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

Re: Is absolutely void.

Expand Messages
  • Michael
    ... Have to disagree here. Subject matter jurisdiction is a function of a court to hear a particular class of cases. If it is a court of chancery for
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 7, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Stanton <farm_stone@...> wrote:

      > Which clearly shows most judgments are void on their face.


      Have to disagree here. Subject matter jurisdiction
      is a function of a court to hear a particular class
      of cases.

      If it is a court of chancery for foreclosure cases,
      as a current example with which many are confronted,
      the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter,
      i.e.,foreclosure. What is it that a planitiff has to
      prove but that the case is about foreclosure. There
      is no way that most judgments are void on their
      face as a consequence of the subject matter.

      There are many other ways in which a case can be void
      on its face, but even at that, it is up to the defendant
      to object and demonstrate that a case is void on its
      face, but it is not because of the subject matter.

      An example?

      Plaintiff files a complaint to foreclose on a property,
      based on submitting a copy of the mortgage and stating
      that the plaintiff if the holder and/or owner of the
      note.

      If the defendant does not challenge the complaint as
      void on its face, the suit will proceed. Why would
      this be a specific example of a case void on its face?
      Because the plaintiff neglected to include a copy of
      the note in the complaint. A mortgage without the
      note is a nullity, and the case void ab initio, but
      having nothing to do with the subject matter involved.

      There are other examples, but SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction
      is hardly void on its face, for the reason cited. If you
      have an example, specific to subject matter jurisdiction,
      show it.

      Merely citing a bunch of case law can be very misleading.

      Cheers,

      mn
    • vivus_spartacus
      Such post is but another prime example of how years get wasted by collecting (and /or merely cut & pasting) items on which the vast majority of Americans
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Such post is but another prime example of how "years" get wasted by collecting (and /or merely cut & pasting) items on which the vast majority of Americans simply have No Working Knowledge or Understanding regarding the pertinent issues of the Subject. (And FYI Jerry, what you have merely copied and pasted herein does NOT: "clearly shows most judgments are void on their face." and I challenge you to present ANY Facts, Points & Authorities to support your assertion made)
        While the issue of Jurisdiction is indeed Crucial, however there is NO burden upon the Plaintiff to actually Prove jurisdiction, until AFTER such has been challenged, and PROPERLY so, by the Accused / Defendant. The PROBLEM with Jerry's post, is that it incorrectly puts the emphasis on "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" rather than on the PRIMARY concern, which is PERSONAM Jurisdiction over the Accused / Defendant. "Subject Matter" Jurisdiction is ALWAYS SECONDARY! (e.g. Let's say that somehow Bear finds himself the recipient of a final notice by the FAA to pay a licensing Assessment/ Fee, plus Fines, Late Penalties and Interest, before the Matter is sent to the USDC and reduced to judgment. Now if Bear does NOT hold an FAA Pilot's License, nor own a Plane, nor even flies on commercial airlines out of not willing to be personally violated by the TSA, who gives a Rat's A** that Congress indeed gave "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" to the USDC for such Matters??? When THAT is NOT the PRIMARY ISSUE or POINT!!!)

        ERGO, it IS FIRST the Issue of Personam Jurisdiction, which is CRUCIAL and MUST be Challenged, PROPERLY! Because unlike "subject matter jurisdiction", Personam Jurisdiction CAN BE WIAVED, and even IF such waiver was merely accidental or unintentional, whether by entering any Plea, or making any 'general appearance' in Pro Per, or even WORSE, hiring ANY Attorney to represent you, thereby in fact personally surrendering yourself to the jurisdiction of the Court via AN OFFICER of the COURT, oh well, aw gee, shucks and TOO BAD! Ergo, One first preserves and protects One's `Rights' by using `Special Appearance' and MOVES to Dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(2) rather than enter any Plea in the Matter. Otherwise, go ahead and learn the Hard Way, what most others have read and learned for hundreds of years, even while still in elementary school. To wit: "It is likewise to be observed, that this society hath a peculiar
        cant and jargon of their own, that no mere mortal can understand,
        and wherein all their laws are written, whereby they have wholly
        confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood."

