Superior Court - No Longer a "General" Jurisdiction

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Here is a great argument for someone to brief out:

1. Premise #1: Pleadings in Courts of Special or Limited Jurisdiction Must Show On Their Face Facts Supporting Jurisdiction.

   In all courts of special or limited jurisdiction, the record of the case must support any claim of subject-matter jurisdiction. If subject-matter jurisdiction does not appear from the record of the case, the presiding judge is acting without subject-matter jurisdiction and his/her orders are void, of no legal force or effect. To wit:
   
   State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986) ("In determining whether a lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the record, we must look to the whole record, which includes the pleadings, the return on the process, the verdict of the jury, and the judgment or decree of the court.");
   
   Wabash Area Development, Inc. v. Ind. Com., 88 Ill.2d 392 (1981) ("that compliance with the statutory requirements for the issuance of the writ must affirmatively appear in the record.");
   
   I.C.R.R. Co. v. Hasenwinkle, 232 Ill. 224, 227 (1908) ("The law presumes nothing in favor of the jurisdiction of a court exercising special statutory powers, such as those given by statute under which the court acted, (Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. v. Galt, 133 Ill. 657), and the record must affirmatively show the facts necessary to give jurisdiction. The record must show that the statute was complied with");
   
   In re Marriage of Stefiniw, 253 Ill.App.3d 196, 625 N.E.2d 358 (1st Dist. 1993) ("A judgment is characterized as void and may be collaterally attacked at any time where the record itself furnished the facts which establish that the court acted without jurisdiction.");
   
   People v. Byrnes, 34 Ill.App.3d 983, 341 N.E.2d 729 (2nd Dist. 1975) ("Whereas a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to have jurisdiction to render any judgment in a case arising under the common law, there is no such presumption of jurisdiction in cases arising under a specific statutory grant of authority. In the later cases the record must reveal the facts which authorize the court to act.");
   
   Zook v. Spannaus, 34 Ill.2d 612, 217 N.E.2d 789 (1966) ("In the absence of such findings in the record and in the absence of any evidence in the record to support such findings the court was without jurisdiction in this special statutory proceeding to enter an order authorizing the guardian to consent to adoption.");
   
   Fico v. Industrial Com., 353 Ill. 74 (1933) ("Where the court is exercising a special statutory jurisdiction the record must show upon its face that the case is one where the court has authority to act.").

2. Premise #2: Merging Equity and Admiralty with Law Makes "General" Jurisdictions Become "Special" Jurisdictions.
3. Conclusion: Superior Courts, having merged equity and admiralty into their proceedings, have become a special jurisdiction. As such, they are empowered to act only by pleadings sufficient to invoke their judicial authority.

I don't have the time to brief this issue out right now, but if anyone else could write up a brief it would be appreciated!

Let me know what you think of the argument!

Sincerely,
Zach Doty
www.FightingForLiberty.org

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Okay,
I did a bit of research today and I found an interesting case where similar arguments were raised by demurrer. See: PENNINGTON v. GIBSON, 57 U.S. 65 (1853)

The closing statements given in this verdict seem to refute at least half of premise #2, but lets examine it more thoroughly:

"It is undeniably true in pleading, that where a suit is instituted in a court of limited and special jurisdiction, it is indispensable to aver that the cause of action arose within such restricted jurisdiction; but it is equally true, with regard to superior courts, or courts of general jurisdiction, that every presumption is in favor of their right to hold pleas, and that if an exception to their power or jurisdiction is designed, it must be averred, and shown as matter of defence."

At first sight this paragraph seems to say that all Superior courts are General Jurisdictions, which can hear all pleas without a finding of jurisdiction on the record. But was this inference intended? It is interesting to see that earlier on, the court said:

"It is not to be intended that because a court is termed a superior court, that it is a court of general jurisdiction. It may be an inferior court, and of limited jurisdiction."

So it looks like that closing statement falsely presumes that all Superior Courts are courts of General Jurisdiction. And based upon the above statement I think its safe to say that the inference was unintentional. It would have been more properly stated thus:

"It is undeniably true in pleading, that where a suit is instituted in a court of limited and special jurisdiction, it is indispensable to aver that the cause of action arose within such restricted jurisdiction; but it is equally true, with regard to courts of general jurisdiction, that every presumption is in favor of their right to hold pleas, and that if an exception to their power or jurisdiction is designed, it must be averred, and shown as matter of defence."

It should also be noted that:

1. This case dealt only with equity being merged with law, it mentioned nothing of admiralty. There has always been a degree to which equity followed the law, but admiralty is an entirely different matter. Prove that admiralty has been merged and it is DEFINITELY a special jurisdiction!
2. This case said Superior Courts could be courts of limited or inferior jurisdiction. This is quite interesting. I expected it to be called a court of Special Jurisdiction.

So keep looking, I think this is a very promising argument! If the second premise can be proven 99% of Superior Court orders are rendered NULL AND VOID AB INITIO!

If someone could scan and post the sections on "Special Jurisdictions" from AmJur and C.J.S. that would be appreciated; anything on merger of equity with law might help too. I will shepherdize this case and see if I can locate some more recent instances of demurrers on this basis. Any related law would be appreciated!

Sincerely,
Zach Doty
www.FightingForLiberty.org

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Alright,
I have just shepardized the case, and the results are attached to this post as a PDF file.
If anyone has the time, please review the cases (most can be found on FindLaw.com) and look for relevant information. In the mean time, I have a few other issues I need to brief out! I'll work on this more, as time permits.

In Christ,
Zach Doty
www.FightingForLiberty.org