Shining Spotlight on Racket of Debt Collection

[Sharing Lights]

if you are being sued.

Disclaimer:

references
are made to corrupted judges-attorneys/lawyers
and courts' personnel -
not toward those who practice real, Constitutional law,
respecting rights of the People.

=========================================


You and an attorney of the opposing party
stand before the judge.


Or, you and your attorney and the opposing attorney
stand before the judge.


By the way, I state

that the judges have some nerves
to be seated when we stand.

Why do we have to stand when they sit?

There is no such law allowing them to degrade
the Citizens.

That maneuver is done purposely to humiliate all before
the judge so that he/she can establish an instant
supremacy and to make you feel intimidated
before the self-imposed

with aid of his/her colleagues

-
Supreme Being,

Another word, such ego-maniacs crave a
recognition of Supreme Being - or God.

Coming back to another ego-maniac - a typical attorney,
who dreams of being a judge, one day, so that, later,
he/she can act as a new Supreme Being.

I believe in equality and fairness.
Don't you?

If equality and fairness are to be retained, then,
the process should be alternated:

one time, a judge sits and we stand.

Then, we sit and the judge stands.

Otherwise, there is no equality.

You and I have a right to demand such because,
it is

stated nowhere in the USA Constitution
that judges have more rights than us or that they are "more equal" than others.

As it is not there, that means, the judges made
this degrading etiquette, themselves.

Why should you or I (now, I would refer to - "us"
or "we") follow some, extremely obnoxious and Monarch
like etiquette, when we are not in a Kings' Palace?

As, I, also, looked everywhere around the Court
and inside,
including the bathrooms, nowhere I found a label, note,
or even Royal flag that stated that the building
was a King's Palace.

Therefore, I believe it is not.

There is one place where I could not examine yet, it is
the judges', personal bathrooms, as they are always locked
and I have no keys to them.
Not judges - the bathrooms.

I assume that judges hide something very precious there,
as it is guarded by the lock.

Once I find out what is so precious in judges', personal
bathrooms, I would share that with all.

By the way, I have not seen one judge taking a bath
there even though few of them came up wet but that
was due to profuse sweating.

I even heard, "damn, forgot my suppository, again,"
from one of them.
I guess that explains.

Anyway, the judges' bathrooms must be of great value
to them as the latter are locked.

Since logic convinced me that judges, desperately, want to possess, their own,
toilets and all of such accessories,
I grant them such right physically and mentally.

I am not allowed to bring a toilet or its rim to judges'
Parts/Chambers as a sign of deep respect to their ownership
of what they guard by lock so diligently.

Therefore, I am left only with a mental option.

Before, we change the laws to reinstate
the Constitution of the USA,
where titles of nobility are prohibited,

I personally, when look at these ego-maniacs,
mentally, place their precious
and well locked toilet rim around their neck,
just like a tie,
which is so well defined by their black robe
(why else is it so dark if not for such contrast?)

A white toilet rim is well distinguished on these
distinguished creatures and cute outfits they chose.

Each time, these judges break the law, instead of risking
being arrested for daring to state my and your rights,
I mentally flash that toilet
and patiently wait for them
to continue braking laws so that,
I can get that on record.

You may utilize your, own techniques,
just remember if you protest their fraud too actively,
they may hold you in contempt of court
and "unleash" their guards.

As those guards are

unleashed,

you are correct
to assume that they are kept on a leash
and are not much different from common dogs, then,
if obey commands to assault our rights and us.

I believe that real officers act as
real ones and assault
only when a real threat exists - not our God/nature
given right to object violations of law since
we are not slaves, who have no voting power
or right to object anything.

If we are assaulted when object fraud in court, under a
pretext of contempt or threat to judge,
that means the judges treat as
as slaves only and we
are enslaved to them.

That is self-evident, then.


That attorney may or not be the Plaintiff him/herself.

The attorney may or may not have witnesses
to his/her case.

