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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... Ever hear of an appearance without an appearance? Google appearance without an appearance . One time my friend showed up for an arraignment with three
    Message 1 of 26 , Feb 3 8:10 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael Noonan [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:

      > The question was courtroom specific, in the event it
      > got to that point, when my "name" would be called out
      > by the clerk, not the "judge" or "atty-in-form-of-
      > witness-or-whatever-(s)he-can-get-away-with."
      >
      > How to respond was my issue, without admitting into
      > jurisdiction.

      Ever hear of an appearance without an appearance?

      Google "appearance without an appearance".

      One time my friend showed up for an arraignment with three witnesses who
      made affidavits to that effect. He did not respond when they called his
      name, and nobody there pointed out that he was there, no accuser, no
      prosecutor, nobody. The judge put out a bench warrant anyway. The
      affidavits were filed into the record the next day. Bench warrants in
      California are mere computer entries with no paperwork and thus invalid,
      like a notice of lien without a lien is no good.

      Regards,

      FF
    • diggerflyer
      I love it! The imposters in black robes are all stirred up! November 9, 2007 Thousands of petty criminals could have their convictions thrown out and millions
      Message 2 of 26 , Nov 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I love it! The imposters in black robes are all stirred up!


        November 9, 2007
        Thousands of petty criminals could have their convictions thrown out
        and millions of dollars in fines refunded because Spokane County
        District Court judges overstepped their authority for more than a
        decade by improperly handling city cases, an appeals court ruled
        Thursday.
        The decision, which overturns two otherwise simple drunken driving
        convictions, has such far-reaching implications that it could trigger
        what's believed to be the largest legal debacle of overturned Spokane
        Municipal Court cases in city history.
        Unless the decision is overturned by the Washington Supreme Court,
        the ruling would invalidate every DUI and domestic violence
        conviction, and all contested speeding and parking tickets issued
        between 1995 and Jan. 1, several legal and court officials said.
        "It's potentially a huge, huge impact – and we're trying to deal with
        it in an orderly fashion," said Sara Derr, who serves as the District
        Court presiding judge.
        Local attorney Breean Beggs – who brought the lawsuit that generated
        the ruling – questions why the city didn't do more to avert the
        crisis it now faces.
        "It was preventable," Beggs said. "The city had the opportunity over
        the last two years to resolve this particular case in a way that
        would not have resulted in this ruling … and there would be no
        jeopardy to these other cases."

