and slaves, and souls of men. - Remedy or Habeas Corpus within the Beast System.

by Rex Trover The Preacher said there is nothing new under the sun. So too here this author without apology has used the writings of others in collating this thesis, and claims no originality of thought. Notwithstanding the good intentions of many within the freedom movement, so-called, who might use a rendered version of the scriptures to justify the actions of federal or state government employees, let us put to rest the notion that we must obey the government because that is the will of god. Do we in these United States live under a Romans 13 government where the rulers are ministers of Yahweh for good, not evil, or a Revelation 13 government, where rulers do evil, call evil good and call good evil, and persecute those who expose their deeds? The answer should determine our conduct. Do our public servants reward those who do good, and punish those who do evil according to Yahwehs Laws? Or is their conduct according to the desires, whims, rules, statutes, covetousness, and lusts of men? Do our public servants use the law for legal plunder, as Bastiat so eloquently set forth in his treatise, The Law? Or do they use the law, courts, and guns to lie, cheat, steal, misrepresent, practice deceit and deception, rob, rape, pillage, and even murder? If the latter, then it is obvious that we are living under a Revelation 13 form of government, recognize that fact, and conduct ourselves accordingly. We would do well to note that Law, true Law, is by definition immutable and unchanging. The purpose of this treatise is to attempt to set forth where we, as a people, have been in the past, where we are now, and how we can try to use this present system or matrix until it collapses under the weight of its own putrefaction. We will first consider foundational concepts, without which we would likely lack the courage and faith to relentlessly pursue justice, or righteousness. Foundational concepts There is a natural order of things in the universe. Our Creator created man. We are not the product of evolution. Man formed or established the state (often incorrectly the government) for the protection of himself and his property. Most call this the protection of his rights, but we probably really have duties as set forth as Thou shalt and Thou shalt not, rather than rights. Everything in the natural order of things is subservient to the being who created it. There can be no exceptions. Shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? In these United States, both the state and federal entities were created by the People. The People themselves retained sovereignty under the true Sovereign, our Creator, even though they delegated some of their power to their creatures for the purpose of protecting their rights. The people created constitutional republics via the founding documents called constitutions. All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of its duty to provide protection for private rights. (FN1) Sovereignty itself is, of course not subject to laws for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all
Page 1 of 22

government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. (FN2) at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects - with none to govern but themselves (FN3) Another foundational concept that went hand in hand with sovereignty was virtue; virtue being the ultimate bulwark against corruption and its inevitable companion, despotism. John Adams succinctly described the American position: republics, he said, were the only governments whose principle and foundation is virtue. (FN4) In early America, the most quoted authority in the courts was the Bible. (Just try it in todays courts. You may be found in contempt of court!) The early Americans laid a Christian foundation in America, knowing that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. It was this liberty that was the basis of American constitutional law and government and it cannot be changed. From the day of the Declaration of Independence, they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospels which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. John Quincy Adams, Oration celebrating July 4, 1821. The fundamental orders of Connecticut commenced with And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require In the famous case of Vidal v. Girards Exrs, 2 How. 127, 198, the court observed: It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania. (FN5) The nature of our Constitutions (state and federal) is that they are based upon pre-existing laws, rights, habits, and modes of thought of the people as developed under the common law. (FN6) Perhaps the most famous official founding document which sets forth both the existence of our Creator and our reliance on His laws, the Laws of Nature and of Natures God, is the Declaration of Independence. When it becomes necessary and to assume the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them And, We hold these truths to be se1f-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And, We, therefore, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. After the Civil War, the debate shifted noticeably away from the rights of the people, to a debate between the so-called rights and sovereignty of the central government versus that of the state governments, leaving the people, the actual sovereigns, as subjects or citizens of either the federal or state governments, or both. (Note that a legal fiction, such as a state or government, can have no rights. Only people have rights.) Perhaps the 14th Amendment, which created a second-class citizen of the United States with mere privileges (as opposed to constitutionally-secured rights) and the inability to question the debt imposed upon him, was a motivating factor.
Page 2 of 22

Manifestly important, however, is that many authorities have held that the words of the constitutions mean today what they meant at the time of adoption, notwithstanding despotic pronouncements and attorning by members of the BAR to the contrary. This may be their Achilles heel. (Their is in the same category as they and them as Mel Gibson said in the movie, Taxi). Meaning of constitution is determined by intent of framers and people approving it. (FN7) The fundamental law means what its framers and the people approving it intended, as determined from reading it in the light of the circumstances and objects in view. (FN8) Meaning of constitutional provisions established at time of its adoption, continues forever, unless modified by constitution itself. (FN9) (How does that one grab you?) Unconstitutional act confers no rights, imposes no penalty, affords no protection, is not operative, and in legal contemplation has no existence. (FN10) What do the courts today say as to how the constitutional terms are to be interpreted? Standards of interpretation of the Fifth Amendment are: (1) common and statutory law of England and laws of many of the states at time of adoption of the amendment; (2) entire Bill of Rights; and (3) intent of framers of the Constitution to be ascertained by examination of documents as a whole as well as by analysis of legislative history. (FN11) This court examines three sources in determining a constitutional provisions meaning: The plain meaning of the words in the context used; the constitutional debates and the practices in existence at the time of the writing of the constitution; and the earliest interpretation of the provision by the legislature as manifested in the first law passed following adoption. (FN12) So the courts often admit that the terms used in the constitutions mean today what they meant when the documents were written. Why then do they appear to turn the constitutions upside down and join the other agencies of government in apparent usurpation? Answers It should be noted that the courts, the legislature, and the executive are not the state, but are agents of the state. In 1885 the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision in what may have been a staged case regarding state prohibitions under Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, gives us a clue as to the future use of legal fictions by the elite who would re-impose slavery, but on a universal scale without regard to skin color. The Court said in the Poindexter decision the government of the state is generally confounded with the state itself, The state itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and, within the sphere of its agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that, it is a lawless usurpation. The constitution of the state is the limit of the authority of its government, and both government and state are subject to the supremacy of the constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof (FN13) Lawless usurpation? By creating additional legal fictions like the religious leaders did millennia ago to excuse or justify their disobedience to Yahs Laws? A few years back the people in Louisiana brought suit over a tax imposed upon them without the required state referendum. The state supreme court said that the tax was legal, as it wasnt imposed by the state, but by a legislatively created entity
Page 3 of 22