Let's say, the attorney is there without a witness.

Fact 1:

Attorneys may not testify if REAL law is to be followed!

Remember, in every case:

criminal
or civil,

absolutely
without exception, the plaintiff must
always, prove two concepts:

1) standing - i.e. has a legal right and authority
to sue in that court

2) and damages -i.e. what has lost because of you
and has a right to recuperate.

1) Standing can, never, be established, only,
on the pleadings of an attorney.

2) Damages can never be proved on
the pleadings of an attorney only.

Any time a case is decided on such fraud, as your
adversary if represented by an attorney giving testimony -
that is self-fallacy.

Only an actual witness and not his/her
representative may testify.

Any ruling on such false testimony by an attorney
is void. (invalid, false, has no value.)

Remember, once again, if
an attorney him/herself is
suing you, then he/she may be the witness if is such.

A Judge who renders a verdict on invalid testimony
commits a fraud and violates the real law.

next lesson no 2

[Sharing Lights]

Lesson No 2

Before any judge has judicial power to decide any issue, the plaintiff must complete jurisdiction.


In law, jurisdiction from the Latin jus, juris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak", is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted body or to a person to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.

As a topic, it draws its substance from Public International Law, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of each society.



ju·ris·dic·tion
n.

1. Law. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.
2.
1. Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs.

2. The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.

3. The territorial range of authority or control.

[Middle English jurisdiccioun, from Old French juridicion, from Latin iūrisdictiō, iūrisdictiōn- : iūris, genitive of iūs, law + dictiō, dictiōn-, declaration
(from dictus, past participle of dīcere, to say).]

jurisdictional ju'ris·dic'tion·al adj.
jurisdictionally ju'ris·dic'tion·al·ly adv.

[Sharing Lights]

The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action.
Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons. In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a defined legal authority. For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itself. Its power spans the entire United States. Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself with power to pass its own laws. Smaller geographic areas, such as counties and cities, are separate jurisdictions to the extent that they have powers independent of the federal and state governments.

Jurisdiction also may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction.

A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases.

Courts of general jurisdiction are often called district courts or superior courts.

In New York, however, the court of general jurisdiction is called the Supreme Court of New York. In most jurisdictions other trial courts of special jurisdiction exist apart from the courts of general jurisdiction; examples are probate, tax, traffic, juvenile, and, in some cities, drug courts. On the federal level, the district courts are courts of general jurisdiction.

Federal courts of special jurisdiction include the Tax Court and the bankruptcy courts.

Jurisdiction can also be used to define the proper court in which to bring a particular case.

In this context a court has either original or appellate jurisdiction over a case.

When the court has original jurisdiction, it is empowered to conduct a trial in the case.
When the court has appellate jurisdiction, it may only review the trial court proceedings for error.

Generally, courts of general and special jurisdiction have original jurisdiction over most cases, and appeals courts and the jurisdiction's high court have appellate jurisdiction.

But this is not always the case.

For example, under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is a court of appellate jurisdiction. However, under the same clause, the Court has original jurisdiction in cases between states.

Such cases usually concern disputes over boundaries and waterways.

Finally, jurisdiction refers to the inherent authority of a court to hear a case and declare a judgment.

When a plaintiff seeks to initiate suit, he or she must determine where to file the complaint.

The plaintiff must file suit in a court that has jurisdiction over the case.

If the court does not have jurisdiction, the defendant may challenge the suit on that ground, and the suit may be dismissed or its result may be overturned in a subsequent action by one of the parties in the case.

A plaintiff may file suit in federal court;

however, state courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction

.

Concurrent jurisdiction means that both the state and federal court have jurisdiction over the matter.

If a claim can be filed in either state or federal court, and the plaintiff files the claim in state court, the defendant may remove the case to federal court

(28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 et seq.).

This is a tactical decision. Federal court proceedings are widely considered to be less susceptible to bias because the jury pool is drawn from the entire state, not just from the local community.