        The flaw came in how the judges were elected, according to the 2-1
        decision by the state Court of Appeals Division III.
        State law mandates that Spokane residents alone elect the judges who
        handle municipal cases, such as trespassing, shoplifting, speeding
        and DUI within city limits.
        But in Spokane, an agreement was struck between the city and county
        to assign District Court judges – who are chosen by voters in
        countywide elections – to preside over the city's municipal court
        caseload. Beggs successfully argued it violated state law because
        voters outside Spokane city limits were allowed to choose city judges.
        "We conclude … that the way in which the Spokane municipal judges are
        elected is contrary to state law," appellate judge Dennis Sweeney
        wrote in Thursday's opinion. Judge John Schultheis concurred, but
        judge Stephen Brown dissented.
        City officials, lawyers and judges scrambled for most of the day to
        determine how to proceed, city spokeswoman Marlene Feist said.
        City Prosecutor Howard Delaney "plans to seek some clarification on
        the decision from the court of appeals," she said. "He is also trying
        to take some immediate steps on the most pressing issues, such as
        outstanding misdemeanor warrants. And he has asked jail officials how
        many inmates are currently being held on convictions from municipal
        court."
        Spokane County sheriff's deputies and city police have stopped
        executing misdemeanor warrants involving city cases related to
        alleged crimes prior to Jan. 1.
        Judge Derr said the ruling "essentially says that we have no
        authority to handle city cases until this year. We are attempting to
        comply with the order of the court, to the best of our ability and as
        quickly as possible."
        The court instituted technical changes this year that brought it
        under compliance with state law, she said.
        Although there's a legal 30-day "reconsideration period" for the
        ruling, court officials are not going to wait, Derr said. However,
        court clerks are not going to start issuing refunds for fines and
        fees today, Derr added.
        "Until we have information on those fees and fines, we ask everybody
        to be calm – we'll certainly get to everybody," Derr said.
        The trigger case began in 2005 when Spokane residents Henry Smith and
        Lawrence Rothwell challenged their DUI convictions under the argument
        that District Judge Patti Connolly Walker lacked jurisdiction to
        decide their case because they were both arrested in Spokane city
        limits.
        Judge Walker, who was elected in a countywide race, denied their
        motions. Smith and Rothwell appealed the case to Spokane Superior
        Court Judge Rebecca Baker. She likewise ruled that Walker had
        jurisdiction.
        With the help of Beggs, an attorney for the public interest law firm
        Center for Justice, Smith and Rothwell appealed their case to the
        State Court of Appeals Division III.
        Along with conviction reversals, the case could have "unimaginable"
        effects that could take years to unravel, said Superior Court Judge
        Sam Cozza. For instance, if a DUI conviction is reversed, court
        records must be changed, any subsequent convictions would be altered,
        and the state would have to change the offender's driving record.
        Last year alone, Spokane Municipal Court handled 25,104 traffic
        tickets, 608 DUIs, and more than 10,000 misdemeanor crimes, including
        serious traffic charges, according to the state Office of the
        Administrator for the Courts.
        "Those are all kind of thrown into a state of uncertainty," Judge
        Cozza said.
        In addition to evaluating the local impact of the appellate court
        ruling, Derr's office has sent a query to the Administrative Office
        of the Courts in Olympia to assist with an analysis of the fiscal
        impact.
        "As we speak, we are running queries in our system. We'll be meeting
        all day" today, Derr said. "We need to minimize the risk to the
        citizens."
      • diggerflyer
        ... I would add: How about in your city/county jurisdiction? How are they doing business compared to this quagmire? Could you perhaps challenge jurisdiction
        Message 3 of 26 , Nov 13, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "diggerflyer" <Riverway@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > I love it! The imposters in black robes are all stirred up!
          >
          >
          > November 9, 2007
          > Thousands of petty criminals could have their convictions thrown out
          > and millions of dollars in fines refunded because Spokane County
          > District Court judges overstepped their authority for more than a
          > decade by improperly handling city cases, an appeals court ruled
          > Thursday.



          I would add:

          How about in your city/county jurisdiction? How are they doing
          business compared to this quagmire? Could you perhaps challenge
          jurisdiction there as well?

          Diggerflyer
        • Jake
          Adding to my previous comments in the Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense thread, regarding the fact that filing a motion gives the court
          Message 4 of 26 , Sep 12, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Adding to my previous comments in the "Texas Appeals Court Denies Sovereign Citizen Defense" thread, regarding the fact that filing a "motion" gives the court you file it in jurisdiction over you, if you plan to challenge jurisdiction, you can use a filing few people know of, called a "Plea in Bar".  Here's part of the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (p. 1152):

               Plea in bar. A plea which goes to bar the plaintiff's action; that is, to defeat it absolutely and entirely. A plea in bar sets forth matters which per se destroy the right of action and bar its prosecution absolutely ... U.S. v. Brodson, C.A. Wisc., 234 F.2d 97, 99. A plea in bar is one that denies the plaintiff's right to maintain the action and which, if established, will destroy the action. Gillikin v. Gillikin, 248 N.C. 710; 104 S.E.2d 861, 862.

