For that judge who says he has Jurisdiction

[TheBlackTruth]

Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed.

1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.



This case suggests that a court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic

issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must

have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.



oops. . i meant to put this in the "Court" forum

[TheBlackTruth]

Brief on jurisdiction



"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.



And, you may find this interesting as well:



"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. "Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596. "When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583. "A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284. "Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1. "The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.

[weishaupt1776]

<font color=purple[b]Keep the Black Truth flowin'

[leatherlips]

Government is foreclosed from parity with real people. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795

[Akira]

Hi all,



Excellent cites one and all... but I especially llike that last one... OUCH ! lol



But... it doesn't come up on findlaw.....



weishaupt1776 could you find / verify / post this case, if it's an accurate quote, please?



For HIS Glory,

Akira

[leatherlips]

I haven't been able to find anything quoted from Penhallow v. Doane's yet, (and I spent several hours on it today) but, it is a real case that is refered to by lots of other cases, along with Yick Wo and several others, just no quotes from this case. I will ask the fellow that gave it to me where he got the quote from, as I would like to see it for myself now.

[Akira]

leatherlips,



Thanks for the reassurance ...



it's good to know that, at least, it exists ! and it's a very good sign it may be accurate as well... I seem to be a bit 'gun shy' ever since the Clearfield Doctrine.. lol



weishaupt1776 has access to Lexus Nexus (lucky bum) so perhaps he can get it for us...



thanks again...

[weishaupt1776]

Dude, my bad. I didn't notice your request, brother. I will dig it up along with BT's stuff. In the future, post in the <U>anyone have lexis</u> thread

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed.

1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.



This case suggests that a court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic

issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must

have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.



oops. . i meant to put this in the "Court" forum

This may be a bogus quote. The Rescue Army case is here on Findlaw, and I see nothing like that quoted language.

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]BT, Libertarian is fillin' ya full of holes again. Your gettin' shot down in flames!