with boundaries co-terminous with the state. (Maybe they asked the wrong question? Perhaps they should have asked by what authority did the legislature create an entity endowed with power that the legislature itself lacked.) And therein lies one of the keys to the puzzle. All state legislatures have likely enacted laws similar to those in Wisconsin. Wisconsin statutes 706.03(l)(b) defines public corporation as: THIS state, a subunit of THE state, How clever. The legislature, although they may not have explicitly created the said corporation, did explicitly recognize the difference between a public corporation known as STATE OF WISCONSIN /State of Wisconsin, as being a subunit of the lawful republican form of government, Wisconsin, the state. Now State of Wisconsin (the corporation) can go out and conduct business just like any other corporation can. The same goes for the counties; Milwaukee County is a public corporation, a subunit of county of Milwaukee. Want evidence? There is ample evidence of the existence of government de facto, as opposed to government de jure, by the failure of the corporations to abide by Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the constitution for the United States of America, by the laws (more properly denoted as ACTS) that are passed, and by the lawless but legal acts committed by agents of government de facto. Do any of the states of the Union, such as Wisconsin, make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts? No, but State of Wisconsin does; THIS state uses commercial paper, such as debt instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) issued by the privately owned Federal Reserve System. And consider the amending of the Enabling Act (Article II, Section 2) of the Wisconsin Constitution. Did not State of Wisconsin have its corporation BYLAWS (deceptively called Wisconsin Constitution as opposed to Constitution for Wisconsin) amended in l95l, whereby the Enabling Act - the agreement that had to be accepted by Congress to allow the Territory of Wisconsin to enter the union of states (the states united) and become Wisconsin state - was ALTERED? Did they have a time machine, turn the clock back more than one hundred years, have the inhabitants of the Territory of Wisconsin take a new vote, get the approval of Congress BY VOTE, and then fast-forward in time to the present? Impossible you say? But it isnt impossible to amend BYLAWS of a CORPORATION, is it? And why was the Enabling Act amended by deleting the phrase and no tax shall be imposed on land the property of the United States;? This amending occurred directly on the heels of the passing of the Buck Act by Congress. (FN17) Isnt (almost) all land in Wisconsin, as REPRESENTED by deeds and Transfer Tax Returns filed in the Register of Deeds office, hypothecated to the United States corporation (FN18) on the bankruptcy declared by Congress in 1933, the same year that FDR confiscated the gold? As FDR said, In politics, there are no accidents. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. Want more evidence? The Wisconsin Constitution - the constitution for the corporation - had at least 25 amendments to Article VII, Judiciary, adopted in 1977. Section 17 (repealed) in its original form read: The style of all writs and process shall be, The state of Wisconsin; all criminal prosecutions shall be carried out in the name and by the
Page 4 of 22

authority of the same, and all indictments shall conclude against the peace and dignity of the state. Today, all process issues in the name of STATE OF WISCONSIN, i.e., the corporation - this state, in its own name, and not on the authority and by the power of the people. Our original lawful republican form of government has been overlaid or buried beneath business corporations operated for the benefit of the few at the expense of the people who have been reduced to a condition of servitude. And why is it that the flag of the president as commander-in-chief (the pretty flag with the gold fringe, NOT a Title 4 flag) is displayed in all of the state courtrooms across the land, in apparent violation of Army Regulation AR 840-10 which states that said flag may ONLY be displayed in a military tribunal, if the corporate United States isnt collecting mulct in admiralty proceedings on behalf of the creditors, the private international bankers? Regarding the creation or existence of the corporation, State of Wisconsin, there is no question that the legislature can create corporations - they did so almost from day one of the United States, but those generally were limited in duration, to say, 20 years. However, legislatures cannot lawfully bestow their creatures with greater power or authority than that of the lawful state. Though the lawmaking power can unquestionably create a municipal corporation and delegate legislative authority to it, it cannot clothe the creature with power to do what the constitution prohibits the creator from doing. (FN14) The legislature is in no just sense sovereign. It is but the agent, with limited authority, of the state sovereignty. (FN15) But for our present topic of discussion, the enactment of ex post facto laws and Bills of Attainder /bills of pains and penalties by the corporation called State of Wisconsin are the substance of the matter. Prohibition against ex post facto laws was to prevent bills of attainder, or bills of pains and penalties; the first inflicting capital, and the other less, punishment. These acts were legislative judgments; and an exercise of judicial power. at other times they violated the rules of evidence, at other times they inflicted punishments, where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment; With very few exceptions, the advocates of such laws were stimulated by ambition, or personal resentment, and vindictive malice. To prevent such, and similar, acts of violence and injustice, I believe, the Federal and State legislatures were prohibited from passing any bill of attainder; or any ex post facto law. The restriction not to pass any ex post facto law, was to secure the person of the subject from injury, or punishment, in consequence of such law. but the judges of Great Britain always considered penal statutes, that created crimes, or increased the punishment of them, as ex post facto laws. The enhancement of a crime, or penalty, seems to come within the same mischief as the creation of a crime or penalty; and therefore they may be classed together. (FN16) Within the meaning of the Constitution bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties. By an ex post facto law is meant one which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that than prescribed; or changes the rules by which less or different testimony is sufficient to convict than was then required. The provision in the Federal Constitution, intended to secure the liberty of the citizen, cannot be evaded by the form in which the power of the state is exerted. If this were not so, if that which cannot be accomplished by
Page 5 of 22

