Smj = Suject Matter Jurisdiction

[REDCLOUD]

Subject matter jurisdiction is a more broad jurisdiction.

In order to meet SMJ requirements the administrative court must

1) have been given the authority to hear the type of case and to prosecute on a certain statute.

2) be propperly formed under the governing statutes for that tribunal. This means a tribunal must have actuall officers instead on Non-Bonds pretending.

3) the court must not act in "excess" of its jurisdiction or the judgment is "voidable" by one of the parties.

4) the court must not act "without" jurisdiction or the judgment is "void."

5) the court must prove jurisdiction and the proof must be on the record.

6) the subject (statute) must been properly enacted positive law.

This idea may actually have some merit. However, what you are really relying on is that the city attorney and the traffic court will not respond to your motions to verify the above and actually try the case, which, particularly in big metropolitan areas might be a good bet. Should you elect to try the case you might essentially be able to motion them to death, a lot of effort for a traffic ticket. Traffic "courts" rely on volume, the fine is cheap, people don't want to spend the time, actually converting a traffic ticket to a triable case is problematic for a city attorney or junior DA. Not enough time or resources. They too engage in cost benefit analysis, which should not be confused with a bullet proof legal strategy.

[Codee]

yeah I'll say I can motion them to death.

Motion to dismiss, Lack of SMJ

What you don't understand REDCLOUD is I have talked personally to about a hundred attorneys on this subject "Wow kid how did you learn all this!?"

I have talked to many judges. "Nope, no bond."

I have looked for bonds at the recorder's office. Nope, no bonds.

Thank you for your concern REDCLOUD but I have a ton of trial experience and there is no way you are going to convince me that I do not know what happens in court.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by REDCLOUD

This idea may actually have some merit. However, what you are really relying on is that the city attorney and the traffic court will not respond to your motions to verify the above and actually try the case, which, particularly in big metropolitan areas might be a good bet. Should you elect to try the case you might essentially be able to motion them to death, a lot of effort for a traffic ticket. Traffic "courts" rely on volume, the fine is cheap, people don't want to spend the time, actually converting a traffic ticket to a triable case is problematic for a city attorney or junior DA. Not enough time or resources. They too engage in cost benefit analysis, which should not be confused with a bullet proof legal strategy.

The theory holds no water REDCLOUD.

http://www.wegous.com/rod/tape/OhioS...onferenceA.wav

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

[url

http://www.wegous.com/rod/tape/OhioSupremeCourtJudgeConferenceA.wav[/url]

I got as far as the part where the "judge" stated that the Oath was a "mere technicality" and was "incidental to the office."

[REDCLOUD]

yeah I'll say I can motion them to death.

Motion to dismiss, Lack of SMJ

What you don't understand REDCLOUD is I have talked personally to about a hundred attorneys on this subject "Wow kid how did you learn all this!?"

I have talked to many judges. "Nope, no bond."

I have looked for bonds at the recorder's office. Nope, no bonds.

Thank you for your concern REDCLOUD but I have a ton of trial experience and there is no way you are going to convince me that I do not know what happens in court.

This all may be true. I am simply saying that filing a motion to dismiss because of lack of SMJ and bonding requirements may not be the reason that your traffic ticket is dismissed. It may also be they don't want to try such a case for any reason because of cost and delay. Any motion or fight might be a good one if it is well formed and not frivolous and achienve the dismissal result. Appealing through county court and so on may get the same result too. These administrative courts rely on people not fighting or appealing and that is their weakness. I have no objection to people fighting the courts, in fact, I personally think it is a good idea, after all it is and adverserial system by design. However, if they did elect to try the case on the merits of your motion alone would be interesting. Do you know, Has anyone actually used this and had a court rule on the merits? If so, what is the case and the result? It would be interesting to study the theory the court used and how they ruled.

The theory holds no water REDCLOUD.

http://www.wegous.com/rod/tape/OhioS...onferenceA.wav

I have no idea what this means or how it relates to anything.

[powder]

I have been helping a few people. One has been in court a couple of times now and didn't "argue" with the black robe. Simply identified that SMJ had been challenged and that proof of SMJ just had to be entered on the record.

Anyone here surprised that has not (and will not) happen?

The guy was in a 'Case Conference' - theoretical non binding conference related to the case (divorce). When the robe asked him a question... The guy responded with, "well.." and then the robe said "that's right, i don't have jurisidiction over you. You don't have to answer."

These people (the black robes) know the game and when you expose you are on to them, man. Things in the circus change pretty quick.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by powder

I have been helping a few people. One has been in court a couple of times now and didn't "argue" with the black robe. Simply identified that SMJ had been challenged and that proof of SMJ just had to be entered on the record.

