Subject Matter Jurisdiction

[BoyntonStu]

After viewing Richard Cornforth's videos

http://www.kel.cc/downloads/TaxStuff...eos/index.html

especially cornforth1.wmv

(to erase CC debts see cornforth2.wmv)


I was almost convinced of the importance of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Today I became totally convinced after hearing several Circuit Court Judges and an IRS attorney say the same thing.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...e04-Dec-22.htm

Find this:

RIGHT-Click here to save (download) a copy of the audio file containing the oral arguments made by Schulz and the DOJ before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on December 13, 2004 to your computer.


WOW!!!

A subject that is of MAJOR importance to ALL.


BoyntonStu

Originally Posted by wargames102

http://user.icx.net/~drherb/usfacts.html

Just in case you want to delete this post also...

http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=40

Check this thread for my brief on subject matter jurisdiction

[weishaupt1776]

[1] Jurisdiction of the person is obtained by the legal service of a valid process issued out of a court of competent jurisdiction in a case or proceeding properly pending, or by a party voluntarily appearing, or by his seeking, taking or agreeing to some act or step in the proceeding or action to his benefit, or to the detriment of the other party, other than by one contesting the jurisdiction over his person only. (Sec. 1014, Code Civ. Proc; Chaplin v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 367 [253 Pac. 954]; Grinbaum v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 528 [221 Pac. 635].)...
In the case of Olcese v. Justice's Court, 156 Cal. 82 [103 Pac. 317, 318], Mr. Justice Henshaw has clearly stated the law as follows: "Pleas based upon lack of jurisdiction of the person are in their nature pleas in abatement and find no especial favor in the law. They amount to no more that the declaration of the defendant that he has had actual notice, is actually in court in a proper action, but, for informality in the service of process, is not legally before the court. It is a purely dilatory plea, and when a defendant is seeking to avail himself of it, he must, for very obvious reasons, stand upon his naked legal right and seek nothing further from the court than the enforcement of that right. He will not be heard to ask of the court anything further than an adjudication upon his plea, and if he does ask anything further, then, by the logic of the fact, he must necessarily have waived the irregularity of his summons before the court. Here is one reason for the well-settled rule that if a defendant wishes to insist upon the objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person, he must specially appear for that purpose only, and must keep out for all purposes except to make that objection. ... So it is well-settled that if a defendant, under such circumstances, raises any other question, or asks for any relief which can only be granted under the hypothesis that the court has jurisdiction of his person, his appearance is general, though termed special, and he thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court as completely as if he had been regularly served with summons."
(emphasis added) Gulick v. Justice's Court (1929), 101 Cal.App. 619, 622-624; 281 Pac. 1031.

good find Geoff.. and I must add clarifies a lot on the subject matter (no pun intended).

Jerry.

[seeker]

"Jurisdiction of the person is obtained by the legal service of a valid process issued out of a court of competent jurisdiction..."

COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION -- this is the crux of the matter -- what, exactly is the definition of it? Are we who are in state court against a NATIONAL Bank entity, not it the WRONG court? There is case law on this matter, but I do not have it readily available right this second.

There is so much little, nit-picky type things that can be brought to light to challenge (although that is not the correct word) -- that we are so fortunate to have this online support community to help one another with these aspects. People like Weis, who is a research maniac! And David, newly appeared, with his font of knowledge. And the ever staunch moderators and contributors -- jerseee, ice, sj, wargames, HB -- and on and on -- how fortunate we are!

Seeker

Are we who are engaged against the Bank(s) in the wrong court? YES.. at least according to the florida constitution... In that constitution, it is required that the court (circuit) be authorized to conduct hearings upon a "General Law", a general law is not a citation of statute. Statutes in florida are plainly stipulated as being nothing more than an evidence of the Law.

Jerry.

[weishaupt1776]

I mis-posted thiat cite, because it really deals w/impersonam not SMJ. Glad it was of use.

Banking entities who file try to punk you in STATE can be challenged to take it to FED. It just costs more to file there (I think) so they try to get off on a cheap judge in a v=cheap court

[leatherlips]

If you go to State court and they kick it up to USDC, and then the USDC kicks it back to State, as they will try to do with some cases, you might open with a statement like this: " I am not an attorney and not fully equipted with double talk and misdirection. If this case is in an improper jurisdiction, venue, or court, the court will inform Demandant of such proper jurisdiction, venue or court, and MOVE THE CASE to the Supreme Court of the United States that has original jurisdiction in all cases, such that proper and complete remedy may be provided. In the case of any denial of remedy, this court will inform the Demandant of the proper court and procedure to obtain relief. If the judge finds cause of lack of authority to provide remedy, it shall be documented in writing with a finding of fact and conclusions at law."