0:02 Alright, I'm gonna add part three to the series. The previous video, I introduce the concept of the trustee. That is a consequence of the law of the father, land, law, the husband. 0:14 And the reason why I'm doing that is because I know how you think I can read your mind. 0:19 And so, I h...

Alright, I'm gonna add part three to the series. The previous video, I introduce the concept of the trustee. That is a consequence of the law of the father, land, law, the husband.
And the reason why I'm doing that is because I know how you think I can read your mind.
And so, I have to give you some more detail and background to some of these concepts.
So bear with me, I'm not trying to redo, but again, it's going to help me convey what I'm trying to express here.
So, I'm gonna do a share screen on my actual notes.
And then I'm going to hop over to a website that was very useful, very helpful in this whole presentation. So why re-invent the wheel, right?
So, these are my notes, They're not really notes, It's more like a, you know, so how I do things, I just write complete ideas.
But anyways, let's look at it from this way.
So after what I just presented, you follow these videos of talking about the trust.
It can't be broken by the court by strangers. They're intruders, OK.
So why can the family court, why does a family court? Why does it lack jurisdiction? Why can it not interfere?
Now, we really did answer this question, I think, but I wanted to give you some more in depth, more detail on these concepts.
So why can't the court get involved in family or couples racial relationships when there is no pre nuptial kids?
And this is, I came up with this because I'm trying to help people in the situation where there's no written terms, and we're going to establish them.
But we're also going to bring into the arrangement we're going to bring into the situation.
The recognition of laws that are already just a matter of nature. They're already, they already exist. We just have to implement them. We have to act accordingly. I'm gonna show you how to do that.
This is what we've been doing so far.
So, of course, review parts 2 and 1, and now the whole series from the beginning, if you would.
But at least the two previous videos, where I'm talking about the law, the husband and then into the trustee, OK.
So, typically, attorneys have tried to define their way out of this natural law, this law, the husband. And so the comment is that I want to make is that, just because a man and woman did not follow the state statute regarding marriage. But they act as if they're married, they live in a way that a married couple would live, that doesn't mean they're not married.
Marriage is what you do.
It's not because you followed some statutory scheme, All right. So, it's it's a false and fictional concept that unmarried couples living together have different legal rights, too.
Married couples, so many times I've had conversations, people call me, and they say, We're not really married, but we have two children together, and we lived together, and I said, well, you're married, so let's, let's work your situation from that.
Understanding, OK, whether you like it or not, you are, attorneys have simply created different definitions for these.
necessarily identical relationships.
They're the same, if you live like you're married, you're married.
Attorneys have simply create a different definitions, OK? So, they can, it's, because this is part of their economic feudal system, a feudal system is an economic system, it's a type of economic system.
Alright, so, and what they, what this allows attorneys to do is practice their Adornment to take property from however they want from people however they want.
So, there's a list, some examples about how Tourneys practice a tournament, we've talked about that. I've had previous videos, and so forth. The title company was one example, OK? You guys can follow along here.
So, the two examples, non marital marital are in fact necessarily indistinguishable. We have to, we have to ignore whether or not either is eligible for related statutory benefits.
So, the determination of whether or not someone's married is not whether or not the state looks at that arrangement, as as if, the, to test whether or not the people in that arrangement qualify for some sort of state benefits.
That's not the determination of marriage.
Um, it is what you do.
And we'll get to that. So, we'll go back to the law, The father.
So, we, this is, We brought I brought in this understanding. the law, The father. It's established by the exercise of an exclusively. A unique right to the man.
The acceptance of certain responsibilities and liabilities come with that, OK? Automatically, and then the enjoyment of certain rights and prerogatives go with that.
That's just the way it is.
The law, the husband, established by the exercise in exclusive and unique right, Acceptance of certain responsibilities and liabilities, and the enjoyment of certain rights and prerogatives the law the father, gives rise to the law of the husband.
Even if the role of husband was created first, and without the role, the father there, There has to be, the reason why I start with the role of fathers, because when a man becomes a father, he's automatically the husband, and so that's, I want to start from that perspective today.
In civil society, men choose to get married and they become the husband first, and then maybe later they have children and they become the father, but it's still the law, the father, OK?
So consequently, this relationship and these roles, and these duties, gives rise to the formation of an a trust which is not revocable cannot be broken. It's a matter of nature. This is how things work.
You cannot change the benefits expected by the beneficiaries of this trust arrangement, and the trust arrangement I explained in the previous video, Right? Nor moreover, you can't change the trustees obligations with powers. That's the whole idea behind the trust.
