"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
law requires proof of jurisdiction
to appear on the record of the
administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v.
rendered by a court without personal
jurisdiction over the defendant
is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal
service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17
court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void
proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be
challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204
is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v.
must prove on the record, all
jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v.
Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188;
law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction
has been challenged, it must be proven."
Main v. Thiboutot, 100
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein
without effect either on person or property."
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
"A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a
basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must
have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue
Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331
"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
"Where a court failed to
observe safeguards, it amounts to denial
of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter,
"The fact that the petitioner
was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment,
that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first
instance there was a probable cause for the arrest."
Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void.
Challenge jurisdiction and motion to
dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find
that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was
a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it
[jurisdiction] doesn't exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment.
...without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be
"sovereign." At best, to proceed would be in "excess" of
jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State's/
- - - -
RULE 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
>(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., Sec. 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill or review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
>A motion to set aside a judgment
as void for lack of jurisdiction is not
subject to the time limitations of Rule 60(b). See Garcia v. Garcia, 712
P.2d 288 (
>A judgment is void, and
therefore subject to relief under Rule 60(b)(4), only if the court that
rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction or in circumstances in which the court's
action amounts to a plain usurpation of power constituting a violation of due
>Where Rule 60(b)(4) is properly invoked on the basis that the underlying judgment is void, "'relief is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory.'" Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 n.8 (10th Cir. 1979)).
>In order for a judgment to be void,
there must be some jurisdictional defect in the court's authority to enter the
judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Puphal v. Puphal, 105
>A void judgment is one
that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court
that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. Rook v.
>A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.
>A judgment rendered by a court
without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a
nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on
the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17
court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void
proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order
can be challenged in any court", OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH,
>"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
>"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.
Though not specifically alleged, defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under Rule 60(b)(4). Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), aff'd, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982).
>"A judgment is void
if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment
is a nullity and may be vacated at any time." 261
>"A void judgment is
one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a
court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
parties." Rook v. Rook, 233
>A judgment obtained without
jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d
>Although Rule 60(b)(4) is
ostensibly subject to the "reasonable" time limit of Rule 60(b), at
least one court has held that no time
limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void
judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See
Challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to loose!
If they attempt to tell you that you can't question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!
Are we on the record? I don't say anything further until we are.
Where is the competent fact witness? Where is the damaged party?
Who brings the claim? Who is underwriting this action?
As a man, as an accused by law I come with the presumption of innocent and I can go with that.
Hey, as keeper of the records for the thing, I'm willing to plead the defendant guilty upon validated proof of claim.
Where is the Form 1099OID?
Who are you people and why do you deem yourselves better than me?
Equality under the Law is paramount and mandatory by law.
I am unrepresented, I don't "do Attorneys" as I have found them to be injurious to my freedom, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Am I under arrest or am I free to go?
I am a man, not a corporation or a legal "person" nor am I a surety for one.
I am a man. I am competent. I am here under duress. I do not consent to this matter.
I reserve all rights at all times in all places and I waive no rights at any time or in any place. I do waive benefit privilege.
If I am here at all, I am here in special appearance to challenge jurisdiction and to have this matter dismissed.
I see a yellow fringe around your flag which clearly advertises "admiralty matters settled here" - so again I say, where is the contract?
Where is the contract wherein I knowingly and willingly, with full disclosure, consented or otherwise agreed to be treated this way?
I believe this court lacks a jurisdiction. I want to see the supposed jurisdiction that was duly placed into evidence.
Can this court move on facts not in evidence ?
I do not understand the nature and cause of the accusation with regard to the elements of personal jurisdiction, venue, underwriting and the nature of the action until the prosecution properly alleges them.
I cannot rebut an unstated presumption.
I am therefore unable to plea to the charges until I have had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against the elements.