Any of the governments that claim "consent of the governed" cannot prove full jurisdiction in a court of law. They can't do this because they don't actually have jurisdiction. This is not the case with military courts however, they make you sign a document where you give them jurisdiction. The civilians, on the other hand, have never a document of this nature. Therefore if in a civil case, before you have actually been arraigned i.e. during arraignment, you ask a judge if the prosecution has submitted any factual evidence of jurisdiction they will not be able to say "yes". There is no factual evidence of jurisdiction that can be submitted therefore jurisdiction can not be proven in a court of law. If the court can not prove jurisdiction over you they can not try the case and the case should be dismissed. What this means is that you don't have to follow civil laws in these countries if you don't want to as the laws don't apply to you. They don't have jurisdiction. Their are many examples of this being true. Joe Pierce, from Ethical Anarchism Articulated, has proven this by getting drug charges dismissed and many other small nonviolent charges dismissed as well. Mark Stevens helps teach people how to use this to get out of traffic charges. Learn the law and why it doesn't apply. We humans can be free from regulation if we choose to be, we just have to stand up for ourselves en masse. If you want to check out Joe's channel go here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMFSCfI-BxS4YRNjXXaEJNQ If you want to check out Mark's channel go here: https://www.youtube.com/user/nostateproject
Thank you for reading this post. Please upvote it, resteem it and comment below.
This is only sorta true.
They have jurisdiction over TRUTHSPEAKER, because that is a legal fiction they created when they got your birth certificate.
Also, when you are in a court of the bar (there are no USA courts) the judge has complete control over that land. So, he/she can imprison you for anything. The easiest being contempt.
And you consent to this when you rise. The bailiff says, "all rise, the (dis)honorable high muckety muck is presiding." You just gave consent to the bar to pass judgement on you.
So, although what is above is absolutely true, the reality is there are people who will beat you up for not going along with the play.
You are correct, however no prosecutor will submit a birth certificate as evidence of jurisdiction. Even if they do you can always challenge it by asking them to show you where on that document it proves jurisdiction. Nowhere have you signed an agreement giving them jurisdiction. There is also nowhere where it says that a birth certificate may be used as proof of jurisdiction. You could also dissociate yourself from that name by refusing to claim ownership of it. After all you don't have to claim anything. It is up to them to prove you are who they say you are. The birth certificate isn't really a problem. It's only binding for the mind. You are also right about being forced to play their games but if you use the Socratic method and play them right you will never be able to be legally forced past arraignment. Any judge who does so will be breaking his own rules and can be held accountable for it later on after you appeal. What do you think? Am I Wrong? If you're not sure you should really check out some of Joe's videos on youtube, they're super fascinating. He's one of the main one's proving it. You just have to know their rules and how to play their game. Joe and Mark will teach ya. Over time if more and more people keep doing this they'll have to at least acknowledge it as the courts could be tied up indefinitely.