You can't break it and it creates a settled matter over the relationship of all the parties. This is very important on the jurisdictional aspects of what family courts trying to do.
I'm trying to give you the power to explain why and understand why the family court does not have jurisdiction.
If you, so make that argument, you have to make the argument, and I'm giving you tools to show you how to do that, part of which includes, the Declaration of trust, you've gotta have that, you've gotta have an affidavit and I'm gonna get into that. Next here.
The reason for the affidavit is regarding something known as the parol Evidence rule, OK, so where a relationship or a contract, let's say, is not reduced to writing, or the relationship or business relationship between parties is reduced to writing.
But there may be some other aspects of that, that are not specifically described in the contract, but it is part of the contract.
Those those things can be incorporated into the contract under what's called the parol evidence rule, meaning we observe what is being done, And that is necessarily part of the contract to allow the contract that way we described in words to function.
So we can't do that now. Sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't work that way.
So Pearl evidence provenance can be included and can be excluded from a contract.
What I'm talking about here is I want to use the Parol evidence rule as a standard, to describe how we can use the affidavit and declaration of trust to establish the arrangement. That would preclude the court from taking jurisdiction to understand.
So a marriage is not a matter of commerce, in my opinion, but the good standard, by which that we're going to measure.
This is called the marital agreement, OK, the marriage, We're going to use a regular commercial standard, just just because it works really well. Alright.
Let's look at it in the same way, other contracts or consider. So this discussion concerns are completely, completely unwritten. contract is what I was just saying, OK, we're talking about, in most cases, a completely unwritten contract. Now, sometimes there are written contracts.
Like, for example, you could probably take, I mean, most people don't have a written marriage agreement.
They just got married, right. They went to the ceremony in this sort of thing. But they did give vows right.
And a lot of these vows are not like, you couldn't just give it a monetary value of the vows that they're more But he call it emotional, right.
But in any case, most of the time, we're not dealing with written contracts here.
So, sometimes it helps, Well, we need to the courts only deal with tangible things, so to speak, they deal with words.
So we have to take something that's happening in the real-world, and, and introduce it into the court in a way the Court can actually take cognizance of it.
So we're going to use a uniform commercial code as a standard by which we measure the marital agreement. Just to standard, I'm not saying your marriages under the UCC, guys, come on.
So it just turns out that, under Rule 2 dash 2 0 2, now that's Article two, OK, or Chapter two, or Volume two of the Uniform Commercial Code, Section, 20210101201 is probably definitions, 202, is what we're talking about here. And what's really nice is, I got this from Cornell right off the website.
It's really useful.
So, if you'll see here, um, they're talking about, let me just read it here.
So that the terms and writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement.
But may be explained or supplemented by what is known as course of Dealing.
So, of course, if dealing would be something like Wal-Mart's refund policy, they, they typically deal with customers in this way, not a specific customer, but generally, customers are doing this. That's how they deal with them, OK? Usage of trade, we're not gonna get into that too much.
But it's kinda like that same idea where it's an industry standard.
And so when there's a dispute, a judge would say, well, the industry standard is this, and so you're gonna go buy this, OK, to resolve the dispute.
And by course of performance, and this is what I want to talk about, Course. The performance. So, what is it that you're actually doing? What is your relationship? Look like on a day-to-day basis? Hoop whose pays money for what? who takes custody of the children? Who makes what decision? OK, that's course of performance in my opinion. And so the standard here, I'm gonna, I'm gonna get into it, so it, by evidence of consistent additional terms, unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.
So, this is why it's so important to reduce into writing what you're doing, and then to describe the relationship you have, so many times, you can reduce in writing what you're doing. Like, you know, I have custody of my son on this date and that date, and then she has another day. But?
Other things need to be, know, what, what is intended, what are the rights? What are the rights and obligations, right?
of each of the parties? And that's why we have the declaration of trust. And the affidavit.
OK, so what does the course of dealing so let me just go over here. I'm gonna show you. I gave you the link and everything, but I'm gonna do a stop share, and go back, and because it's the way, how now I know how to use the computer. I go back and I'm going to share the screen. OK, This is going to give what I'm talking about here.
So, look, this section is going to give us these definitions. So just look at course of dealing, let's just, let's just read this for a second. It refers to a sequence of conduct regarding previous transactions. What happened before? What did you do before? What do you normally do every day? What do you generally do every month? What happened the last three months, OK, which can reasonably be seen as evidence of a common basis of understanding between the parties.
What you're doing now on a regular basis is agreement, is evidence of agreement to do that thing.