            You can also file a "Notice of Special Appearance" which states that you appear "under duress" & that the only reason you appear is to challenge the jurisdiction of the State and/or the court over you. Now it's going to vary a great deal from State to State & will depend on the case law there, but for North Carolina, I cited a N.C. supreme court ruling that changed the burden of proof from the "defendant" in a criminal action to the State:

                 State Has Burden to Show Jurisdiction.— The question of jurisdiction of the courts in this state in a criminal case is not an independent, distinct, substantive matter of exemption, immunity or defense and ought not to be regarded as an affirmative defense on which the defendant must bear the burden of proof. Rather, jurisdiction is a matter which, when contested, should be proven by the prosecution as a prerequisite to the authority of the court to enter judgment.
                 When jurisdiction is challenged, in a criminal case, the State must carry the burden and show beyond a reasonable doubt that North Carolina has jurisdiction to try the accused. Former cases holding that a challenge to the jurisdiction is an affirmative defense with the burden of persuasion on the accused are no longer authoritative.
                 - State v. Batdorf, 293 N.C. 486, 238 S.E.2d 497 (1977).

            We have used the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar" strategy successfully several times, with the result being the prosecutor stands up & says, "State takes a voluntary dismissal, your honor." In other words, rather than try to prove that the State / court has the jurisdiction to try the accused, the assistant district attny. just dismisses the case. Which is fine if you're the accused, but such an action does NOT set a "legal precedent" - it just ends that particular case.

            And all the cases have involved relatively minor driving issues, such as no driver's license, a claim of a revoked license, speeding, running a red light, etc. & in no case was there an "injured party" - like somebody getting hurt in a wreck the "defendant" allegedly caused. And in each case the individual who filed the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar" used the term "Respondent" rather than "Defendant" - I'm "responding" to your accusation(s), not "defending" & until the State proves its courts have jurisdiction, we can't go any farther. And I'm not going to "traverse" into subject-matter either - that's another term to learn - once you start arguing over the subject-matter, you just gave the court jurisdiction.

            Now I'm not saying the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar" strategy always works because it hasn't & there are WAY too many variables from one situation to another to say there's a "one size fits all" method to use, but it is something you can investigate yourself, going by the case law which applies in the State you live in. You could do it on the federal level too, although I've not seen anybody do it & I've never needed to. But neither of those filings constitute a "motion" & neither give the court jurisdiction over you, which filing a "motion" and/or "traversing" into subject-matter arguments does.

            ~ ~ ~

          • Barry
            A search at www.versuslaw.com for the phrase lack of jurisdiction turned up over 200 results. I learned quite a bit about
            Message 5 of 26 , Sep 13, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              A search at www.versuslaw.com for the phrase "lack of jurisdiction" turned up over 200 results. I learned quite a bit about jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, by just perusing a few of the cases.

               

              A few things I already knew about jurisdiction to be researched in whatever state you are in for applicability:

               

              A court always has jurisdiction to determine if it has jurisdiction

               

              Filing a motion cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction when there is none.

               

              Plea in abatement, plea in bar, and special appearance are now embodied in Rule 12 of both civil and criminal rules when your state uses a federal numbering system. It is no longer necessary to invoke the magic words "appearing specially", it is now possible to raise that single issue via motion.

               

              With respect to personam jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the person), if you put in any other motions, raise any other issues in your motion, or, file any other motion raising any other issue besides the issue of personam jurisdiction you cure the lack of personam jurisdiction issue for your opponent and waive the issue.

               

              When jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the one asserting it to prove it. If a judge sets out to prove his jurisdiction for one of the parties, he just showed his bias because he carried one of the parties burden.

               

              Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Pleadings invoking their jurisdiction must have a jurisdictional statement. Any state court that has a jurisdictional Dollar amount or is limited to hearing misdemeanors or petty offenses is a court of limited jurisdiction. If the court can hear felony charges and civil matters of any amount it is a court of general jurisdiction whose jurisdiction is only limited by statute. No jurisdictional statement is required in pleadings invoking a court of general jurisdictions jurisdiction.