means looking directly to the end, can be accomplished by indirect means. The inhibition may be evaded at pleasure. No kind of oppression can be named, against which the framers of the Constitution intended to guard, which may not be effected. (FN19) The import Read the last paragraph again. The significance can not be overstated. In Wisconsin, everyone convicted of a crime in the past fifty (50) years was convicted, and sentenced, under an ex post facto law and bill of pains and penalties (there is no capital punishment in Wisconsin). Not only that, but the Plaintiff was a PUBLIC CORPORATION acting in its own name and on its own behalf. Was the corporation injured? No. Was the corporation collecting fines and putting them to its own use? Yes. Twenty-four per cent of State of Wisconsin spending (circa 2005) is for the corrections system, the courts, the justice department, and health and social services, which includes expenses resulting from operating a penal colony/state. The prison population in Wisconsin went from 3,086 in 1970 to 23,849 in 2004. The number of people on paper went from 8,859 to 68,461 in the same time period. Now thats a crime wave. Or is it? Depends on how one defines crime, doesnt it? Article I, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution for Wisconsin (as well as the Wisconsin Constitution) prohibits slavery except as punishment for crime: There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. This wording is virtually the same as that of the 13th Amendment. A crime is an offense against the sovereign, (FN20) By definition long antedating the constitution of this state, a crime has been defined as an offense against the sovereign and a criminal action one prosecuted by the state against a person charged with a public offense committed in violation of a public law. (FN21) At common law, it was only convictions of crimes which rendered the person infamous that excluded him from being a witness. (FN22) A Michigan case holds that the term criminal cases used in the laws refers only to prosecutions under the state laws, and prosecutions under city ordinances do not come within the term, and that no offense is a crime, which does not violate the law of the land. (FN22) If a crime is an offense against the sovereign, then it obviously is an offense against the people, since the people are the sovereigns. Or at least they were, prior to the 14th Amendment. Recall that the original 13th Amendment put teeth in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of Constitution which prohibited any person holding any office of profit or trust from receiving any present, Emolument, Office, or Title from any King, Prince, or foreign State without the Consent of the Congress. The original 13th Amendment would have thrown out of office all attorneys, or Esquires. So, during the War Between the States, agents went around the country and removed every document that they could find that evidenced the ratification of the 13 th Amendment. Then after the war, the military Congress adopted the new 13 th Amendment that prohibited slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for
Page 6 of 22

crime. That Amendment freed the slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation, a war booty declaration, did not. Then just days before the declared ratification of the 14th Amendment, which re-established slavery, this time on the government corporation plantation for all races and colors, Congress passed the Expatriation Act, 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, pages 223-224, which recognized our right to expatriate from their government corporation. Currently all citizens of the United States as defined by the 14 th Amendment are slaves on the corporation plantation named United States. Read Section 4 thereof, The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. What actually is a crime? What actually is a crime? Consider well several Wisconsin statutes passed by an ACT of the legislature in 1955, first 939.10: Common-law crimes are ABOLISHED. Now consider Wis. stats. 939.12 Crime defined. A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Read that again. Slowly. Allow it to chill the marrow of your bones. Let it sink in. It means exactly what you fear it means: ALL crimes are crimes against the state. A crime now is WHATEVER the legislature (think CORPORATION, and AGENT) says it is. Anything and everything. Whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants, to whomever it wants, for as long as it wants, and as often as it wants in order to turn over the merchandise and generate riches or silence political dissent. (It also punishes those who actually cause their fellow man an injury, but in most cases there is no injured party.) The oncesovereign people are no longer sovereign when government IS THE LAW. See how easy it was to turn the natural order of things on its head? Just pass a legislative ACT, and it overrules the Law of Nature and Natures God. The big G Government has now become self-existent and declared itself to be God. And man, who was created by God, and was himself the creator of the state, finds himself to be under the absolute dominion of government via ex post facto bills of pains and penalties. A total perversion of the natural order of creation. Recall that in State v. Schinz the supreme court of Wisconsin stated: Meaning of constitutional provision, established at the time of its adoption, continues forever, unless modified by constitution itself. Under what authority did the legislature enact Wis. stats. 939.l0, 939.12, and 939.23 (which did away with mens rea, also called criminal intent or recklessness, or guilty mind, an absolute prerequisite - along with actus reus (the act committed) - for an actual crime.) Perhaps the people werent sufficiently mesmerized to be conned into a constitutional amendment, so government de facto passed an ACT merely on its own (usurped) authority. An unconstitutional act, confers no rights, imposes no penalty, affords no protection, is not operative, and in legal contemplation has no existence. (FN10, supra) Where are we now? One might conclude that government corporations /merchants are merchandising men (slaves), and their creatures, the 501(C)(3) religious
Page 7 of 22

corporate daughters are trafficking in the souls of men. Perhaps the men and women in positions of power only seem to be more corrupt, decadent, and degenerate than the rest of us, merely because they are more visible and have the opportunity to usurp authority and pervert the exercise of power by virtue of their position in society. Eventually the system will self-destruct, as did Rome. Until then, remedy may be available to those who know that the fear of man is a stench in the nostrils of an holy Elohim: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Consent of the governed This section, consent of the governed, is being added in the year 2012. It is inserted preceding the discussion of pre-trial and post-trial remedies and reflects what has been revealed to this author by eminent researchers in the very recent past. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . Have you ever truly contemplated the meaning of the phrase consent of the governed? What if you do not consent to be governed by legal fictions such as government corporations run by the Bar Association attorneys? What if you do not consent to be governed by the whims of public officers, who in the past were called public servants, and who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and are fiduciaries, i.e., trustees, of the Public Trust? The Supreme Court has stated that those in prison are in prison by their own consent. Apparently it means that one should not consent, verbally and on the record. If one has committed a common law crime such as robbery, rape, or murder, or caused an injury to another man or his property, the issue of ones non-consent is not applicable. But if a man is exercising inherent, God-given or natural rights, why should he consent to have his rights infringed by his creation or his public officers or public servants? Thus some men have escaped persecution by public officers when hauled into court by stating to Bar Association tribunals operating in statutory jurisdiction (think the Crown City of London) that: I reserve all my rights at all times: I do not consent to these proceedings; I do not accept this offer (they are offering to contract with you); I have not consented in the past, I do not consent now, and I will not consent in the future to these proceedings (that covers past, present, and future); I do not recognize you (judge or prosecutor) (look up recognize and recognizance in Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th edition); I dont know what you are talking about; I do not accept your liability as trustee and fiduciary of the Public Trust. It is important to not argue with these Bar Association tribunal members since argument creates a controversy, and the court is there to settle a controversy, be it real or contrived. And if the presiding officer (think judge) attempts to force a plea of not guilty, one might be rightly inclined
Page 8 of 22

