Focus on the Real Issues: The Foundation of their Case
I talk to a lot of people about court process on a variety of issues where they are being prosecuted. One of the primary, most important, priority focus, really, really important things I say over and over and over again to each… when speaking or writing… stay focused on requiring proof of the jurisdiction and standing of the party making the claim.
Here’s a good summary: There is almost always no evidence that the person charged was required to act/ to have a licence etc. and there is almost always no evidence the “crown” has any standing to bring a charge before the court…so “they” withdraw (usually after dragging it out as long as possible).
That is real law in action… if you can stay on point. If you can stay on point. If you can stay on point. Make them prove they have jurisdiction, standing and evidence.
There is nothing usually to defend because the claim/complaint is almost always made without evidence (presumptions are not evidence) AND the party making the claim/complaint lacks jurisdiction over the accused and lacks standing to bring the matter before a court.
“They” win usually because people rarely challenge the foundation of the claim/complaint. No foundation equals no case.
The foundation is ALWAYS jurisdiction, standing and evidence. If even one is lacking the case is over before it starts.
Raise these three issues and NEVER let them go without a proper and full answer or you will lose most likely.
Stay on point. They need proper foundation. Never get sucked into talking about other issues. If you demand they prove foundations, they almost never can. Stay on point.
Stay on point.
Stay on point.
Stay on point.
Stay on point.
Stay on point.
Have I made my point?
good to hear you appreciate the site…enjoy the process and try to stay focussed on principles in the process
good question. as you spend more time on this site you will find it addressed in various places. Also, when you have a question always do a Google search to begin your own research you never know what gem you may uncover.
The basic principle is “he who claims has the burden of proof” which includes proof that they have jurisdiction to make the claim and standing to bring the claim to court. The gov’t cases almost never prove either – it is just assumed established UNLESS the “accused” challenges it and says “where is the prooF, I don’t believe it exists” now the burden of proving jurisdiction and standing is triggered.
I have been watching videos on this site – great great great site!
I’m a newbie so a lot of this material is foreign to me.
Thanks JD for all you’ve shared here!
I guess I need more instruction on jurisdiction, standing and evidence.
How do you challenge jurisdiction? Is it by claiming private person?
What is standing exactly? Is it your standing? Or theirs that needs challenging?
And evidence – I assume I need to ask for evidence of their charge?