Anyone here surprised that has not (and will not) happen?

The guy was in a 'Case Conference' - theoretical non binding conference related to the case (divorce). When the robe asked him a question... The guy responded with, "well.." and then the robe said "that's right, i don't have jurisidiction over you. You don't have to answer."

These people (the black robes) know the game and when you expose you are on to them, man. Things in the circus change pretty quick.

Sure they do, unless they are under pretend like they they don't know.

[powder]

Originally Posted by charlesa6

Sure they do, unless they are under pretend like they they don't know.

Which is what happened at the hearing or chambers session, prior to the case conference. Repeated offers to 'cure defect'. All offers were responded with "Until SMJ has been proven for the record, I stand mute"

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by powder

Which is what happened at the hearing or chambers session, prior to the case conference. Repeated offers to 'cure defect'. All offers were responded with "Until SMJ has been proven for the record, I stand mute"

Once you challenge it from the get go, the case stop on its track until the other party make the claim proof it's exist with a lot of pleadings on the record.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

http://www.wegous.com/rod/tape/OhioS...onferenceA.wav

Originally Posted by mrg

I got as far as the part where the "judge" stated that the Oath was a "mere technicality" and was "incidental to the office."

I don't care what a judge says in his confrence. Subject matter jurisdiction is resident in the complaining party. The complaining parties complaint gives jurisdiction to the magistrate to form a court. HOWEVER the magistrate must have an oath of office and a bond or else the office of magistrate is vacant. A proper objection to the fact that the office is vacant is the correct way. Writs of quo warranto have not been abolished in California. There is also the standard objection.

There is also the fact that the complaint is most likely trying me for a violation of a joint resolution and not a lawfull general bill.

The court has no jurisdiction because it is sitting as the agency in the administrative hearing however the administration has not conducted their own hearing yet and has not exhausted their remedy through appeal. Courts should not be used as agencies first. This is where I may investigate a little.

But to say that a bond is incedental... Yeah because no one ever objects.

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the State of California of 1849, article XI, § 3

Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ----------, according to the best of my ability."
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as qualification for any office or public trust.
Compiled Laws of California, Garfielde & Snyder, Compilers, The Press of The Franklin Printing House (1853), p. 40 et seq.

SECTION 1. The official bonds of officers shall be approved and filed as follows, to wit: the official bond of the Secretary of State shall be approved by the Governor, and filed and recorded in the office of the County Clerk of the county in which the seat of government is fixed; (1) the official bond of the Attorney General, Surveyor General, Comptroller, Treasurer, State Printer, and Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be approved by the Governor, filed and recorded in the office of the Secretary of State; the official bond of each District Attorney shall be approved by the Judge of the District, filed and recorded in the office of the County Clerk of any one of the counties in the District which may be designated by said Judge; (2) the official bonds of Sheriffs, Coroners, Justices of the Peace, and all other county officers shall be approved by the County Judge, filed and recorded in the office in the County Clerk of their respective counties; the official bonds of County Clerks shall be approved by the County Judge and filed and recorded in the office of the County Recorder.
. . .
SEC. 4. If any persoon, elected or apppointed to any office, shall perform any of the duties thereof without having executed and filed in the proper office any bond required of him by law, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and his office be declared vacant.
Stats. 1850, ch. 21, "An Act concerning the Official Bonds of Officers.", Feb. 28, 1850.

Originally Posted by The Constitution for the United States, article VI, clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
United States Code Annotated, Const. (1999), art. VI, cl. 3.

Originally Posted by Hull v. Superior Court (1883), 63 Cal. 174, 176-177.

Of course, election alone did not constitute [him] the incumbent of the office. The law required him, after receiving his certificate of election, to take the oath of office, and give bonds within the time required by law. If he failed to do these things according to law, and within the time required by law, the office was vacant. (Sections 907, 947, 996, Pol. Code; Payne v. San Francisco , 3 Cal. 125; People v. Taylor , 57 Cal. 620.) Until an officer-elect takes the oath of office and gives bonds according to law, he is not authorized to discharge the duties of the office. He is not an incumbent.
...Being the actual incumbent of the office, he was in possession under color of right; he was at least a de facto officer, and had a vested right as such until his right was questioned by some one in a proper proceeding for that purpose. ... It can be made only by an original proceeding by information in the nature of a quo warranto against him as incumbent of the office. (People v. Olds, 3 Cal. 176; People v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 432; Satterlee v. San Francisco , 23 Cal. 320; People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480.)