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction in most cases.

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction in a limited number of cases, such as federal criminal, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent and copyright, and some admiralty cases, and suits against the U.S. government.

Under federal and state laws and court rules, a court may exercise its inherent authority only if it has two types of jurisdiction:

1) personal

2) and subject matter.

Personal jurisdiction is the authority a court has over the parties in the case.

Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's authority over the particular claim or controversy.


As we all should now well know:

if the court proceedings deprived a party of due process,

or are influenced by fraud,

or jurisdiction is not complete by virtue of the appearance and testimony
of a competent fact witness, the matter is void.

Such are real laws and we, those who wish to have our rights, stolen from us
by the corrupted judges-lawyers, reinstated
must learn them first.

That is why some of us are here on this Forum - to become real SuiJuris!

[Sharing Lights]

State Civil Court Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is based on territorial concepts.

That is, a court can gain personal jurisdiction over a party only if the party has a connection to the geographic area in which the court sits. Traditionally, this connection was satisfied only by the presence of the defendant in the state where the court sat. Since the late nineteenth century, notions of personal jurisdiction have expanded beyond territorial concepts, and courts may gain personal jurisdiction over defendants on a number of grounds. However, the territorial basis remains a reliable route to establishing personal jurisdiction.

A person who has a civil claim may file suit in a court located in her or his home state.

If the defendant lives in the same state, the court will have no trouble gaining personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiff must simply serve the defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint that was filed with the court.

Once this is accomplished, the court has personal jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and the defendant.

If the defendant lives outside the state, the plaintiff may serve the defendant
with the process papers when the defendant appears in the state.

If the defendant lives outside the state and does not plan to reenter the state,
the court may gain personal jurisdiction in other ways.

Most states have a long-arm statute.

This type of statute allows a state court to gain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who

(1) transacts business within the state,

(2) commits a tort within the state,

(3) commits a tort outside the state that causes an injury within the state, or

(4) owns, uses, or possesses real property within the state.

If an out-of-state defendant caused an injury while driving inside the state, the court may gain
personal jurisdiction over the defendant on the theory that the defendant consented to such
jurisdiction by driving on the state's roads.

Many states have statutes that create such implied consent to personal jurisdiction.

When the defendant is a corporation,
the corporation is always subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts of the state
in which it is incorporated.

If the corporation has sufficient contacts in other states,
courts in those states may hold that the

out-of-state corporation has consented to personal jurisdiction through its contacts with the state.

For example, a corporation that solicits business
in other states or maintains offices in other states may be subject to suit in those states,
even if the corporation is not headquartered or incorporated in those states.

A corporation's transaction of business in a foreign state is a sufficient contact
to establish personal jurisdiction.

In actions concerning real property located within the state,
state courts may use additional means to gain personal jurisdiction
over out-of-state defendants.

A state court may gain personal jurisdiction over all parties,
regardless of their physical location, in a dispute over the title to real property.

This type of personal jurisdiction is called in rem, or "against the thing."

Personal jurisdiction over all parties interested in the real property is gained not
through the parties but through the presence of the land in the court's jurisdiction.

If a court cannot gain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant,
the plaintiff may be forced to sue the defendant in the state in which
the defendant resides or in the state where the injury occurred.

For example, a plaintiff who was injured outside his or her home state may
have to file suit in the defendant's home state or in the state where
the injury occurred if the defendant has no plans to enter the plaintiff's home state.

[Sharing Lights]

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Courts of general jurisdiction have subject matter jurisdiction over the majority of civil claims, including actions involving torts, contracts, unpaid debt, and civil rights violations.

Courts of general jurisdiction do not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims or controversies that are reserved for courts of special jurisdiction.

For example, in a state that has a probate court, all claims involving wills and estates must be brought in the probate court, not in a court of general jurisdiction.

