THE LAW OF COMMERCE

The Courts may not proceed when jurisdiction is challenged  “Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determination of administrative agencies  and where jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied, the action of the agency is a nullity...” City Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson, 181 C. 640, 185 P. 962,  South Africa: Parties to a contract can state which law governs the contract. 

This principle embodies  the concept of party autonomy (which is essential in any legal system) and dictates that the consensus of the contractual parties is a prerequisite for a valid contract. Parties are  thus allowed much freedom to create the applicable terms of the contract, including a  choice-of-law clause. 

The Gugenheim v Rosenbaum 1961 (4) SA 21 (W) case  emphasises the concept of party autotomy in the law of contract in which Trollip stated:  'The proper law the law of the contract is the law of the country which the parties have greed or intended.' The choice of law then governs the contract in all spheres regarding the terms and conditions contained in the contract, its enforcement and effect. Parties can consent to jurisdiction of a specific court. Vereta Mineraria Spa V Carolina  Collieries 1987 4 SA 883(A). 

Hierarchy of the courts and jurisdiction 

1. The Constitutional Court is highest court in the country. It has exclusive jurisdiction in constitutional matters, in determining the constitutionality of legislation and to adjudicate disputes between organs of state. 
2. The Supreme Court of Appeal has inherent jurisdiction to hear any appeal.
3. High Court has inherent jurisdiction over matters within its geographical area  (based on the above factors). 
4. Magistrates Court claims are limited to a maximum of R100 000-00 (District) or R300 000-00 (Regional). Moreover, the Magistrates Court does not have jurisdiction in respect of insolvency (save for winding up close corporations), specific performance (under certain circumstances), wills and legal status. Section 46 of Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944 as amended, see sec 29 of the Jurisdiction of the Regional courts Amendment Act  31 of 2008. 
5. Small Claims Court claims are limited to a maximum of R7000-00 and parties are not allowed legal representation. Constitutional Court Many of the herein principles are elucidated in the full quorum Constitutional Court of South Africa case: Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the  National Assembly and Others; 

Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2016] ZACC 11 Annexure – Court may not proceed when jurisdiction is challenged. Note this judgement is dual and makes judgement according to public (legal) AND private (lawful): People and bodies [88], and any decision inconsistent with the Constitution is unlawful.  

[99] Section 34 - Access to Courts in the Bill of Rights affirms the right to an appropriate independent and impartial tribunal by public hearing.  [66] Affirms independence associated with impartiality, dignity and effectiveness. 

[74, 75] Affirms rule of law and lawful procedure for and as a law-abiding people to escape legal authority [89+] Affirms the separation of powers [98] Affirms that taking the law into one’s own hands as "self-help", being contrary to rule of law. [99] Affirms the inability of a 3rd party to overrule an independent determination 

 THE COURTS IN SOUTH AFRICA FALL UNDER THE UCC LAW - THE UCC LAW IS APPLICABLE TO ALL COURTS WORLDWIDE. 

OUR COURTS ARE COMMERCIAL COURTS AND THE JUDGES /ADVOCATES KNOW THAT ALL COURT CASES IS ABOUT YOUR TRUST.  "Cestui Que Vie Trust."

The Government issued Birth Certificate is a Registered Security, by evidence of the  Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (CUSIP) number. The  ACCOUNT is set up by our BIRTH CERTIFICATES and is on file at Treasury. 

The name of  the account is the CAPITAL LETTER name on the birth certificate and the account number is  the ID Number. The Cusip Number “our ID numbers” is circulated around the world as  collateral for loans and entered on the asset side of ledgers just like any other security. All  birth certificates are financial instruments created through Commercial fraud without proper  disclosure, all court cases are based on underlying bonds. (the bid bond, the payment bond and  the performance bond) The Judge is the Trustee and the Prosecutor is the Executor of the  Cestui Que Vie Trust.   

WHEN YOU RECEIVE A SUMMONS - AFTER YOU HAVE EMANCIPATED - SEND THEM AN EMAIL AND COPY THE BELOW IN:

We are private citizen(s) seeking information concerning all respondent(s) public official surety bond, the Errors & Omissions (E&O), and or the Duty of Care policy that you are required by the Republic of South Africa to obtain before swearing the oath of office.

The Public Official Surety Bond requests fall under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), by law you are obligated to supply us with this information.

The Public Officials and/or any other bonds pertaining to proof of liability and policies. **Based on any and all loses of financial responsibility due to negligence or dishonesty. Any and all based on the contract of terms and conditions.

• A photocopy of the Faithful Performance Bond if applicable.
• A photocopy of the Fidelity Bond if applicable.
• A photocopy of the Public Employee Dishonesty Policy if applicable.
• A photocopy of the Public Employee Blanket Bond if applicable.
• A photocopy of the Statutory Bond if applicable.
• A photocopy of the Power of Attorney for the Surety Bond Company.
• A photo copy of the Blanket Bond Power of Attorney for the surety bond company if applicable.
• A photocopy of your Oath of Office.

JURISDICTION CAN BE CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. .495 F 2d 906, 910.

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

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

“The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedures, absent contract.” See Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 US (19 How.) 393, 

"If it [jurisdiction] doesn't exist, it cannot justify conviction or judgment. ...without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be “sovereign.” At best, to proceed would be in “excess” of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State's/USA's cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 5'7 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government‘s cause (e.g. see In Re FNB, 52 F 64).

