by PatrickHenry2K

Like many things in the realm of law, there are ideas that parallel each other but are vastly different when you compare these like things. For example, in the article below on Feb 17, I describe the difference between ‘Lawful vs Legal’ which are almost the exact same except for some crucial points (read that article to get a better idea). These points make the difference between ignorantly being sentenced to jail or having the case discharged (NOT dismissed, that word suggests a later time may appear. Think of it in military terms). A good analogy to explain two like things are The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland. What these two films have in common is there is a parallel dimension that the protagonist finds herself in. Well, in law that “parallel world” exists…

Common Law(law of the land)—–>Statutory(positive, man-made law or law of the sea(maritime/admiralty) Law *Note Common law is technically positive law because it is man-made but it is derived from God’s/Natural Law.

Some other good differences to know:

Mankind—–>Statutory ‘persons'(capacity of a fiction at law)
IN law—–>AT law (attorney AT law[fiction] as opposed to brother-IN-law[mankind])

Facts—–>Presumptions(of the court)

just to name a few…

These parallel worlds within law run concurrently (thats why it is good to understand Marbury v Madison [1803]) and unless you REBUTE THEIR PRESUMPTIONS WITH FACTS(SUBSTANCE), you have NO chance in hell of ‘defending yourself’ because the act of having a lawyer deems you ‘incompetent’ or a ‘minor’ IN law(doesn’t hurt to get advice or counsel from a good one if you can find one). A Lawyer CANNOT re-present ‘pro per’ for you because they are acting as a fiction, an officer of the court so it is impossible. Only you can. This reminds me of Psalm 23:4…

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death (positive law, law of the dead, to govern legal fictions, COURT), I will fear no evil (because they are legal fictions [govts and corps] that are NOT REAL. They ONLY exist in the mind’s eye and on paper); for you are with me (Jesus = the divine spirit that our creator bestowed upon mankind, TRUTH); your rod and your staff they comfort me.”

*Here is a response I found on a web site regarding the difference in ‘Pro Se’ vs ‘Pro Per’…

“To wit; THERE IS a very substantial legal difference between proceeding “pro per” (or “in pro per” or “in propria persona“) and proceeding “pro se” (or “in pro se“). Understanding of these two terms is critical, especially pertaining to personam jurisdiction. (Note that in order for courts to proceed they must perfect jurisdiction[personam, subject-matter, and territorial <–which is linked to personam]

There are two (main) types of jurisdiction: “personam” and “subject matter” and a court needs to clearly have jurisdiction of both in order to hear a case for or against you. 

Personam jurisdiction gives a court the authority over your person or you as an individual in order to hear or try a case involving you.

Subject matter jurisdiction gives a court the authority over the thing, issue, or activity (i.e. negotiable instrument, car collision, injury to person or property, alleged crime, etc. alleged in a complaint) in order to hear or try a case involving you.

Believe it or not, use of the wrong legal phrase can sabotage you, jurisdiction-wise.

Okay, let’s look at the two terms in detail and in depth.

“In propria persona.” In one’s own proper person. It was formerly a rule of pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave (permission), which admits the jurisdiction. See Pro se. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pg. 712

“Pro se.” For himself; in his own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pg. 1099

Appearing “pro se” is not the same as appearing “in propria persona” as one appearing “pro se” is serving as his own attorney and thereby granting the court jurisdiction (personam jurisdiction) as all attorneys are officers of the court. As you saw in the definition of “in propria persona” above, when attorneys plead for you, they automatically admit the jurisdiction (court’s authority). Attorneys are agents of the court that are used to give the court automatic jurisdiction. That’s why you are always told to get an attorney for your court action and not usually for the reasons you are lead to believe; in short it’s because they are officers of the court and automatically give the court authority over you and this makes things easier for the judge.

If you or any one else wishes to argue the above points I first ask that you obtain a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary 5th edition and look it up for yourself. The Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, definition provides us with crucial information, especially if we are to argue jurisdiction. You see, before a court can proceed with an action against you or involving you, be it civil or criminal, jurisdiction (personam and subject matter) must be established on the court’s record and this is black letter law.

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

“The record must show affirmatively that the jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied.” Hayman v. L.A., 17 Cal.App.2d. 674

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751, 211 P2d 389

“Jurisdiction may never be assumed, not even by colorable claims or status or black robes or officialdom or appearances, but must be substantively proven by the plaintiff/claimant of said jurisdiction. Once challenged by any proper party the plaintiff/complaint must prove their jurisdiction in a timely manner.” McNutt v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 56 S.Ct. 502

I am not a lawyer nor is this legal advise; it is opinion”

This guy is a STUD!^
Found this on: