All courts claim jurisdiction over legal persons in their realm prima facie or on first appearance.
“A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved”.
How would one challenge a presumed fact? Rebut the courts claim with a conditional acceptance. Conditionally accept any claim on the basis that the courts (or anyone else) prove the claim that they are making. This is called a negative averment, and simply puts the burden of proof on he who is claiming something and to prove their claims or they have none. The courts ONLY have jurisdiction over judicial persons but they also have jurisdiction over any property that is offered as surety for a debt/charge. The courts claim an interest against a persons property ‘in personam’.
Cestui Que Trust Right in Rem or in Personam
“An in personam action can affect the defendant’s personal rights and interests and substantially all of his or her property”.
That can include your body, because the courts want you to declare in court that you ARE that name and offer your body (being real property) as payment for a debt/charge to society. Hence the saying; “paying your debt to society”.
But of course the law wouldn’t allow this without a claim or declaration of right, or interest, in a person. There must be an underlying contract/law. A clear declaration of a claim is needed in order to prove ones claim, and it must be valid for it to have any standing in law.
The law recognizes the difference between those things tangible and objective compared to intangible and subjective. Rights aren’t tangible things, you cannot see them, they are intangible or subjective. That is not to say they aren’t there though or that they are of any less valuable than objective or tangible property. Logically, it is fair to say that ALL things manifested into this world come from conscious mental thought, making the subjective thought an objective manifestation. They go hand in hand. A pen only exists because a subjective thought created and eventually objectively made it. One element cannot exist without the other I’m sure you agree.
- Tangible – “Possessing a physical form that can be touched or felt”. “Concrete”. Real property is objective and tangible.
- Intangible – “Abstract”. Rights are personal property and are intangible.
So what are the rights of a natural person or a human being?
- Un-alienable – Prefix; Un = not
- Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”
Notice the prefix un; meaning not. So this reads; not lien-able. YOU CANNOT SURRENDER, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All Natural Persons have unalienable rights. Why? By virtue of natural law being first in the hierarchy of law.
- Inalienable – Pre-fix In = in, into
- Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.”
YOU CAN SURRENDER, SELL OR TRANSFER inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively (we will look at these two words shortly). Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Legal Persons have inalienable rights.
There is a very clear distinction between the two different types of persons and what rights both persons have with regards to any interests a court or anyone else may claim.
A court claim jurisdiction over a judicial person and so can governments. How do they do this?
Go to STATE