               

              Phone Contact: 720-675-7230

              Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST

              Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com

              www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net

              www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:

              tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group

               

            • Frog Farmer
              ... You don t even need paper when you do it in the continuation of the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation) and get to the immediately provided magistrate
              Message 6 of 26 , Sep 13, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Jake wrote:
                >
                > Adding to my previous comments in the "Texas Appeals Court Denies
                > Sovereign Citizen Defense" thread, regarding the fact that filing a
                > "motion" gives the court you file it in jurisdiction over you, if you
                > plan to challenge jurisdiction, you can use a filing few people know
                > of, called a "Plea in Bar".
                ...
                > You can also file a "Notice of Special Appearance" which states that
                > you appear "under duress" & that the only reason you appear is to
                > challenge the jurisdiction of the State and/or the court over you.

                You don't even need paper when you do it in the continuation of the IMOC
                (Initial Moment Of Confrontation) and get to the "immediately" provided
                magistrate because you were not "free to go". If you performed a mutual
                citizens arrest of the impersonator who was hoping to use you for added
                booty, this is where you'd turn him in and then you SHOULD be free to
                go, unless a probable cause hearing shows otherwise, but then already
                certain required parties are and have been "missing in action".

                Most people waive the opportunity to discuss these things in chambers
                before a hearing. Doing so can save all a lot of wasted time and work.

                > it's going to vary a great deal from State to State & will depend on
                > the case law there, but for North Carolina, I cited a N.C. supreme
                > court ruling that changed the burden of proof from the "defendant" in
                > a criminal action to the State:

                The "defendant" is a party well along the slippery slope to conviction.

                The key to winning your freedom is to not become a defendant. There are
                hundreds of opportunities to avoid becoming the defendant during and
                after the IMOC right up until voire dire of potential jurors. This is
                because becoming the defendant is not a matter of choice or opinion but
                is a matter of facts set into the record. If certain requirements are
                not met, the accused may act and sound like a defendant, but he isn't
                really one. Isn't that the way with so many things today??!

                So, people will be cunningly coerced to pretend that they are defendants
                (and I must say for all the NEWBIES, I'm strictly speaking for where I
                am, in northwest North Mexico just south of the Oregon line, otherwise
                known as "northern California" before "The State of California" went
                bankrupt) and will be told that they are defendants. If they are
                sheeple, they "baaahhh" and go into one process. If they are aware
                Americans with rights who aren't part of the indentured servitude, they
                may let it be known and be afforded a different process. It requires
                them to control their own court. Few are even aware of the concept.

                > Former cases holding
                > that a challenge to the jurisdiction is an affirmative defense with
                > the burden of persuasion on the accused are no longer authoritative.
                > - State v. Batdorf, 293 N.C. 486, 238 S.E.2d 497 (1977).

                Progress! I'm not going to hang my hat on it here. The game is really
                over here. But you know those "aficionados"! You can�t get them off
                the field!

                > We have used the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar"
                > strategy successfully several times, with the result being the
                > prosecutor stands up & says, "State takes a voluntary dismissal, your
                > honor." In other words, rather than try to prove that the State /
                > court has the jurisdiction to try the accused, the assistant district
                > attny. just dismisses the case. Which is fine if you're the accused,
                > but such an action does NOT set a "legal precedent" - it just ends
                > that particular case.

                Yes...here that would come after a long process of wasted time, and the
                odds are that there really IS "no case" to be tried under constitutional
                and statutory definitions, but there COULD be a "revenue producing
                affair" for any number of parties IF a sufficiently na�ve and gullible
                SHEEPLE is the target. This is what happens most of the time.

                > And all the cases have involved relatively minor driving issues, such
                > as no driver's license, a claim of a revoked license, speeding,
                > running a red light, etc. & in no case was there an "injured party" -
                > like somebody getting hurt in a wreck the "defendant" allegedly
                > caused. And in each case the individual who filed the "Notice of
                > Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar" used the term "Respondent" rather
                > than "Defendant" - I'm "responding" to your accusation(s), not
                > "defending" & until the State proves its courts have jurisdiction, we
                > can't go any farther.

