Subject Matter Juristiction
Oh yea I forgot to mention the court must have Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The subject was breech of contract.
In my Response and Counterclaim I gave the court jurisdiction.
This was the opening of my counterclaim filed May 20, 2005
COMES NOW the Defendant/Counterclaimant, a natural human being with power of attorney-in-fact, Katherine-Elizabeth: Snedigar (hereafter Snedigar), making a special and not a general appearance, appearing in Propria Personae and Sui Juris, demanding all of her rights at all times, waiving none of her rights at any time for any reason, constantly challenging this Court's jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff's case against Snedigar.
Plaintiff / Counterdefendants, HOUSEHOLD AUTO FINACE CORPORATION ROBERT BAKER, (hereafter HOUSEHOLD ), GREALD A. PHILLIPS (hereafter PHILLIPS), THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILLIPS, HARPER & HARPER, MACHELLE BOMENKA NOTARY Commission # 1508176 (hereafter PHH), AMERICAN ALLIANCE OF CREDITOR ATTORNEYS, Richard A. Curtin President (hereinafter AACA), GLOBAL ACCEPTANCE CREDIT CORPORATION, Mike Verrichio, President/CEO, Phill Verrichio, Executive View President/COO, Joseph Arcand Vice President Agency (hereinafter GACC), have brought a fraud upon the court and Snedigar is making a special appearance to respond to HOUSEHOLD, PHILLIPS, PHH, AACA, GACC, PLAINTIFF/COUNTERDEFENDANTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CLAIM OF DELIVERY BY WRIT OF POSSESSION (hereafter ORDER).
JURISDICTION
1. GACC is a corporate person that is involved in the perpetration of consumer debt collection fraud on the general public and in the courts and is in the business of recovery of distressed credit card, consumer loan and auto deficiency debt, breaking them up into various monetary value packages and selling them as an investment to qualified buyers. See Exhibit A
2. AACA is a corporate person that is involved in the perpetration of consumer debt collection fraud and is a central clearing house for debt purchased by GACC for distribution to debt collector attorneys in various States for collections through the court systems of those various States. See Exhibit B
3. PHILLIPS and PHH are members of AACA and are corporate persons involved in the perpetration of consumer debt collection fraud. See Exhibit C
4. MACHELLE BOMENKA is a Notary in the San Diego area, who placed her stamp and signature on an affidavit provided to her by PHILLIPS, and is submitted in the Court.
5, LEVY is a person in the form of an attorney in Arizona who is “attempting to collect a debt”. LEVY’s connection to PHILLIPS is unknown. See Exhibit D
6. None of these persons are licensed under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 649 as third party debt collectors in the State of Nevada.
7. Snedigar is a natural human being that lives in Washoe County, Nevada State.
STATEMENT OF VENUE
Venue is appropriate in the Northern District of Nevada as the predicate acts of fraud and conspiracy to extort personal property committed by Gerald A. Phillips and the other actors occurred in the Northern District of Nevada and Gerald A Phillips is directly connected to the above out of state corporations.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Plaintiff/Household, on the record, in the first line of its complaint states, “This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.” (Emphasis added). Plaintiff is required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter FDCPA) to send a “dunning” letter prior to taking any legal action. Snedigar has not received a “dunning” letter and Plaintiff has not offered evidence of a dunning letter as an exhibit in their complaint. PHILLIPS has trespassed on Snedigar’s due process rights by truncating the time within which Snedigar is privileged to respond to a debt collector. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, PHILLIPS and PHH must be covered, i.e., it must be a "debt collector" under Section 803(6). That Section defines a "debt collector" as someone who". . . regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another"
Plaintiff is claiming jurisdiction for the Court to hear them and has the burden to establish it and Snedigar hereby challenges this court's jurisdiction with regards to Plaintiff / Counter Defendants complaint against Snedigar.
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) Rule 12(h)(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. (As amended: effective April 24, 1998).
3. This court's subject matter jurisdiction, in the instant case, with regards to the Complaint and Motion filed by the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant and its counsel, is being constantly challenged in reference to HOUSEHOLD 's lawsuit against Snedigar and neither HOUSEHOLD nor PHILLIPS nor PHH nor AACA have ever even asserted, much less proven the court's jurisdiction with regards to HOUSEHOLD 's case against Snedigar. Subject matter jurisdiction consists of two elements: the statutory authority for the case and the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness – someone to state under oath, “I am the injured party and these are my damages.”
It is clear that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be held liable for his judicial act. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978) (Emphasis added)
Kiytchie
|
Linear Mode