to state, You are not my attorney, but if you insist then you must step down from being the judge, and further, I do not authorize you to enter a plea for me or on my behalf, but if you insist then the liability is on you and not on me; I will not accept it and do not consent. Expect to spend at least a few days behind bars, usually no more than three days. However there are exceptions if they want you bad enough. One well-known freedom fighting American refused to consent and was kept locked up for a year without being charged, but finally walked out a free man. (This was pre-National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the "Indefinite Detention Act".) Attempting remedy inside the belly of the Beast Next let us consider both pre-trial and post-trial remedies. Pre-trial remedy. This is where remedy is most likely obtained; darkness cannot survive the light of truth. The judges will do almost anything to keep the truth from the public, including side-bar discussions, conducting secret meetings in chambers, prohibiting the introduction of evidence, sealing the files, and ordering cases to not be published. For national security reasons, of course. Not to mention their own personal liability when they act without jurisdiction. Next, we will consider a competent court, pleadings, standing, cause of action, subject matter jurisdiction, and motions, pre-trial remedy, and post-trial remedy. Competent court Competent court. Wisconsin statues 782.02 states that No person shall be entitled (sic) to [writ of habeas corpus] who shall have been committed or detained by virtue of a final judgment or order of any competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction Does competent mean that the judge (who is NOT the court) was or was not knowledgeable and capable and knew what he was doing? The judge may have been all of the above, yet the court itself not competent. Do NOT underestimate them; they KNOW what they are doing. We are dealing with magic words (their terminology) and words of art with one main goal: Deception. A competent court is one that is legally fit or qualified (more word art). But Professor Paul M. Bator let the cat out of the bag when writing about habeas corpus and the Judiciary Act of 1789: The 1789 Act left nothing for review save competency - i.e., the subject matter and personal jurisdiction - of the convicting tribunal. (FN24) In other words, a competent tribunal is a court that HAS both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The judge may look sternly at the target and state in his most authoritative voice, I HAVE jurisdiction - statute number such and such. True, the Constitution or the statutes grant the courts either limited jurisdiction or general jurisdiction over a particular subject, but subject matter and personal jurisdiction must be obtained in each case on a case-by-case basis. In the corporation named State of Wisconsin the Supreme Court has refined the concept even further by stating that the court may have subject matter
Page 9 of 22

jurisdiction pursuant to the constitution or statute, but lacks competency, which is the ability of the court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction, usually for failure to follow statutory requirements or procedures. (Not all of the other corporate states have fine-tuned their definitions, as has the Buck Act State of Wisconsin.) We will address subject matter jurisdiction because it can never be waived, and can always be challenged, either directly or collaterally. If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the proceedings are void. Period. Quasi-criminal proceedings Quasi-criminal proceedings. As a prelude to the jurisdiction topic, it should be noted that what is seen in the courts are not true criminal proceedings. One would be hard pressed to find a criminal complaint or information (historically used only for misdemeanors for a revenue-related issue) that had a mens rea (guilty mind), or an affidavit under penalty of perjury. What government actor is willing to sign a complaint under penalty of perjury? (Especially when they know that they are engaged in deception or fraud.) But, if the charge against him was malicious, or grounded on perjury, whom could he sue for malicious prosecution? or whom could he indict for perjury? The warrant for commitment was illegal, for want of stating some good cause certain, supported by oath. (FN25) Maybe that is why the government went from good cause to valid reason regarding complaints. By the pleadings By the pleadings. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the court on a case-by-case basis based on the pleadings. It is only when a court pronounces a judgment in a criminal case which is not authorized by laws under any circumstances in the particular case made by the p1eadings, whether the trial has proceeded regularly or otherwise, that such judgment can be said to be void so as to justify the discharge of the defendant held in custody by such judgment. (FN26) Subject matter jurisdiction can be created only by pleading a cause of action. (FN27) We further find that there was no genuine issue of fact but that (1) if the circuit court had jurisdiction, it was properly invoked by the petition and (2) any such jurisdiction was properly perfected by a sufficient service of process on appellant. (FN28) A courts jurisdiction is generally invoked in a given case by a party filing a proper pleading which alleges material facts demonstrating (1) the existence of a judicial controversy (a right in dispute between two or more parties) within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and (2), when a binding judicial determination requires the court to act directly on an object (a res), that such court has, or can acquire, jurisdiction over such res. (FN29) Subject matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause of action that is within the courts original jurisdiction In the Fifth Circuit, subject matter determinations may be made using any one of the following bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the courts
Page 10 of 22

resolution of undisputed facts. (FN30) Jurisdiction to try and punish for crime cannot be acquired otherwise than in the mode prescribed by law, and where complaint, indictment, or information is invalid, the court is without jurisdiction to try and punish for crime. (FN31) Cause of action Cause of action. Article in Amendment the Sixth states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Wisconsin has similar language (the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation). Of what does cause of action consist? In every cause of action there must exist a primary right, a corresponding primary duty, and a failure to perform that duty. (FN32) There seems to be no logical escape from the conclusion that the term cause of action must include the facts showing (1) the plaintiffs right; (2) the defendants corresponding duty, and (3) the defendants breach of that duty, or, to put it more tersely, the plaintiffs right and its violation by the defendant. (FN33) Authors Grenig & Fishbach state that a pleading for affirmative relief should: (1) Identify the plaintiff, indicating the legal status that imposes on the plaintiff the right that is at issue; (2) Identify the defendant, indicating the legal status that gives the defendant the duty at issue; (3) Refer to the legal source of the claim, including, if applicable a statute citation; (4) Describe what the defendant did or did not do that violated the plaintiffs right or breached the defendants duty; (5) Describe how the defendant injured the plaintiff; (6) A statement of damages suffered by the plaintiff. (FN34) Standing Standing. A party has standing ... if the party has sufficient interest in the outcome of a justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Norquist v. Zeuske, 211 Wis.2d 241, 247 (1997). Standing is determined by a two-step analysis. A court must determine (1) whether the plaintiff has suffered a threatened or actual injury, and (2) whether the interest asserted is recognized by law. (FN35) Presumptions. Presumptions are the bedrock of governmental actions against the people. It is presumed that the flesh and blood man standing in front of the judge is the defendant. It is presumed that said man is the all capital letter artificial person or legal fiction, be it a cestui que trust, or a corporate sole, or other entity known as a strawman. Or perhaps it is presumed that the man is a trustee of, or in privity with, the strawman defendant. It is presumed that one is a taxpayer. It is presumed that the man has a duty to the government or plaintiff agency. It is presumed that the man has a liability or legal obligation to the plaintiff. It is presumed that an enforceable contract exists, that agency records are true and correct, and on, and on. Wis. stats. 903.01 states, in pertinent part: ... the presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence. In the Mushel case the court stated: Two types of rebuttable presumptions exist.
Page 11 of 22

