Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5573Re: [tips_and_tricks] Definitions - http://www.legal-term.com/

Expand Messages
  • Sterling W Wyatt
    Mar 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry ol' friend, but I see a lot more "disinformation' than pointed out.  For example, Subject Matter juridiction and  Personal jurisdiction MUST also be accompanied by "Jurisdiction in the first instance" concerning the specific case at hand.  This means that the Plaintiff bringing the case must cite the Court's Subject Matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction, and then specifically tie the content of the case to those jurisdictions - in more ways than geography as stated here.  Fortunately, jurisdictions may NOT be presumed, so when either the Personal or Subject matter jurisdiction and/or the latter jurisdictional tie to the case is left out of the Plaintiff's Pleadings, subsequent orders of the Court are VOID (not even voidable!).  Appeals Courts are wrestling with the problem of MANY MANY MANY criminal cases having that flaw and their cases and confinement orders being void on their face.  A lot of cell doors can be opened!
       
      On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:59:45 -0600 "Ed" <ED44@...> writes:
      On-line definitions of legal terms. Interesting - there is no definition for the word 'soveriegnty', nor is there a defintion for the word 'discretion'. I'd like to write and ask them about it but no contact info is provided. It does say, at places, "ABA defintion". But I cannot tell for sure if they are behind this. Can't tell who is behind this website.
       
      Note the following:
       

      Legal Terms - Court

      Court Definition:  An individual unit of the judiciary branch of government.  

       

      Legal Terms - Jurisdiction

      Jurisdiction Definition:  A court's authority is described by its jurisdiction.  It is subject matter limited and also limited by territory.  To make a valid ruling in a case, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction of the matter in controversy, personal jurisdiction over the parties, and the matter should have occurred within the limits of its geographic territory. 

       

      So - If a 'Court' has 'jurisdition' it has 'authority'. If a 'Court' has 'authority' it has 'jurisdiction'.  ???? Does anyone else see the problem here? No where is either 'authority' or 'jurisdiction' limited. There is NO mention of our Constitution or Laws that LIMIT the 'jurisdiction' and, therefore, LIMIT the 'authority' (aka 'discretion') of the one that presumes to be 'The Court'.

      http://www.legal-term.com/

       
      Ed
      www.informed.org
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/  Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
      ed@...
      Executive Director
      INFORMED CITIZENS
      www.informed.org
      Coordinator
      Texas Justice Coalition
      www.txpoof.org
       
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic