Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joseph sugarman
Your motion to dismiss for lack of a verified complaint is a direct attack on subject matter jurisdiction, and it is the correct attack. Unless the legislature of your state has written a new law or amended an existing law to circumvent the verification process for this type of traffic infraction. You must research this.
I bring this up as many states are rewritting traffic laws to try to remove the onus of a verified complaint for them. You must research this, as well.
The fact you state the appeals court returned your appeal because it was not ripe tells me there has not been a final determination made in the lower court in which you find yourself. Is this correct?
|
that's correct, yet i fail to understand why the appeals court didnt see any valid cause in the record from the lower court and determined that the lower court had anything in which to make a determination on .
Even if the legislature decided to try and circumvent this requirement , it would still have to revise it's APA as well , wouldn't it? The fact that the lower court didnt come to a determination shows that it still didnt realize jurisdiction in the issue, is my take, what do you say?
In my challenge of subject matter jurisdiction was a notice denying my permission , whether expressed or implied , for any governmental actor in the issue at any level to rule on , adjudge , adjudicate , decide , or decree on the jurisdictional bar set in the matter, so that the evidence would come forward , instead of them presuming that i somehow traversed into the "plaintiffs" position.