        "In the trial of persons accused for crimes against the state the
        method is much more short and commendable; the judge first sends to
        sound the dispostion of those in power, after which he can easily
        hang or save the criminal strictly preserving all due forms of law."
        Jonathan Swift, `Gulliver's Travels, Part IV, Chapter V' 1735
        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
        Will Rogers

        "Ignorance of fact excuses; Ignorance of the law excuses not. Every man must be taken to be cognizant of the law; otherwise there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance may not be carried."
        Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition Centennial Edition (1981-1991)
        page 747

        Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
        Proverbs 20:10;23
        I John 4:6

        We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
        Benjamin Franklin

        Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
        getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

        "vivus spartacus"
        All Rights Reserved
        It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
        prey to the active. The condition upon which G-d hath given liberty
        to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude
        is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his
        guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)

        Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
        found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
        imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
        with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
        prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
        Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"






        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Stanton <farm_stone@...> wrote:
        >
        > This is case law I have collected over the years on jurisdiction. Which clearly shows most judgments are void on their face. (WTH???)
        <SNIPPED>
      • Frog Farmer
        I just got a forwarded copy of this older thread from Jerry, and looking ... I think that Jerry might have meant that most would turn out to be void if
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 22, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I just got a forwarded copy of this older thread from Jerry, and looking
          it up found this reply from vivus_spartacus:
          > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:47 PM

          > (And FYI Jerry, what you have merely copied and pasted herein does
          > NOT: "clearly shows most judgments are void on their face." and I
          > challenge you to present ANY Facts, Points & Authorities to support
          > your assertion made)

          I think that Jerry might have meant that most would turn out to be void
          if jurisdiction had been challenged. I'll explain why that might be the
          case in a minute here.

          > While the issue of Jurisdiction is indeed Crucial, however there is NO
          > burden upon the Plaintiff to actually Prove jurisdiction, until AFTER
          > such has been challenged, and PROPERLY so, by the Accused / Defendant.
          >
          > The PROBLEM with Jerry's post, is that it incorrectly puts the
          > emphasis on "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" rather than on the PRIMARY
          > concern, which is PERSONAM Jurisdiction over the Accused / Defendant.
          > "Subject Matter" Jurisdiction is ALWAYS SECONDARY!

          Agreed. Now here's the part of Jerry's post that got me to comment:

          "In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the
          court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the
          burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter
          jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the
          court holds subject-matter jurisdiction." Bindell v City of Harvey, 212
          Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) ("the burden of
          proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it."). "Until the
          plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter
          jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter
          jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter
          jurisdiction." Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558,
          522 N.E.2d 841(1988)("Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of
          establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.").

          [FF sez: notice that it is not the court that rules upon its own
          jurisdiction, even if to the judge it is obvious that it has it, but
          that it is the plaintiff (or prosecutor?) who must prove it upon the
          record. Well, you know my favorite ploy in self defense by now...
          disqualify the bastards! This is easy to do, and why wait until court
          hearings when the Initial Moment Of Confrontation (IMOC) presents the
          perfect opportunity to do so! Doing it then and there often results in
          self-disqualifications from would-be administrative prosecutors (a.k.a.
          "cops") who see that the rewards may not be worth the risks to those
          regular paychecks they see no problem in endorsing. Only properly
          qualified people may bring charges and therefore defend challenges to
          allegations of court jurisdiction. We don't have any of those properly
          qualified critters around the farm here. Do you know of any personally
          where you might be? We're collecting sightings of them to go into the
          files next to those we keep on Sasquatch.]

          > ERGO, it IS FIRST the Issue of Personam Jurisdiction, which is CRUCIAL
          > and MUST be Challenged, PROPERLY! Because unlike "subject matter
          > jurisdiction", Personam Jurisdiction CAN BE WIAVED, and even IF such
          > waiver was merely accidental or unintentional, whether by entering any
          > Plea, or making any 'general appearance' in Pro Per, or even WORSE,
          > hiring ANY Attorney to represent you, thereby in fact personally
          > surrendering yourself to the jurisdiction of the Court via AN OFFICER
          > of the COURT, oh well, aw gee, shucks and TOO BAD!

          I think most people waive it in one of those ways.

          > Ergo, One first preserves and protects One's `Rights' by using
          > `Special Appearance' and MOVES to Dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(2)
          > rather than enter any Plea in the Matter.

          I think that a motion to dismiss when there is nothing real to dismiss
          is an admission and confession and a mistake. They'll most likely
          dismiss it anyway without you asking if you make the record show that
          there is no real case, which here is most of the time.

