In her Ruling against blogger/journalist Gary Hunt, Judge Anna J. Brown has demonstrated that constitutional limits and prohibitions no longer apply in federal court jurisdiction. The assumption of jurisdiction in order to move the case forward is not a new tactic of the courts. The Portland trials of the peaceful protesters at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and the Nevada trials stemming from the protests in Bunkerville demonstrated how far federal judges will go to suppress the rights of the accused from presenting their defense.
Thankfully, as the jury in Portland did, the Nevada deliberations ended in not guilty verdicts for most charges and hung juries in others. It’s long past time for Americans to stand up to this tyranny making a farce of a system of justice.
From the five-page document referenced below:
“A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or
property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re
Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but,
rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
“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 law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).