One type is invoked for reasons of public policy without regard for whether the presumptions bear any reasonable relationships to the actual fact presumed. The other type of presumption is based on facts that reasonably give rise to an inference of the ultimate conclusion embodied in the presumption. (FN36) If a target is in a position where he has to respond to an attack, he must identify the underlying presumptions. Then all of the incorrect presumptions have to be denied, or else they are deemed admitted. Likewise, Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required ... are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. (FRCP Rule 8). Summary thus far Government de facto is operating in the form of public corporations as subunits of the lawful constitutionally created republican form of government guaranteed to the people by Article IV, Section 4 of the constitution for the United States of America. The constitutional republics (NOT democracies) were created by the people in their sovereignty as a form of trust for the protection of their rights. The corporate body is a trustee. Individual members are the cestui que trusts. It is like infant and prochein ami [next friend]. (FN37) The sovereign people delegated a specific and limited amount of their authority and power to said republics, retaining all else to themselves (Articles in Amendment the Ninth and Tenth). The government, as agents of the state, usurped authority and enacted ex post facto ACTS. These ACTS placed the sovereign people under or beneath the authority of the government, thereby perverting the natural order of nature, refuting the Laws of Nature and Natures God, and enthroning the government as god. The result is the most egregious form of IDOLATRY. Der Stadt ist Gott! Men have become merchandise under this system. It is apparent that when an agency of the state targets a man, the plaintiff agency will generally lack standing, and the pleadings will undoubtedly fail to evidence a cause of action sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the court. The target is thereafter destroyed via presumptions. Let us consider pre-trial remedy next, and follow-up with post-trial remedy. Pre-trial remedy The majority of the courts today operate under what is called notice pleading. One does not find an affidavit under penalty of perjury signed by an injured party, nor a bona fide indictment signed by twelve men and lawfully read by the foreman of the grand jury in open court accusing the defendant to his face. Criminal complaints lack a mens rea and are signed by law enforcement officers, usually based upon hearsay, and duly sworn on oath, which means NOTHING. What oath? It certainly isnt under penalty of perjury: they know better! The 1944 Adoption Notes to FRCrP Rule 12 state: This rule abolishes pleas to the jurisdiction, pleas in abatement, demurrers, special pleas in bar, and motions to quash. A motion to dismiss or for other appropriate relief is substituted for the purpose of raising all defenses and
Page 12 of 22

objections heretofore interposed in any of the foregoing modes. FRCrP 12 governs Pleadings and Pretrial Motions. Rule 12(b) Pretrial motions, paragraph (1) states that Rule 47 applies to a pretrial motion. It is a short Rule - read it all. In pertinent part for purposes here Rule 47(a) states A party applying to the court for an order must do so by motion. Do not expect the court to do something without being moved, or asked to do something. Ask by way of a motion; move the court. If one files a common law plea or some other document for the judges attention, the response may be: The document filed is not a proper pleading, motion or other legal document recognized by the court; therefore, this court will take no action on it. Or they may just ignore it, period, which is even worse as one is now totally in the dark as to the courts intention. Rule 47(b) states that a motion must be made in writing except when made during a trial or hearing. FRCrP 12(b)(2) & (3) govern motions before trial, especially those challenging jurisdiction and failure to state an offense. Compare this to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 6(b): Every defense, in law or fact ... shall be asserted in the responsive pleading ... except that the following defenses may ... be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, ... (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, The notes under this rule (1946 Amendment) state that Rule l2(b)(6) is substantially the same as the old demurrer for failure of a pleading to state a cause of action. The bottom line is this: unchain the 800 pound gorilla, empty the dirty laundry bag, go for the jugular, and the cockroaches will most likely look for an easier target. The last thing they want is public exposure, and pretrial motions allows them to save face and go after other merchandise. When motioning the court, make sure of the facts, then make the motion verified or include an affidavit under penalty of perjury. Then motion the verified motion or the affidavit into evidence. An exhibit filed with the court does no good unless it is received into evidence, and the way to get it received is by motion. Remember FRCrP 47 - the court will not (and probably can not) do anything unless moved to do so. (Are they not bankrupt corporate courts? What power would they have without being moved or motioned?). It is highly recommended that one obtain, and use, both publications - Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules (FRCP) and Federal Criminal Code and Rules (FRCrP). One might make profitable use of rules governing motions to dismiss, motions to strike, motions for sanctions, motion for judgment on the pleadings, motions to take mandatory judicial notice, motions to issue subpoena duces tecum, motions to receive into evidence and rule upon, etc. One should obtain the Rules for ones particular state, also. The books are available from West Group. One might put to good use the rules on Judicial Notice. FRCP 201 governs Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts. Rule 201(d) states: When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information. Wisconsin statutes chapter 902 governs Judicial Notice. Section 902.01 corresponds to FRCP 201. Section 902.02 is the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act. Section 902.02 states that Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States. One might conditionally
Page 13 of 22