If a television company generally includes a 30 day warranty with its television sales, the 30 day warranty may be part of the course of dealing.
Got it.
I'm not going to go further into the technical aspects, you guys can read this yourself.
I don't like this one but course of performance, let's look at this.
Now, I don't know if this comes out of the UCC, I believe. But let's look at course the performance. A sequence of contact between the parties to a particular transaction. Let's just say, this is a interaction, OK. We're talking about husband or wife men and women, they're interacting with each other. And the children, the agreement of the parties with, respect to the transaction involves repeated occasions of performance by a party.
If you've been doing it a certain way, then let's just say that's your agreement. It doesn't matter that it's in writing or not.
So in order to deal with the court and to explain like an art in our situation, what we're trying to do is explain that because of, the, the course of performance, there is already an agreement, or there is already a settled matter for which the court can't intervene.
The court can't change it, It's a settled matter between the parties. The courts a stranger doesn't matter what law says. It doesn't matter what the statutes are.
It doesn't permit the judge to get involved in this, especially because it's a marriage, even even in a contracted commerce.
If you read this yourself, that you'll see that the courts are not going to intervene and change the contract, they're very reluctant to even surmised what is not in writing. That's why we even have this rule. Under the UCC, OK? It's a guide for bringing in aspects of a contract that are not already in writing. The courts are not going to change things in writing.
They're not going to change existing contracts, So your job to show why the court doesn't have jurisdiction, and again, you want to do that in my opinion, because you want to remove yourself from that whole state goofiness state legislature you're gonna find out.
That they're a bunch of fools, OK.
You want to remove yourself from that.
You want to remove those, those, those insane people that group, that corporation from interfering in your marriage through the judge by showing that the court doesn't have jurisdiction.
The way you do that is you show how you already have an agreement, and it's a settled matter, OK? Not only that, but there's a trust relationship as an important agreement. It's an important aspect of that marriage, that that agreement, OK, that contract.
The other party with knowledge of the nature of the performance, an opportunity for objection to it, accepts the performance or acquiesces in it without objection.
So right, somebody's been going along with it for a long time.
And therefore, there's consent, right, and that's the purpose of the affidavit if you look at my documents.
Again, so forth, and so on. So it's, there's more of the same.
Now, I'm gonna, I'm gonna also show you, I amended my documents, and what, why not. I may always going to do that.
So when you're seeing this video, in August 2023, by the time you see it, I've probably meant the amended the documents a little bit, but you're gonna get the core Essential, No results and benefits. Let me just go back here.
Anyways, so that's the idea. But let me go back to my notes and switch screen over there And I may just actually pull up my amendment site. I did today.
Just to, here we go.
I'm going to do that right now. But so that's what this is all about. So that is the parol evidence rule, that is the purpose of the affidavit.
And the declaration of trust, OK.
Matters are settled, We want to show matters. Important matters are already settled. Prior conduct establishes agreement, which cannot be amended by non parties, including the court, and including the legislative power, any corporation or those with no interest. Now, how could someone get an interest in your marriage? You can't, because it's not a marriage.
The definition of a marriage is that there's only two people, OK.
Not three, Not two in a corporation.
So, only two parties, man, woman, husband, wife, father, mother, can, be solely interested parties. No one else. Can ever have an interest in this relationship. Let's call it a family. Matters are settled by the sole arbiter.
Why do I say that?
Because Adjudge might look at that and say, well, you may have settled the matter but I'm a judge and you're not.
Well, the sole arbiter. You have to make the point that the father is the sole arbiter, therefore he's the judge. He has the judicial power. So it's been a ...
your last, you can't get involved.
The father and husband and possibly in his capacity, as trustee over the matters, has been resolved. It's been settle that's been adjudicated by the soul and final arbiter. I should put it. Here. Matters are settled by the soul and final arbiter.
The father, right?
OK, now, a judge who's interfering with a marriage is exceeding his capacity in doing so He's not a judge anymore, he doesn't have the authority the moment he exceeds his capacity as judge over subject that he has normally jurisdiction over. When he exceeds that authority, he's not the judge anymore.
He's just a man Doesn't have authority. He's just another intruder. That's why you hear me talking like that in the previous video.
Videos. So a judge is not a judge when his conduct exceeds the duties of his office, his capacity.
The judge ceases to be a judge when he loses immunity, so it kind of goes together, exceeds his capacity, he, he loses, he's outside of his immunity, is qualified immunity, OK?
Judges don't have absolute immunity.
And so, therefore, the kind of, I'm saying the same thing here, but, when he exceeds the capacity, acts outside of the scope of his office. He is not immune.
