights to fair tribunal etc....these references would show you know what the score is.....and in the world of "them" it gives once less avenue of retreat and one further example of their fraud when they deny the validity of the substantiated claim.

[diasan]

this case must be dismissed and any warrant issued be recalled, without prejudice

As I recall, dismissal w/o prejudice means that the charges can be brought again. Is that what you intend?

[idmolcom]

this case must be dismissed and any warrant issued be recalled, without prejudice

As I recall, dismissal w/o prejudice means that the charges can be brought again. Is that what you intend?

Hi Diasan

Thanks for the comment.

You are on the button as far as the with and
without are concerned. However there was a
strategy in this particular instance.

Basically it was about a particular conveyance
being stopped and the traveler was asked to
produce the docs Lenience,Insurance,MOT.

The license and MOT were produced but the
insurance was not. There was insurance in
place but the registered keeper of the car
could not put his hand to it in the specified
time.

So the case went to court about 10 weeks later.
Because there were no real charges to be brought
as there was valid documentation thus no problem.

Hence one used the without prejudice in this
instance. They wanted the court route so I said
why not have some fun.

The case was thrown out of court and that was
the end of the matter. BTW I was the registered
keeper as I would have been driving it the most.
The named driver was the one who got pulled up.

We had two hearings and the case was begun before
the magistrates ever were in court.

The clerk had no control of the situation and I
examined the constable before the scheduled time
and he left as a wreck.

The clerk asked me if I was a solicitor and I
answered in the affirmative, giving her Blacks
pocket law dictionary with the definition
highlighted in green.

The magistrates came in and all were asked to
rise we said NO!

I then proceeded to examine the Magistrates as
to their qualifications to be sitting on the
bench.

Initially I asked the chairman if he had any sort
of qualifications in law?

He said no.

I asked if he had ever studied the law even to
CSE level.

He answered NO!

I asked the lady magistrate if she had any
qualifications in law like the chairman.

She replied No!

I then asked the third Magistrate a man the
same question.

He replied NO!

I then said that none of them had the right
to be sitting on the bench and asked them
to leave.

They did.

Clerk stated that as there was no verification
of the insurance we would have to come back
and go through the whole process once more.

The second time was they brought in the so
called "big guns", the District Judge, who
was aforehand presented with the terms and
conditions upon which my friend and I were
appearing.

We went into the court and the constable was
there placed on his full commercial liability,
under penalty of perjury etc in the sum of £50k.
The Judge and CPS and Clerk were also placed on
theirs for £250k.

We went into his presence(lol)and the CPS stated
there was no case to answer.

The judge asked if costs should be awarded against
us.

CPS solicitor said no, no way. The judge then asked
if victim surcharge should be added.Again CPS said
NO!!

We walked out laughing and offered the constable
a lift to wherever he was going. He very politely
declined the offer.

We went on our way.

So you can see why I put without prejudice on this
matter.

If you look at the thread on county court you will
see it was with prejudice in that case where I
turned the Plaintiffs solicitor and his whole firm
of Law Society members into Debtor Plaintiffs in
perpetuity.

They Hugh James Corrupt Solicitors of Cardiff,were
made to pay the water bill forever. Now this cannot
be tried again.

So yes you are right to mention the difference
between with and without prejudice.

I was waiting to see if anyone would ask the
question.

Thank you!

idmolcom

[idmolcom]

There is a lot of case law for the points mentioned, proof of jurisdiction, rights to fair tribunal etc....these references would show you know what the score is.....and in the world of "them" it gives once less avenue of retreat and one further example of their fraud when they deny the validity of the substantiated claim.

Thank you Huntingross!

[idmolcom]

hi idmolcom, be interesting to read if anyone goes that route, wish i had a court case, ide swing with it so to speak good stuff. peace and light

Hey Enegiss,

Use it to your hearts content. That is why
I put it into this forum.

It belongs to the people. A couple of mates
and I constructed it.

Regards

idmolcom

[enegiss]

wheres the train whistle when ya need one its certainly going to be filed for reference for my own private usage, great stuff, peace and light

[Justice]

Hello All

I'm due in court on 6th October for trial at magistrates' for scratching 3 policemen after they beat me black and blue, took me to a cell and stripped my clothes.

I have photos of injuries taken by a friend and a doctors note recording them. The police station doctor also recorded them.

I represented myself at the initial hearing, entered no plea, and declined their offer for the service of adjudication and waived all benefits and privileges.

The magistrates ignored all that and could not produce their written oath.

A plea has been entered on my behalf by someone without my permission.

Does anyone know how I could use the court letter at the start of this thread to cancel the case?
Should I get it notarised?
How do I get them to act on it?

I heard something about putting the letter inside two envelopes and a stamp on both so the magistrates 'see' the letter.

They seem to have ignored everything else I've done.

Thank you I'm desperate for help, time is running out. To make matters worse I have schizophrenia and struggle to concentrate under pressure.

Why is it only intelligent/cunning people 'deserve' justice?