In some cases a claim must first be heard by a special administrative board before it can be heard by a court.

For example, a workers' compensation claim in most states must be heard by a workers' compensation board before it can be heard in a court of general jurisdiction.

Another consideration in establishing subject matter jurisdiction is the amount in controversy.

This is the total of all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims in the suit.

(A counterclaim is a claim by a defendant against a plaintiff;

a cross-claim is a claim by a plaintiff against another plaintiff, or by a defendant against another defendant.)

In most jurisdictions, if the amount in controversy does not exceed a certain limit, the case must be heard by a court other than a court of general jurisdiction.
This court is usually called a small claims court.

The rules in such a court limit the procedures available to the parties so that the court can obtain a simple and speedy resolution to the dispute.

[Sharing Lights]

Federal Civil Court Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

To obtain personal jurisdiction over the parties, a federal court follows the procedural rules of the state in which it sits.

For example, a federal court in Michigan follows the Michigan state court rules governing personal jurisdiction.

The court examines the usual factors in establishing personal jurisdiction, such as the physical location of the parties, the reach of the state's long-arm statute, any consent to personal jurisdiction by the defendant, or the location of real property in a dispute over real property.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In some cases a plaintiff may file suit in federal court. These cases are limited to

(1) claims arising from the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes (federal question jurisdiction),

(2) claims brought by or against the federal government,

and

(3) claims in which all opposing parties live in different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 (diversity jurisdiction).

A federal court obtains subject matter jurisdiction over a case if the case meets one or more of these three requirements.

Claims arising from the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes

Federal question jurisdiction is covered in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. This statute provides that federal district courts have "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Some claims are expressly identified as federal in the Constitution.

These claims include those involving ambassadors and consuls or public ministers, admiralty and maritime claims, and claims made by or against the federal government.

Claims that are based on federal law also may be filed in federal court.

An action against the federal government based on the negligence of a federal employee, for example, is authorized by the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 842 [28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b), 2674]).

Some cases may combine federal and state issues.

In such cases no clear test exists to determine whether a party may file suit in or remove a suit to federal court.

Generally, federal courts will decline jurisdiction
if a claim is based predominantly on state law.

For example, assume that a plaintiff is embroiled in a property dispute with a neighbor.

The plaintiff files suit against the neighbor, alleging state-law claims of nuisance, trespass, breach of contract, and assault.

A state official advises the plaintiff that the property belongs to the neighbor (the defendant).

If the plaintiff sues the state official in the same suit, alleging a constitutional violation such as the uncompensated taking of property, a federal court may refuse jurisdiction because the case involves predominantly state law.

[Sharing Lights]

State and Federal Criminal Court Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established when the defendant is accused of committing a crime in the geographic area in which the court sits.

If a crime results in federal charges, the federal court that sits in the state where the offense was committed has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

In a conspiracy case, the defendants may face prosecution in any jurisdiction in which a conspiratorial act took place.

This can include a number of states if at least one conspirator crossed state lines or if the conspiracy involved criminal acts in more than one state.

Kidnapping is another crime that can establish personal jurisdiction in courts in more than one state, if it involves crossing state lines.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In criminal cases the question of jurisdiction is relatively simple.

Subject matter jurisdiction is easily decided because criminal courts or the courts of general jurisdiction have automatic subject matter jurisdiction over criminal cases.

In most states minor crimes may be tried in one court, and more serious crimes in another.

In Idaho, for example, criminal cases are tried in the district courts.

However, misdemeanor cases may be assigned by the district court to a magistrate (Idaho Code § 1-2208 [1996]).

(A magistrate is a judge who is authorized to hear minor civil cases and decide criminal matters without a jury.)

The major question in criminal subject matter jurisdiction is whether the charges are federal or state.


If the charges allege a violation of federal criminal law, the defendant will be tried in a federal court located in the state in which the offense was committed.

If the charges allege a violation of state law, the defendant will face prosecution in a trial court that has jurisdiction over the area in which the offense was committed.