accept a want-to-be adversarys complaint, demand, entreaty, etc., and at the same time present the party with a Request for Admissions. Admissions are a very powerful tool. When the would-be adversary defaults, obtain an in pais default judgment, record it at the proper county office such as the Register of Deeds under Miscellaneous or Affidavits, obtain a certified copy of the recorded document, then motion the court to take mandatory judicial notice of ones in pais judgment. The court is obligated to dismiss an action when there is want of subject matter jurisdiction. There is no jurisdiction when there is no cause of action or controversy. There may be other facts that a party might want the court to take judicial notice of. One might even motion the court to rule that the court will rule in accordance with facts submitted for judicial notice. One might want to preface their motions with the phrase in special appearance for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of this court. Verification and Affidavits The importance of rebutting the dolus of government and presenting facts by way of verified pleadings and affidavits is evidenced by an unpublished 1988 Wisconsin decision. Government agencies are presumed to have complied with the law unless evidence is introduced to the contrary. Herro v. DNR, 227 N.W,2d 456, 468 (1975). [What did we say about PRESUMPTIONS?] Svee [the petitioner] has provided no affidavits or evidentiary facts to rebut the presumption that the government followed all necessary procedures. In response to a summary judgment motion, a party must not rest on his pleadings. If the party who opposes summary judgment does not respond by affidavit, the trial court may grant summary judgment against the opposing party. The purpose of the affidavit requirement is the presentation of evidentiary facts. (FN38) See why it is so important to present verified pleadings, motions, or affidavits supporting motions? Does one think that any government agent would swear under penalty of perjury that a man had a duty or liability to a de facto agency? Post-trial remedy and habeas corpus When referring to the Great Writ of personal liberty, the common law writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, a researcher wrote this author that: THE COMMON LAW IS DEAD. If so, then the Great Writ has met the same fate as the loss-leader in the department store display window or advertisement: Im sorry, we are temporarily out of stock. But we do have this slightly higher priced model with bells and whistles that is ALMOST the exact same thing. Right. Whether or not the Great Writ is ever accessible as constitutionally guaranteed is not definitively known by this author. It certainly is not timely accessible as was historically the case. What is known without any doubt whatsoever is that the federal and state corporations have created legislative substitutes, or clones for the Great Writ, and then bastardized the clones. Notwithstanding the purpose of St. 1979, 974.06 relating to postconviction relief being to supplant habeas corpus, the statute contemplates that in certain circumstances, prisoners remedy may lie in an application for habeas corpus
Page 14 of 22

and not in a motion for postconviction relief. (FN39) [definition: supplant. To replace; to cause to be set aside or replaced by another. To take the place of (another), esp. by underhand means or by force: supersede]. Petition for habeas corpus can be presented to Supreme Court only when the postconviction relief remedy has been exhausted or is found to not be applicable. (FN40) So the Wisconsin legislature supplanted the Great Writ with a legislative privilege. One of the most succinct pronouncements by the Supreme Court that clearly differentiates between a constitutionally-secured right and a legislative privilege is found in Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft: Because deportation proceedings are civil and not criminal, the only possible ground for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the current circumstances is the fifth amendments due process clause. (Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 805, 807 (8th Cir 2003)). But in order for such a claim to succeed, the Obleshchenkos must have a protected liberty or property interest, which cannot be found in a statutorily created relief that is subject to the unfettered discretion of a governmental authority. (FN41) Not only did State of Wisconsin supplant habeas corpus, but the courts do not even tell the target that the statutory substitute is available. The very first thing the judge does after sentencing is order the bailiff to place notice of appeal forms in front of the target and advise him that he has twenty days in which to file a notice of appeal. Why does the judge want one to file an appeal? And why is he in such a hurry to get the just butchered sacrifice to rush into filing an appeal? The record clearly shows that appeals are generally futile, with the real beneficiaries of an appeal being the attorneys who collect the fees. Perhaps the primary reason to rush the target into an appeal lies in the Escalona decision. If the target can be rushed into an appeal without a clear mind and without having sufficient time to identify his constitutionallybased issues, he is PRECLUDED from bringing up those issues in a motion for postconviction relief under the statutory habeas corpus, 974.06! A defendant is prohibited from raising a constitutional issue on a motion under 974.06 if the claim COULD have been raised in a PREVIOUSLY FILED 974.02 motion or direct appeal. (FN42) Now the target is really toast! [Dont tell me that the judges do not know exactly what they are doing - why else do they go to judges training in places like Reno or Boca Raton?] Now the targets only remaining issue for habeas corpus relief is subject matter jurisdiction, and NO attorney will touch that one! Habeas corpus is not to serve as appeal or writ of error. (FN43) Writ of habeas corpus is not intended to perform the office of writ of error or appeal, and nothing will be investigated on habeas corpus except jurisdictional defects or illegality by which is meant want of legal authority for detention or imprisonment. (FN44) In Wisconsin it is virtually impossible to obtain a writ of habeas corpus without returning to the sentencing court for postdisposition relief (defined in Wis. stats. 809.30(l)(c) & (d)), which is the statutory habeas corpus pursuant to Wis. stats. 974.06. Section 974.06(8) reads A petition for writ of habeas corpus [the REAL ONE recognized in the constitution, or the legislatively created one in Wis. Stats. Chapter 782?] or an action seeking that remedy on behalf of a person who is authorized to apply for relief by motion under this section shall not be entertained if it appears that the
Page 15 of 22

applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced that person, or that the court has denied the person relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the illegality of his or her detention. Requiring one to return to the convicting court for statutory habeas corpus is a de facto abolition or suspension of the Great Writ. The function of habeas corpus is to provide PROMPT and EFFECTIVE judicial remedy to those persons illegally restrained of their personal liberty. (FN45) The legislature may reasonably regulate procedure in respect to habeas corpus, but cannot restrict the commonlaw use of the remedy; that is preserved by the constitution. (FN46) Right. But, what if the legislature has delusions of grandeur (like a god complex) or is itself deceived by special interests that want such legislation? Just because someone has sworn an oath to support the Constitution does not mean that they ever even read it, much less comprehend it. Regardless of intent, the result remains the same. Perhaps the legislators should be tried by their own statutory definition of criminal intent, Wis. stats. 939.23. What would be the charge? How about treason to the Constitution? Having a statute or rule that requires that the court that ordinarily would serve as the first step in the appellate process has jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of the prisoners custody only as a result of some action taken by that court against the petitioner (such as incarcerating him) that was either wholly beyond [its] ... jurisdiction or so lawless that requiring the petitioner to return to that forum to commence habeas corpus proceedings would only compound the illegality. This is an exceptional circumstance recognized by federal appellate judges and the Supreme Court, where it is not only within the authority of the federal courts, but it is a duty for them to hear original habeas corpus petitions when the court of confinement and, apparently, court to which petition would have to be directed under the usual rule, previously had incarcerated prisoner in regard to a matter wholly beyond or without the jurisdiction of that court. (FN47) And, There is no higher duty than to maintain the writ of habeas corpus unimpaired. (FN48) The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is referred to as a high prerogative writ, the vital purposes of which are to obtain immediate relief from illegal confinement, or to deliver someone from unlawful custody. (FN49) Notwithstanding such unequivocal earlier pronouncements from the Supreme Court, both Congress and the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, have erected numerous impediments to obtaining remedy via habeas corpus. These impediments have the result, if not the intent, of suspending or abolishing habeas corpus. Some of the impediments include, and this list is not exhaustive, an exhaustion of state remedies doctrine, procedural default doctrines, time barred rule, successive petitions rule, adequate and independent state procedural doctrine, cause and prejudice issue, presentation requirement, and meaningful opportunity doctrine. Some people might describe these impediments as constituting congressional or judicial despotism. Liebman and Hertz are more discreet: The jurisprudential underpinnings of the independent and adequate state procedural grounds doctrine are not entirely settled. Their two volume set of books on habeas corpus is an indispensable guide. One of their good suggestions is if petitioner has a choice among a number of postconviction
Page 16 of 22

