Statutory Jurisdiction ; What Is It?

Middlesex Superior Court Magistrate David A. Deakin claimed on August 30, 2022 that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is exercising a statutory criminal jurisdiction. The question you must ask yourself is if that’s a type of jurisdiction authorized by the federal and/or Massachusetts’ state constitution. In order to answer that dire question we would first have to examine both federal and state constitutions.

The federal constitution is the Supreme Law of the land pursuant to Article VI of which the states of the union are to yield to regardless of state constitutions. Now that we figured out which Constitution is superior, we must now focus our attention on the Massachusetts state constitution. After closely examining the Massachusetts constitution, there is absolutely nothing on that document in regards to a “statutory - criminal jurisdiction”. There are no rules or procedures on a “statutory - criminal jurisdiction”, so how can such a jurisdiction be enforced? It can’t be because it was never authorized by either of the constitutions.  Furthermore, the federal Constitution Article III Section II is where you would find the authorized types of jurisdiction, which are Law, Equity and Admiralty/Maritime. Notice how the federal Constitution Article III Section II does not list a “statutory - criminal jurisdiction”. The Law (see: Black’s Law 5thEdition, pg. 454) is common law, Equity is civil law (see: Black’s Law 5th Edition, pg. 300), and Admiralty (see: Black’s Law 5th Edition, pg. 20) is dealing with International contracts.

  Equity being civil would mean that there are only two criminal jurisdictions authorized by the federal Constitution : Law and Admiralty. If there are no injured parties then there is not common law jurisdiction, leaving only admiralty law as a source of criminal jurisdiction. Based on both constitutions, we are left to presume that “statutory” in fact  means “admiralty”.

Why won’t the magistrates just state that statutory is admiralty jurisdiction?

  The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 is what they are concealing, because it involves your Estate via your ens legis, or “juristic person”. This entity created when you were born is a result of the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, where one is presumed “deceased” soon after taking our first breath of air. It’s like this; Admiralty jurisdiction is dealing with courts of law overseeing cases concerning “ships” at “sea” and other “navigable waters”. It converts the natural process of when natural Beings are carried in the Mother’s womb ( a natural vessel or ship) mooring the waters of one’s Mother (or navigating her “seas”), naturally begotten freely unless “delivered” (like a cargo package at the dock of the seashore) by a “Doctor” (Dock – tor), hence the validation of Maritime (with root word part “mar” > “moor”) and/or Admiralty (root word part “mir” > “moor”) law existence . The Certificate of Birth (BC) is nothing more than a bill of lading (paper receipt) delivered to the Dock - tor confirming the creation of government control over one’s estate until a Man at the age of majority (18 years old) reclaims the Estate property “lost at sea”. However the courts will never reveal the jurisdiction of which they truly operate as Admiralty law because it would automatically convert a “criminal” action by their hidden rulebook to its true nature, of which is CIVIL, therefore making all “criminal” matters moot.       

As a layman having had past experiences with these courtroom Bankers of abuse and neglect courts, I have came to conclude that magistrates (aka “judges”) will substitute the word “admiralty“ with ”statutory” to avoid the conversation of you secretly being held to a contract known as the certificate of birth. The certificate of birth is important because it is the International contract (or bill of lading) that you’re being held to in secret and also the courts presumption that you’re a subject of the United States (citizen of the United States). The problems with that presumption are that:

a) Nowhere on the certificate of birth does it state you are a citizen of the United States

b) Ultimately, you (the “infant”) are converted into a juristic person for commercial gain (fraud).

.Fortunately for us, there are two types of presumptions; conclusive and disputable.

  A conclusive presumption is a non-disputable presumption that is specifically declared “conclusive” by statute. A non-conclusive presumption is disputable and may be controverted. When you do your research on the Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, you will find no Legislative statutes that would assert that the certificate of birth as evidence of United States citizenship (see: Department of Justice 1508 Specifically Mentioned Identification Documents 18 U.S.C. Section 1028 A).

            The 6th Amendment of the federal constitution guarantees the right to be informed of the nature and cause of any action as well as the right to be confronted with the witness against you. Here are some examples of the letter of the law at Massachusetts:

1. “possession of a large capacity firearm” ;

2. “large capacity feeding device, possession of a firearm without a FID card“, etc…

The nature would question what jurisdiction the courts are operating under, and according to the 6th amendment, Magistrate David A. Deakin informed me it was a “statutory - criminal jurisdiction”. Now we must consider that - if there are no rules or procedures on ”statutory - criminal jurisdiction”, then how would one in their own person (en propria persona) defend oneself?

Its impossible and cannot be enforced without being impartial, biased, unfair or unlawful.