If a crime violates both federal and state law, the defendant may be tried twice: once in state court, and once in federal court.

Venue

Venue is similar to, but separate from, jurisdiction.

The venue of a case is the physical location of the courthouse in which the case is tried.

If more than one court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over a case, the court that first receives the case can send the case, upon request of one of the parties, to a court in another jurisdiction. Unlike jurisdiction, venue does not involve a determination of a court's inherent authority to hear a case.

[Sharing Lights]

Jurisdiction in the United States

In Summary to reflect major concepts again.



The primary distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are codified at a national level.


As a common law system, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction

1) over the subject matter of a case

2) and jurisdiction over the person of the litigants.

(See personal jurisdiction.)

Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction.

In the U.S. States, each state has courts of:

general jurisdiction;

most states also have some courts of
limited jurisdiction.

Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Federal jurisdiction is divided into:

1) federal question jurisdiction

2) and diversity jurisdiction.

The United States District Courts may hear only cases
arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving
ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between
states or between a state and citizens of another state,
lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and
against foreign states and citizens.

Certain courts, particularly
the United States Supreme Court
and most state supreme courts,
have

discretionary jurisdiction,

meaning that they can choose which cases
to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal.

Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that
would settle important and controversial points of law.

Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they
otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion
to hear a case that falls outside of its
subject-matter jurisdiction.

It is also necessary to distinguish between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.

A court of original jurisdiction has the power to hear cases as they are first initiated by a plaintiff,
while

a court of appellate jurisdiction

may only hear an action after the court of original jurisdiction (or a lower appellate court) has heard the matter.

For example, in the U.S. federal court system, the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction over a number of different matters (as mentioned above), and the United States Courts of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction over matters appealed from the district courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in turn, has appellate jurisdiction (of a discretionary nature) over the Courts of Appeals, as well as the state supreme courts, by means of writ of certiorari.

However, in a special class of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to exercise original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1251, the Supreme court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states, and original (but non-exclusive) jurisdiction over cases involving officials of foreign states, controversies between the federal government and a state, actions by a state against the citizens of another state or foreign country.


Franchise Jurisdiction

In the history of English common law, a jurisdiction could be held as a form of property (or more precisely an incorporeal hereditament) called a franchise.

Traditional franchise jurisdictions of various powers were held by municipal corporations, ecclesiastical orders, early universities, and Counties Palatine.

Types of franchise courts included :

Courts Baron,

Courts Leet,

merchant courts,

and the Stannery Courts

which dealt with disputes involving the tin miners of Cornwall.

The original royal charters
of the American colonies included broad grants of
franchise jurisdiction along with other governmental
powers to corporations or individuals, as did the
charters for many other colonial companies such as the
British East India Company
and British South Africa Company.

Analogous jurisdiction existed in mediaeval times on the
European Continent. Over the course
of the 19th and 20th centuries,
franchise jurisdictions were largely eliminated.


See also

* Labor unions in the United States for a different usage of the word jurisdiction.
* Guantánamo Bay
* Rasul v. Bush

External links

* LII Law about... Jurisdiction
* Supreme Court Decision on Guantánamo Bay jurisdiction

[Sharing Lights]

Lesson No 3
arising from the concepts of:

Personal jurisdiction
is the authority a court has over the parties in the case.


Subject matter jurisdiction
is a court's authority over the particular claim or controversy.
================================================== ======


Before any judge has judicial power to decide any issue, the plaintiff must complete jurisdiction.

There are always four concepts involved in jurisdiction:

(1) & (2)

are two opposing parties with capacity
to be before the court,

(3) the

a) statutory

or

b) common law authority for the court to hear the question,

and

(4)

The appearance and testimony of at least one competent fact witness.

An attorney cannot testify unless he/she is a party
to the lawsuit, being a direct witness.