          Regards,

          FF
        • Michael
          ... FF has often said the the government is actually comprised of a network of over 4,000 corporations. If one enters a court which is actually a
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 22, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
            >
            > [FF sez: notice that it is not the court that rules
            > upon its own jurisdiction, even if to the judge it
            > is obvious that it has it, but that it is the plaintiff
            > (or prosecutor?) who must prove it upon the record.
            > Well, you know my favorite ploy in self defense by now...
            > disqualify the bastards! This is easy to do, and why
            > wait until court
            > hearings when the Initial Moment Of Confrontation (IMOC)
            > presents the perfect opportunity to do so!

            FF has often said the the government is actually comprised
            of a network of over 4,000 corporations. If one enters a
            "court" which is actually a corporation, it would seem that
            the IMOC would apply to disqualify the corporation as not
            being a part of the judicial branch of the state.

            Or, the disqualification may have to reach to the corporate
            STATE, perhaps with the corporate court in question a
            subsidiary of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH. Either way, it
            would still be a separate and distinct corporation.

            It would then seem that the issue of oath of office to
            support the constitutions "of" the United States, [federal?]
            and "of" the STATE may come into play.

            I have not seen this "argued" by anyone as a "court" tactic,
            but it does seem to be an interesting one to expand on the
            IMOC.
          • Frog Farmer
            ... I think that I once mentioned that there are over 4,000 corporations in North America calling themselves government (or that the believers call
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 22, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Michael was thinking and posted:

              > FF has often said the the government is actually comprised
              > of a network of over 4,000 corporations.

              I think that I once mentioned that there are over 4,000 corporations in
              North America calling themselves "government" (or that the believers
              call government). They may be slightly networked. The people who work
              in most of them are unaware of the others. When I mentioned it, it was
              connected to the thought that they all had to be in conformance with
              their founding charters. Or else.

              > If one enters a
              > "court" which is actually a corporation, it would seem that
              > the IMOC would apply to disqualify the corporation as not
              > being a part of the judicial branch of the state.

              Okay, let's see if I understand what you said: The initial moment of
              confrontation would apply to disqualify the corporation as not
              being a part of the judicial branch of the state?

              The Moment (IMOC) itself can do nothing; it is just a starting gun at
              the window of opportunity so it is the party in the moment that has
              powers that may or may not end up being waived. Who is in control of
              the situation when the IMOC occurs?! For me to treat the face in my
              face during the IMOC as a meaningful representative of any corporation
              would grant it legitimacy I do not believe it has, that of representing
              any corporation at all! Just because people don't go to jail doesn't
              mean crimes aren't being committed in plain daylight all around!
              Impersonation is a crime!

              Have any bankers gone to jail over the so-called "crisis"? Remember the
              S&L crisis? Many went to jail. There has been a coup. "The government"
              is riddled top to bottom with many groups who hate it and want to bring
              it down ("a man with a plan" x 100,000+), aside from the believers who
              take whatever is spoon fed to them (200M+). Few live by the law of the
              land anymore. They plead the Law of Necessity, so that when the ATM
              doesn't spit out FRNs someday, they can kill you because their baby is
              hungry. All my life I've been told that people will kill you for 5 bux
              and it is true. Watch what happens next!

              > Or, the disqualification may have to reach to the corporate
              > STATE, perhaps with the corporate court in question a
              > subsidiary of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH. Either way, it
              > would still be a separate and distinct corporation.

              Do you let just anyone represent corporations to you? Where I am you
              have to either be a corporate officer or his licensed attorney to do so
              and I don't want to make things easy for that type. I find
              disqualifications of everyone to be the best solution to all kinds of
              problems, but they must occur immediately, or record gets made that must
              then be overcome creating lots more work that anyone might have tried to
              be avoiding by waiving assertive defensive/offensive action in the IMOC.

              > It would then seem that the issue of oath of office to
              > support the constitutions "of" the United States, [federal?]
              > and "of" the STATE may come into play.

              The critters I'm dealing with haven't taken that oath and aren't obliged
              to it, since they are only actors, impersonators, portrayers,
              charlatans, knaves, doing it all for the fools who cough up the booty!

              > I have not seen this "argued" by anyone as a "court" tactic,
              > but it does seem to be an interesting one to expand on the
              > IMOC.

              I hope it never comes up that far down the road! Man! There are over a
              hundred steps that could be interjected before that issue ever could
              come up in a courtroom, unless you are dragged in, in chains and
              restraints. The latest I'd ever deal with this as you envision would be
              when I was in front of the magistrate I'd be demanding to see
              immediately if I was arrested. Only he'd never get to rule on anything
              because he's going to be disqualified before that.

              Criminal kidnappers often ignore the demands of their captives, so I
              hear, like in that Bette Midler movie...

              Regards,

              FF
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.