VII.   Law

Subject Matter Jurisdiction, also known as "subjectum", is the historic convention of certain subjects to be heard by certain bodies and Officials and the Authority granted through the claim of “Jus In Personam” supported by claimed customary (Roman) law through lex specialis (law governing a specific subject matter) granted to one (1) or more Officials to review, administer and issue certain Decrees, Prescripts, Statutes or Ordinances for a given Juridic Person or Society.

The word Subject comes from the Latin subjectum meaning "to put under, bring under, to submit, subordinate, answer or to substitute". Hence when a judge or magistrate asks if an accused "understands?" they are inviting them to consent to being a subject of the court and "stand under, submit" to court authority. Thus the answer to the question "do you understand?" must always be in the negative if one does not wish to submit to some claimed authority.

Jus In Personam is Latin for “right against a person” and according to Roman Cult law means “a claim of right enforceable against anyone in the world interfering with the claim whereby an action is brought against a person concerning the enforcement one (1) or more particular obligations”.

Lex specialis is the shortening of the Latin phrase Lex specialis derogat legi generali meaning “law governing a specific subject matter” and is founded on a doctrine for interpreting the laws of the state and Private International Law of the Roman Cult and its vassals. The "doctrine" essentially states that a law governing a specific subject matter (lex specialis) overrides a law which only governs general matters (lex generalis). Thus, as Roman Courts and laws have created specific laws for almost every conceivable act, Roman Courts can therefore claim "subject matter jurisdiction" against other venues and forms of law that is less precise.

Under Roman law, Jus In Personam is able to be applied as the primary claim to Subject Matter Jurisdiction on the basis that a man or woman has repeatedly demonstrated their consent via the acceptance of benefits and the existence of social security, health benefits, drivers license and other documentary proof of consent to be "under" the jurisdiction of the Roman court over the subject matter of the legal questions involved in the case. Thus, the very existence of a standard number such as a social security number or health number on official court records and its acknowledgment by the accused is sufficient to superficially prove the claim of Jus In Personam.

When a man or woman is able to demonstrate proof of their claim of non-consent or acceptance under duress those benefits provided by the state as a matter of necessity, then the presumption that the existence of a tax number, social security number or other identification is null and void as proof of Subject Matter Jurisdiction as it no longer supports the presumption of consent. Therefore, no Roman Court may lawfully claim Subject Matter Jurisdiction by any means of any acceptance of benefits, registration or licenses if the law of necessity is evoked and non consent demonstrated.

In contrast to the false and flawed claims of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, all members of Ucadia and One Heaven recognize the first and true form of Jurisdiction of jus consensum by Canonum De Ius Cogitatum regardless of their location.

A claim of jus in personam based on false claims of consent can never be superior to a claim of jus consensum by Canonum De Ius Cogitatum. Therefore, a Roman Court can never have legitimate Subject Matter Jurisdiction over a member of One Heaven when they have identified themselves as such.