remedies, he is well-advised to 1) pursue at least one procedure that clearly requires that the constitutional merits of petitioners claim be adjudicated and 2) avoid choosing a procedure that is extraordinary or discretionary. Also, make sure you have included every conceivable constitutional issue, especially those denial of due process claims, from the onset. Political prisoners would naturally want the jurisdictional and constitutional issues addressed, which in Wisconsin means postconviction (postdisposition) relief pursuant to the statutory habeas corpus, and if unsuccessful, then habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (if it hasnt died of unnatural causes). Postconviction /postdisposition relief; statutory habeas corpus Wis. stats. 974.06(1) reads in pertinent part: After the time for appeal or postconviction remedy under s.974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. Constitution or the constitution or laws of this state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. (2) A motion for such relief is a part of the original criminal action, is not a separate proceeding and may he made at any time. Judicial Council Note, 1981 reads: Sub(8) has been amended to reflect the fact that habeas corpus relief is now available in an ordinary action in circuit court. In the case cites we find the following: A petition under this section is limited to jurisdictional and constitutional issues. It is not a substitute for a motion for a new trial. (FN50) This section is not a remedy for an ordinary rehearing or reconsideration of sentencing on its merits, only constitutional and jurisdictional questions may be raised. This section may be used to review sentences and convictions regardless of the date of prosecution. (FN51) Conclusion To our fellow countrymen who believe that The Matrix was merely fictional entertainment, and that we live under a Romans 13 government, the question is: Just what flavor WAS that blue pill? To everyone else, I hope this provides both hope and an avenue for remedy, as well as a basis for further research. Use the pretrial motions as if your life depended on them, because it probably does, especially if you are a political target, a dissenter, or promote natural healing or wellness. Check the statutes in your Buck Act state for statutory habeas corpus for remedy if you have already been pilloried. Government operates based on presumptions. One type of presumption is invoked for reasons of public policy without regard for whether the presumptions bear any reasonable relationships to the actual fact presumed. Rest assured that these presumptions are quite detrimental to your private rights, property, and liberty interests. The purpose of these presumptions is to allow the government (a parasite - think MATRIX) to extract the life force and productivity of the man (a host - think MATRIX) in order to sustain itself.
Page 17 of 22

Government has usurped authority and assumed the character of being selfexistent. The presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving the nonexistence of the fact. This burden may be met by evidence such as an affidavit, most often in the form of a negative averment, which shifts the burden of proof upon the party making a positive assertion or averment. These negative averments may be, for example, that the record of the court does not evidence any document with affiants bona fide signature thereon that would create a duty or liability of affiant to plaintiff; the record of the court does not evidence any document (think complaint or indictment or information) under penalty of perjury (or otherwise) evidencing a right of the plaintiff, an injury to the plaintiff, a threatened injury to the plaintiff, an enforceable contract with the plaintiff, a liability of the defendant, a duty of the defendant to the plaintiff, the authority of the plaintiff to enact an ex post facto law, the authority to do that which its creator or principal - the state - cannot do, etc., etc. It is presumed that a duty or liability exists on the part of the man (either as defendant or trustee, etc. of or for the defendant) to the government /corporation. However, the creator is not liable to the created creature unless he obligates himself to be so. The creator, as sovereign, reigns supreme, and owes no duty to its creature. Hath not the potter power over the clay? It is presumed that the plaintiff is the lawful government (de jure) rather than government de facto, which it is. It is presumed that the plaintiff is not acting pursuant to an unconstitutional ex post facto bill of pains and penalties (or bill of attainder if capital punishment is involved), but it is. And on and on. The list of presumptions is almost endless, but only the primary or main presumptions need to be identified and rebutted. Try not to make positive assertions unless they can be substantiated with evidence, because the burden of proof is upon the party making the positive claim. Why else would government operate by assumption and presumption? - they do not, and probably can not prove a claim! If their presumptions are exposed and rebutted, it becomes obvious that the plaintiff has neither cause of action nor standing to bring a railing accusation against the man. The court is in want of (lacks) jurisdiction, the proceedings are (were) void, a mere nullity, and if the person sitting in the court, i.e., the presiding officer often mistakenly referred to as judge, proceeds and injures the man, he has absolutely no immunity. And he knows it. One might even want to ask him that, just in case it slips his mind. Get the judge to admit, on the record, that he has an oath to support the Constitution of these United States pursuant to Article 6, sections 2 and 3, and then accept his covenant (thats what his oath is) as a binding contract that he will protect your constitutionally-secured private, substantive, and common rights. Better yet, file a motion with the court to claim and exercise your constitutionally secured rights and require the presiding judge to rule on the motion and all public officers of the court to uphold said rights. If the judge is foolish enough to deny the motion, he has perjured his oath and committed insurrection and sedition to the Constitution. You must tell him that, as well as the fact that he has vacated his office pursuant to the self-executing clauses three and four of the 14th Amendment, forfeits his salary, pension, perks, et cetera, is disqualified, and order him to step down, remove himself from the bench. Remember, just his sitting there is a conflict of interest between
Page 18 of 22