You want a judge who's going to rule on an important matter that affects you to be immune you want him to have immunity. You don't want him to be subject to alpha outside influence.
So if a judge is involved in interfering with your marriage and he's he's without immunity, what you have is a stranger, a man or a woman.
That's intruding upon a marriage.
It's a special contract and at the same time, a judge has has no judge has authority when his conduct is taken in tort. So what's the tort the interference with the contract to put it mildly when you're intruding upon a marriage?
This is a tort.
When you're acting in tort you don't have immunity either.
So, look, these things kind of go together, OK, not only is he exceeding his capacity.
He is actually injuring somebody not just exceeding his capacity.
It's all, you know, There's no immunity, therefore there's no authority.
The judge only has authority when there's immunity.
So, civil unlimited jurisdiction. Family Court, Laksa jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute, and here matters and I spelled that wrong.
Here matters related to allegations of a crime, therefore, allegations which may constitute the presumption or of abuse or neglect cannot be heard except by the police power of the state.
Judges are not in the police power, right? That's the attorney general's office, right?
Your executive branch, the prosecutor, the district attorney, whatever they call it for your state.
A petition for separation or a petition for divorce where there's allegations of abuse or neglect is not for family court. Family Court does not even have subject matter jurisdiction. I mean, Family Court, again, really should not exist.
We can handle other business, like, for example, adoptions and things. We don't need family court for that.
We have, we have courts of general jurisdiction. We can handle that. We don't need a specialized court, this, the purpose of the specialized court was to create ways of raising more money, earning more money, not earning, but creating more.
Collecting more money, OK, so, there's no jurisdiction, In fact, family court should not even exist, It has no jurisdiction over family matters.
And children, and can never obtain the jurisdiction, right.
So, jurisdiction is not conveyed by agreement, You can't agree that a court has jurisdiction, and when it does not have subject matter, jurisdiction over something, you can talk about venue.
Like: for example, let's say you have two parties, where you might have a federal jurisdiction and a state jurisdiction just because of the, the arrangement between the parties.
Just because, like, for example, one party is in another state or country than the other one, Right, Then, federal would have jurisdiction, but then, over some matters.
It's a state jurisdiction, so there is that, but the Court has very limited jurisdiction. They have very specific jurisdiction, OK? But you can't confer jurisdiction on a court by just saying, ah, that court over there is, has the jurisdiction to resolve disputes.
No, it won't work that way.
The court actually has to have jurisdiction over the subject matter. And then you can choose venue, you're going to find a lot of articles if you do some research on this.
If you look online, and you start keyword searching things, you'll find discussions about this was going to make it sound like, You can choose your jurisdiction, What they're saying is, you can choose your venue more or less.
All right, So, here's the analogy I want to make.
And this will be a shortcoming. This will be the end of it?
We can discover, I know I speak in philosophical terms.
That's just my habit. That's where I learned a great deal of information, so I kinda speak like that. But anyways, I think I make the point here that we can discover by observation, let's call it the law of the tree.
We can describe the nature of the tree, by the fact, that that tree grows upward, OK? It sounds so basic, right? Well, it's an observation.
It made it by making extensions of itself to capture more and more sunlight for its sustenance.
And we can make other conclusions. This is just what I just did in a cursory way to explain this, to make my point.
It provides food, nutrients, shelter for other creatures and organizations within its immediate environment, its ecosystem, OK, its home, a tree provides for the storage of energy.
It's a battery.
It's a, it's a solar battery.
It stores solar energy.
Think about it.
A tree convert solar energy into a stored medium that we can use as needed.
We can cut it up and cut it down and move it around right Long into the future.
The energy can be transported. Thankfully a tree collects stores and allows water to be disseminated.
It's just another way where let's say clouds move around, drop water, evaporate water, move around, drop water, so there's equal, not equal, but enough water distribution to keep the biosphere working properly, OK.
Well, trees cause the water to not fall directly on the ground, trees, cheese, act as a buffer for that, and they also store the water and collect it, and I animals come and use it. It's really cool. So, it also has thermal properties, it regulates temperature in the air.
It also provides convection of the air, by creating temperate zones. Like for example, the shade under the tree is going to be a cooler, right.
So where there's warmer air, the warmer air is going to rise and the cool air is going to fall. So you've got this convection current, going under trees.
Not only is there shade, but there's convection. You see.
There's so many things, aspects about, if you're just pick something, and just observe it for awhile and consider it, you'll find out that there are enormous number of aspects to a thing.
