Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freebeme
Subject matter jurisdiction is never waived.
I will ask you this because the court will:
"How were you prejudiced by having an administrative versus a judicial proceeding?"
In other words "Do you know what the difference is?"
If you do not know the difference then how do you know that the proceeding was not judicial?
|
I agree that subject matter jurisdiction is supposedly never waiver, but what about the "de facto officer doctrine" in Ryder v. United States (1995) 515 U.S. 177, 180 [132 L.Ed.2d 136, 142]?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/515/177/case.html
"The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is
later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers
2 The Appointments Clause reads in full:
"[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and
all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
181
and Employees §578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence."
This doctrine seems to imply you have to challenge him BEFORE the completion of his duty!
OK, so a question was asked...
"How were you prejudiced by having an administrative versus a judicial proceeding?" I'm only here to learn, please free to correct me.
My answer would be, he wasn't really prejudiced by having an administrative proceeding because all administrative proceedings are subject to judicial review, IF you ask for one.
Second question was...
"In other words "Do you know what the difference is?""
My answer would be, I think the only way you can truly be judged "judicially" is if the tribunal are made up of your peers (like in a normal court), or the decision makers commission has the seal of the United States, or the State or whatever, but NOT of an executive agency. Again, I welcome debate, it's not a pride thing with me, I just want to know the truth.