safeguarding your secured rights and his being a hireling for the corporation who is protecting the interests of the creditors, the international bankers. He is supposed to be our servant, not our master. If he perjures his oath and continues the proceeding and rules against you, file an objection to his ruling and demand a new hearing with a new presiding officer. File a criminal complaint and seek to have him impeached. So put on your helmet and breastplate, gird your loins with truth, pick up your shield and sword, and be of good courage. The world needs a few more Davids and a few less Goliaths. Is there not a cause? DISCLAIMER This treatise is not legal advice, nor should it be construed as legal advice. Consider it the ramblings of a madman if you so desire, as the author does not care what mere mortals think of him. Any person who wants or needs legal advice might consider consulting with Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, L.L.P., or any other competent member of one of the Inns of Court. Addendum Regarding mens rea It is no longer necessary to intend to commit a crime or knowingly commit a crime or have what has for centuries been called a guilty mind (mens rea), since crime now is whatever the government SAYS it is. Just committing an act, ANY ACT, can now be defined as a crime: 1) State v. Danforth, 371 N.W.2d 411, 125 Wis.2d 293 (1985). Intent is an element of a crime only if it is required by statute. 2) Wis. stats. 939.03 Jurisdiction of state over crime. (1) A person is subject to prosecution and punishment under the law of this state if any of the following applies: (a) The person commits a crime, any of the constituent elements of which takes place in this state.

3) State v. Anderson, 695 N.W2d 731, 280 Wis.2d 104 (2005). Therefore, we conclude that the phrase constituent elements in 939.03(l)(a) refers to the elements of the underlying offense that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. A constituent element of an offense may he either an actus reus element or a mens rea element. Intent to kill is a constituent element of first-degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin. Thus, intent to kill is a constituent element for purposes of 939.03(l)(a). Postscript 2011: In the 6 years or so since the above treatise was written (circa 2005) the attorneys and judges have become totally lawless, and will lie, cheat, steal, and even commit murder to protect their criminal enterprise.
Page 19 of 22

Postscript 2012: This was pre-National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the "Indefinite Detention Act".

Page 20 of 22

Footnotes: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22)
23)

24)

25) 26)

27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35) 36)

Wynhammer v. People, 13 N.Y. 378. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419 (1793). The American People - A History, vol.1, p. 211, Harlan Davidson, Inc. (1981). Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892). T.M. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p.47 note. Citing: The People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 107 (1871). State v. Dammann, 201 Wis. 84, 228 N.W. 593 (1930); State v. Schinz, 194 Wis. 397, 216 N.W. 509 (1927). State ex rel. Owen v. Donald, 160 Wis. 21, 151 N.W. 331 (1915). State v. Schinz, 194 Wis. 397, 216 N.W. 509 (1927). Heilman Brewing Co., Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, LaCrosse County, 105 Wis.2d 152, 312 N.W.2d 875 (App. 1981). U.S. v. Tarlowski, 305 F.Supp 112 D.C.N.Y. (1969) (a good case study). State v. City of Oak Creek, 232 Wis.2d 612, 605 N.W.2d 526 (2000). Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 290-291, 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885) (a good case study). State v. Tenant, 14 S.E. 387, 388, 110 N.C. 609 (1892) (authorities cited). Story, Justice, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters (36 U.S.) 420, 643. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798). 4 U.S.C. l05-1lO, July 30, 1947. ch. 389, 61 stat. 644. 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A). Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1866). State ex rel. Keefe v. Schmiege, 251 Wis. 79, 28 N.W.2d 345 (1947). State v. Hamley, 137 Wis. 458, 119 N.W. 114, 115 (1909) (citing Koch v. State, infra). Koch v. State, 126 Wis. 470, 106 N.W. 531, 533 (1906). Koch, supra p. 532, citing State ex rel. Mixer v. Supervisors, 26 Mich. 422. Liebman, James S. and Randy Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure, (1994), vol. 1, p.29, citing Bator, Paul M., Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 76 HARV. L. REV. 441 (1963), at 471-474. Ex parte Burford, 7 U.S. 448 (1806). State v. Sloan, 65 Wis. 647, 27 N.W. 616 (1886); see also: People v. Liscomb, 60 N.Y. 571, 590, 591, 604; In re Perry 30 Wis. 268; In re Crandall, 34 Wis. 177; In re Semler, 41 Wis. 517; Hanser v. State, 33 Wis. 678; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall 163; Ex parte Gibson, 31 Cal 628. Avitts v. Amoco Production Co., 53 F.3d 690 (1995). F.B. v. State, 474 So.2d 1221. Florida Power & Light v. Canal Authority, 423 So.2d 421 (Fla 5th DCA 1982), rev denied 434 So.2d 887. Maxwell v. Kight, 974 F.Supp 899, E.D. Tex (1996). Ex parte Carlson, 176 Wis. 538, 186 N.W. 722 (1922). McArthur, infra, citing S.B.C.P. Co. v. Cribb Co., 105 Wis. 443. McArthur v. Moffett, 143 Wis. 564, 128 N.W. 445 (1910). Grenig & Fishbach, Wisconsin Practice, vol. 4, Civil Procedure Forms, p. 19. State v. City of Oak Creek, supra. Mushel v. Town of Moliter, 123 Wis.2d 136, 141 (App. 1985).

37) 38)

39) 40) 41) 42) 43) 44) 45) 46) 47) 48) 49) 50) 51)

Bank of U.S. v. Deveaux, 9 U.S. 61 (1809). Chan v. Svee, 145 Wis.2d 897, 428 N.W.2d 562 (Unpublished, 1988). For two examples of affidavits in the pleadings which invoked subject matter jurisdiction see In re Kaine, 55 U.S. 103 (1852), and State v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 85 N.W. 1046 (1901). State v. Johnson, 101 Wis.2d 698, 305 N.W.2d 188 (App. 1981). Peterson v. State, 54 Wis.2d 370, 195 N.W.2d 837 (1972). Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 970 (2004) State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis.2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 1994). State ex rel. Simos v. Burke, 41 Wis.2d 130, 163 N.W.2d 177 (1968). Larson v. State ex rel. Bennet. 221 Wis. l88, 266 N.W. 170 1936). State ex rel. Wohlfahrt v. Bodette, 95 Wis.2d 130 (1980). Servonitz v. State, 133 Wis. 231 (1907). Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 653 (1884). Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747. 39 American Jurisprudence 2nd, sec. 1. Vara v. State, 56 Wis.2d 390, 202 N.W.2d 10 (1972). State ex rel. Warren v. County Court, 54 Wis.2d 613, 197 N.W.2d 1 (1972).