In ordedr to complete jurisdiction, someone must appear
before the court and testify under oath that they are
either the injured party and what their injuries are, or
someone must appear and testify under oath that
they witnessed that the injury occured.

Injuries may be

a) physical

or

b) financial
(may still be referred to as injury -

Example: was injured in the civil case
or lost money due to frivious lawsuit.


As we all should now well know:

if the court proceedings deprived a party of

due process,

or are influenced by:

1) fraud,

or jurisdiction is not completed by

2) appearance and testimony
of a competent fact witness,

the matter is void.

[Sharing Lights]

Standing.


We are considered to be
natural persons.

We have, then, natural standing to appear before a judge.

Most Judges are typical bullies.

Bullies only are brave before the weak ones
and are terrified of the strong ones.

Judges, by being selectively, brave, are in fear of

being exposed or addressed directly
if any problems arise.

So they, cowardly, hide behind the concept of Court.

Court is stones, bricks, chairs, floors and ceilings, paint,
and yes, their beloved, private (locked) bathrooms, in which,
they, sometimes remember or forget to bring their, also, beloved, suppositories.

Judges refer to themselves as to "Court."

Give them some time, they may refer to themselves
as to
the Supreme, Honorable Monarchs of the Universe of Justice.

Praise these darlings.

All rise, while even read a reference to the word "judges!"

No "but," not "if."

All rise.

I, even, propose to rename "******" into "JAH"
or Judges Are Here or, better, yet - All Rise.

All Rise - sounds shorter and more exciting.

If any of you may need ****** after dealing with the corruption in the, abducted
by these darlings, courts, please, ask your pharmacists for

"All Rise" pill,

as the "******" name would be obsolete soon.



Coming...
back to judges

We appear not before Court, we appear before Judges.

And judges have names and must be accountable for what they do.


Not Courts - judges!

Not Courts - bricks and bathrooms write Decisions - judges do.

So, let's stop their game right there, even though
many judges do issue decisions that may appear as
coming from bricks and bathrooms, indeed.



They feel safer hiding behind those bricks, chairs, and, yes, their beloved - bathrooms,
where they, sometimes remember or forget to bring their suppositories
(as they are so full of ...)


I object such reference to judges as to - court since common sense is above these darlings of law.

I call things as they are.



If you live in, operate a business in, own property in
or commit a wrongful act in a jurisdiction,
you have capacity to be before the judges
of that jurisdiction,

called in personum jurisdiction.


We are, mostly, sued by a corporation, whatever its variations may be and, most often,
by the debt collectors.

In order for a corporation to have full standing
necessary for capacity as a party plaintiff,
the following must be true:

the corporation, a legal fiction, or fictional persona, must:

(1). appear through a

bar-admitted attorney,

(2). Have

sufficient contacts with the forum state

to avail itself
of the forum state’s courts, requiring either

(a). to be licensed when such is required

(so, always, check if anyone who sues you
must have a license?)

or

(b). minimum contacts which means a regular systematic way of doing business in the forum state such
as “storefront” or “branding”
and business presence such as yellow pages listings.

Also, the name used to establish sufficient contacts
must be identical to the name used in the style
of the pleading,

(3).

Since corporations cannot be presumed to have
any particular capacity to do anything,

the corporation’s charter must be in evidence
(if challenged) to show

(Always get a copy of the complete corporate charter
of the corporation that sues you!)

(i) that the corporation is authorized to engage
in the activity that the suit is about,

and

(ii) that the corporation’s legal representative is authorized
to prosecute legal actions in the name of the corporation,

and

(4). The corporation must be in actual possession of any
written instrument giving rise to
an actionable controversy.


(i.e. There must be the original document which proves
what the plaintiff claims you signed
and you are

liable for

or

owe by the virtue of violating that Contract or Agreement.)


Elements of standing can be

prima facie,

meaning presumptively true, but if challenged,
must be proved through

de facto,

not prima facie, evidence.