                Good one saying he wasn't the defendant, but he didn't really appear to
                know WHY...if it was California. If it was New York, I hear anything
                can happen!

                > And I'm not going to "traverse" into subject-
                > matter either - that's another term to learn - once you start arguing
                > over the subject-matter, you just gave the court jurisdiction.

                "Traverse" comes into play in the IMOC!! And is usually RECORDED now!

                > Now I'm not saying the "Notice of Special Appearance" & "Plea in Bar"
                > strategy always works because it hasn't

                That's like saying "The Hammer Strategy" will not always work".

                > & there are WAY too many
                > variables from one situation to another to say there's a "one size
                > fits all" method to use, but it is something you can investigate
                > yourself, going by the case law which applies in the State you live
                > in. You could do it on the federal level too, although I've not seen
                > anybody do it & I've never needed to. But neither of those filings
                > constitute a "motion" & neither give the court jurisdiction over you,
                > which filing a "motion" and/or "traversing" into subject-matter
                > arguments does.

                Good info, but coming late after the IMOC, may involve more work than
                was actually necessary. Before paper, verbal trial balloons are floated
                in a non-official setting, such as in back seat or in chambers, and so
                paper may not have to be created to get the desired effect, just letting
                the other side know what is coming may be enough. So I take things one
                step at a time from the IMOC and usually the meeting draws to a quick
                close. To NOT continue non-stop from the IMOC ADMITS too many necessary
                facts for the record. I let the pizza on the front seat get stone cold
                if necessary, and do what I have to do immediately until it is over and
                I am either arraigned or free. And there are over a hundred steps
                before arraignment possible! Collect the trading card set!

                Maybe this site should create and market a set of cards to carry on you
                that could also be used to play poker. But there are only 52 of those,
                so at least there'd have to be Deck I and Deck II.

                Regards,

                FF
              • andrewswayne31
                Hi everyone. I have researched past posts dealing with jurisdiction and not found info that I want. If a court claims not to have jurisdiction because the
                Message 7 of 26 , Jan 6, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi everyone.  I have researched past posts dealing with jurisdiction and not found info that I want.  If a court claims not to have jurisdiction because the defendants were not properly served and still renders a decision, does the decision have any force of law?  I don't know where to find information of that type and could use some help.  Thanks, Wayne
                • andrewswayne31
                  Hi, I want to thank everyone who helped in this situation. The information is very much appreciated and valuable. Wayne
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jan 8, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi, I want to thank everyone who helped in this situation.  The information is very much appreciated and valuable.  Wayne
                  • realtor realtor
                    In the case of a courts admission it does not have jurisdiction on the record a motion to vacate void judgment for lack of jurisdiction is in order.... Then
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jan 8, 2014
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In the case of a courts admission it does not have jurisdiction on the record a "motion to vacate void judgment for lack of jurisdiction" is in order.... Then in the instance of a denial of that motion to "appeal the decision" Finding case law would be to type into your search engines "void judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction" and in your case "void judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction" in hind sight. improper or no service can be challenged by the defendant prior to any proceedings by "filing by special appearance a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction" or "appearing specially" to challenge jurisdiction. May our Fathers wisdom make clear your path!
                      Mark 


                      On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:58 AM, <wayne@...> wrote:
                       

                      Hi everyone.  I have researched past posts dealing with jurisdiction and not found info that I want.  If a court claims not to have jurisdiction because the defendants were not properly served and still renders a decision, does the decision have any force of law?  I don't know where to find information of that type and could use some help.  Thanks, Wayne




                      --
                      Mark Austin
                      American Dreamer
                      Fitness at your fingertips
                      (505)860-0345
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.