And so, in nature, I like to say that these are laws, laws, meaning that. They're not acting out on somebody. They're not imposing duties on anyone, but they are immutable. They are things there, qualities of nature that we cannot change. And we can only describe them in words, and hopefully we can benefit from them.
We can utilize them, but we cannot change them if you change the way a tree function does not a tree.
So, most obviously, now at Discoveries made by modern science, in only the previous several hundred years, I mean, really oxygen wasn't described until only 250 years ago.
Ah, if a tree converts carbon dioxide and to oxygen, without which, most animals would perish, right? This is the law of the tree and it can only be described in words.
I mean, we could, we could probably, I mean, it can really be described in words, but of course, we can, We can, we can express what we think about a tree or feel about a tree in music and whatever.
But I'm just saying, we describe our observations of nature with words, the words only follow the law of the tree, they don't determine what the tree does, Not the law of the tree, OK?
This is where I get into your, back to what I was explaining before.
Only a fool would believe that his words could determine the law the tree.
Likewise, the State legislature and its members are fools when they attempt to write a series of words, call them statutes or codes, that purport to change direct or alter the law of the tree. The same is true the law of the father and husband only fools would redefine the law of the father and husband, foolishly, believing that their use of words would change the law of either, or change the nature of the law.
This is what I've been saying this whole time: I'm just saying it again, with my philosophical analogy of the law of the tree, OK?
A very good example of this foolishness is family court, and the legislation it seeks to impose upon the law of marriage.
and as more exemplified in the recent and I want you to look this up, the more recent Stanford Law Review article on I'm gonna call it this It's actually a quite lengthy treatise I think it's like 100 pages, if I don't.
If I remember correctly, non marital contracts, they go, they go at length, for page after page after page, I've tried to redefine marriage.
Marriage is a matter of natural law, like the law of the husband, OK.
So, hence, the foregoing describes the law of marriage and this law can only be described in words.
It cannot be altered by the words any more than a statute could prevent rain on Tuesday. I love using that analogy.
You get the idea.
So let's call it the law of marriage, OK, it's immutable.
If you don't like it too bad, It's just the way things are.
So, I put this together, and I know I'm gonna go into more detail here, but I put this together so that those of you who are in situations where you're dealing with the court, your way out, is to challenge jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is never waived.
So you can challenge it at any time even while let's say several years ago you had a divorce decree and you're still paying child support or something and you thought it was unfair.
It was unfair or alimony, or whatever the deal is, and you just thought it was unfair, but you're dealing with it because you don't know what else to do.
And you you're, you're fearing contempt and all these things you may be able to bring up.
and you can bring up the issue of whether or not the family court had jurisdiction in the first place to interfere with your role as the father husband and that sort of thing, OK, the trustee, right? That's why it's important to understand these basic concepts.
Yeah, check out that article.
Uh, by Stanford Law Review, you'll see it with these arrogant, arrogant Muppets think they can re redefine something so that they can commandeer it so they can take it so they can act as if it's their own.
Thanks for listening.

DS8 – Vol 4 Part IV – Understanding the Jurisdictional Limits of Family Courts


The speaker, John Jay, discusses the intricacies of representing oneself in a court, specifically in family court matters. He emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction and the role of trust in family matters. Jay argues that many family courts may overstep their jurisdiction, especially in divorce and separation cases. He underscores the value of understanding and asserting one’s rights in these situations, ensuring that courts do not violate established trusts, particularly those involving the allocation of resources within a family. Through various examples and hypotheticals, Jay demonstrates the nuances of legal representation and how one might navigate these waters effectively.

Key Points:

1. The speaker is continuing from a previous session, emphasizing the importance of effective communication in court.
2. There are different types of relationships, like marriage and live-in relationships, and understanding their nuances is essential.
3. A generic document is presented which helps to address issues where male authority (father or husband) is contested.
4. The importance of accurately identifying roles such as ‘husband’ rather than ‘boyfriend’ is stressed due to legal recognition.
5. Engaging in court proceedings can lead to external individuals dictating how one should allocate their resources, often at great personal financial cost.
6. The court may lack jurisdiction in many cases, and one’s relationship’s nature might offer protection against certain claims.
7. The speaker delves into the complexities of trust relationships, emphasizing that trust is not just a legal document but an interpersonal relationship.
8. Any allegations of abuse or neglect fall under the state’s police powers and might be outside the purview of family courts.
9. The court’s authority is questioned when it comes to meddling in the fiduciary obligations of husbands/fathers.
10. The role of judges and their qualified immunity in family court proceedings is discussed, highlighting potential conflicts of interest.