A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGfl, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

“There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S., 474 F2d 215.

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute.” Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 105.

Federal Rules of Evidence

Primary tabs

These are the Federal Rules of Evidence, as amended to December 1, 2020. Click on any rule to read it.

1. ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
   1. Rule 101. Scope; Definitions
   2. Rule 102. Purpose
   3. Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence
   4. Rule 104. Preliminary Questions
   5. Rule 105. Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes
   6. Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements
2. ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE
   1. Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
3. ARTICLE III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES
   1. Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
   2. Rule 302. Applying State Law to Presumptions in Civil Cases
4. ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
   1. Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
   2. Rule 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
   3. Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
   4. Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
   5. Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character
   6. Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
   7. Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures
   8. Rule 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations
   9. Rule 409. Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses
   10. Rule 410. Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
   11. Rule 411. Liability Insurance
   12. Rule 412. Sex-Offense Cases: The Victim’s Sexual Behavior or Predisposition
   13. Rule 413. Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases
   14. Rule 414. Similar Crimes in Child Molestation Cases
   15. Rule 415. Similar Acts in Civil Cases Involving Sexual Assault or Child Molestation
5. ARTICLE V. PRIVILEGES
   1. Rule 501. Privilege in General
   2. Rule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver
6. ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES
   1. Rule 601. Competency to Testify in General
   2. Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge
   3. Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully
   4. Rule 604. Interpreter
   5. Rule 605. Judge’s Competency as a Witness
   6. Rule 606. Juror’s Competency as a Witness
   7. Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness
   8. Rule 608. A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
   9. Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction
   10. Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions
   11. Rule 611. Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
   12. Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh a Witness’s Memory
   13. Rule 613. Witness’s Prior Statement
   14. Rule 614. Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness
   15. Rule 615. Excluding Witnesses
7. ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
   1. Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
   2. Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
   3. Rule 703. Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony
   4. Rule 704. Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
   5. Rule 705. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion
   6. Rule 706. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses
8. ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY
   1. Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
   2. Rule 802. The Rule Against Hearsay
   3. Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
   4. Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
   5. Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay
   6. Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility
   7. Rule 807. Residual Exception
9. ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
   1. Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
   2. Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
   3. Rule 903. Subscribing Witness’s Testimony
10. ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
    1. Rule 1001. Definitions That Apply to This Article
    2. Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original
    3. Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
    4. Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content
    5. Rule 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
    6. Rule 1006. Summaries to Prove Content
    7. Rule 1007. Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content
    8. Rule 1008. Functions of the Court and Jury
11. ARTICLE XI. MISCELLANEOUS RULES
    1. Rule 1101. Applicability of the Rules
    2. Rule 1102. Amendments
    3. Rule 1103. Title

Effective Date and Application of Rules

Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1926, provided: “That the following rules shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day [July 1, 1975] beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 2, 1975]. These rules apply to actions, cases, and proceedings brought after the rules take effect. These rules also apply to further procedure in actions, cases, and proceedings then pending, except to the extent that application of the rules would not be feasible, or would work injustice, in which event former evidentiary principles apply.”

Historical Note

The Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted by order of the Supreme Court on Nov. 20, 1972, transmitted to Congress by the Chief Justice on Feb. 5, 1973, and to have become effective on July 1, 1973. Pub. L. 93–12, Mar. 30, 1973, 87 Stat. 9, provided that the proposed rules “shall have no force or effect except to the extent, and with such amendments, as they may be expressly approved by Act of Congress”. Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1926, enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence proposed by the Supreme Court, with amendments made by Congress, to take effect on July 1, 1975.

The Rules have been amended Oct. 16, 1975, Pub. L. 94–113, §1, 89 Stat. 576, eff. Oct. 31, 1975; Dec. 12, 1975, Pub. L. 94–149, §1, 89 Stat. 805; Oct. 28, 1978, Pub. L. 95–540, §2, 92 Stat. 2046; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §251, 92 Stat. 2673, eff. Oct. 1, 1979; Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Dec. 1, 1980; Apr. 2, 1982, Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §142, title IV, §402, 96 Stat. 45, 57, eff. Oct. 1, 1982; Oct. 12, 1984, Pub. L. 98–473, title IV, §406, 98 Stat. 2067; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 25, 1988, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §§7046, 7075, 102 Stat. 4400, 4405; Jan. 26, 1990, eff. Dec. 1, 1990; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 29, 1994, eff. Dec. 1, 1994; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §40141, title XXXII, §320935, 108 Stat. 1918, 2135; Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997; Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Mar. 27, 2003, eff. Dec. 1, 2003; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Sept. 19, 2008, Pub. L. 110–322, §1(a), 122 Stat. 3537; Apr. 28, 2010, eff. Dec. 1, 2010; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011; Apr. 16, 2013, eff. Dec. 1, 2013; Apr. 25, 2014, eff. Dec. 1, 2014; Apr. 25, 2019, eff. Dec. 1, 2019., Dec. 1, 2020

• ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
• ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE
• ARTICLE III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES
• ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
• ARTICLE V. PRIVILEGES
• ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES
• ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
• ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY
• ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
• ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
• ARTICLE XI. MISCELLANEOUS RULES
• ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ›