proper standing vs. subject matter jurisdiction

[beeboah]

I have chosen to initiate a SMJ against the Plantiff, and I am in the process of writing it up. With that said, I have found some interesting case law on subject matter jurisdiction.

It goes on to say that I can contest the subject matter jurisdiction and it is the burden of the PLANTIFF to prove otherwise.

Does subject matter jurisdiction apply only to the geographic location of the courthouse?

Example: I live in VA, the creditor and their "alleged" attorney live in VA to.

Does subject matter jurisdiction apply to anything else?

I mean does it apply to the fact that I don't know whether or not they have an attorney/client relationship with the creditor, or whether or not they even own the debt as discussed?

Thanks again!

[cz3000]

Subject matter jurisdiction (as opposed to personal jurisdiction) refers to the question of whether a particular court has the power or competence to decide the kind of controversy that is involved.

If an alleged plaintiff makes a complaint and does not have the legal authority to bring the action, that alleged plaintiff is without standing to sue and has in effect- failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

complaints which omit essential elements of fact should be challenged.

suppose someone makes what you believe to be a valid complaint ( you owe me 25$) . You DID borrow 25$ from John Smtih, however, you find out that it's not really John Smith making the complaint but it's his twin brother Johanan Smith?

No court is competent to hear any case where the Plaintiff does not have proper standing to sue.


Courts will hear a case if you accept/consent to their offer to mediate.

SO - if u know you don't owe Johanan and Johanan has not provided proof otherwise then why would you 'ask' the court to rule on anything?

Originally Posted by beeboah

I have chosen to initiate a SMJ against the Plantiff, and I am in the process of writing it up. With that said, I have found some interesting case law on subject matter jurisdiction.

It goes on to say that I can contest the subject matter jurisdiction and it is the burden of the PLANTIFF to prove otherwise.

Does subject matter jurisdiction apply only to the geographic location of the courthouse?

Example: I live in VA, the creditor and their "alleged" attorney live in VA to.

Does subject matter jurisdiction apply to anything else?

I mean does it apply to the fact that I don't know whether or not they have an attorney/client relationship with the creditor, or whether or not they even own the debt as discussed?

Thanks again!

[Libertarian]

suppose someone makes what you believe to be a valid complaint ( you owe me 25$) . You DID borrow 25$ from John Smtih, however, you find out that it's not really John Smith making the complaint but it's his twin brother Johanan Smith?

No court is competent to hear any case where the Plaintiff does not have proper standing to sue.

I don't think that is right. If you owe money to A, and B sues you, the court does have jurisdiction-- it has the power to rule that you don't owe anything to B. You would win the case. If the court did not have jurisdiction, the court couldn't decide anything, including whether or not you owed anything to B.

[cz3000]

not exactly.

let me put it this way.

no legal standing to sue = no case
no SMJ = the court is not competent to hear the action

the only thing they can decide is that they can't decide anything.

technically a dismissal is not a win.

Originally Posted by Libertarian

I don't think that is right. If you owe money to A, and B sues you, the court does have jurisdiction-- it has the power to rule that you don't owe anything to B. You would win the case. If the court did not have jurisdiction, the court couldn't decide anything, including whether or not you owed anything to B.

[powder]

I don't argue, I simply request proof.

You say you have SMJ, please file the appropriate evidence into the record.

[cz3000]

exactly!! . . . .

Originally Posted by powder

I don't argue, I simply request proof.

You say you have SMJ, please file the appropriate evidence into the record.

[Codee]

Subject matter jurisdiction is derived from the complaint. The complain must have all essential elements. After subject matter is conferec it must be maintained. Maintinence requires that the plaintiff and his court opperate within the statute creating the court or if a court of General jurisdiction then within the law. The court/plaintiff must never violate your rights or SMJ is gone.

Once chalenged SMJ must be decided before the court can move on.

SMJ once challenged must be proved by the party assertingthe jurisdiction - the plaintiff.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by cz3000

not exactly.

let me put it this way.

no legal standing to sue = no case
no SMJ = the court is not competent to hear the action

the only thing they can decide is that they can't decide anything.

technically a dismissal is not a win.

A dismissal is the only win there is in a tribunal for a defendant. Even a finding of not guilty is a dismissal. One can only avail themselves administratively through topics of fraud, error, or mistake. TECHNICALLY there is no "WIN" in court at all.

What was earlier stated is also true that the court could have found that there is no evidence on the record to support claim and dismiss. Even a court with no jurisdiction can still dismiss as it is the only thing left that it can do. However there is merit that there never was a court. If the court knew that the man was impersonating then the court must dismiss do to an iinvalid complaint which never could have granted juridiction.

[beeboah]

reading...sorry I thought SMJ stood for summary judgment....

good advice all thanks!

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by beeboah

reading...sorry I thought SMJ stood for summary judgment....

good advice all thanks!

The important thing to keep in mind is, SMJ is a matter of general jurisdiction. Personnel jurisdiction is what you referred to as the other side and it is not SMJ.