How does if feel… to be on your own… it feels like there are IRS people who are having challenges understanding the concept of the US Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment, more specifically “involuntary servitude”… Will the IRS respect the natural born condition of human beings, specifically sovereignty and freedom being self evident. So Sovereignty, Freedom and basic fundamental natural principle’s are a hallmark and legacy of a freeman on the land. If any ficticious and artificial State, Federal or County Court have an issue with the Thirteenth Amendment’s concept of “Government Is Foreclosed from
Parity with Real People” let them share their position… Is the central question really… do human beings have a choice…
With all my heart…
Thanks to: http://www.projectfreeman.com/hypothesis.htm for this articles featured media (picture)
Here is my Stand…
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640
December 11, 2015
IRS, IRS Compliance Services
Withholding Compliance Program
Alicia A. Hagen, Collection Operation Manager
PO Box 9047, Stop 837
Andover, MA 01810-0947
November 30, 2015, LTR 2810C
Reference SS# 562-53-3157
Dear IRS and Alicia A. Hagen,
It is clear that you have not taken the time to properly read and understand my letter to your office, copy enclosed herein, and incorporated herein, in full, by reference.
Let me make this very clear IRS; under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, it is thereby established that the IRS is prohibited from imposing involuntary servitude on any man or woman who has not willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of all the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, volunteered their self to be under the Political Jurisdiction of the Government of the United States.
And in case you believe the Fourteenth Amendment declares every person born in the United States becomes a citizen due to such birth, you need to take a course in reading English Grammar, because there is no such citizenship establishment provision in that Constitutional Amendment.
That is, and get this straight IRS, the burden of proof is on the IRS and any reference to any purported law, has no application to me unless and until the IRS presents proof that the Government of the United States has gained some manner of jurisdiction over me without the such Government or its IRS violating the prohibition of involuntary servitude made an integral part of the Federal Constitution in 1866.
None of the laws you cited, nor any others that you might conger up, or any manner of court decision, or Executive Order overcome the Thirteenth Amendment incorporated into the Federal Constitution!
Where is the IRS’s proof that it has gained Political Jurisdiction over me? The burden of proof is on you, IRS, and such proof must be something where I volunteered myself into submission to the IRS, testified to by a living eyewitness, NOT any self serving gibberish such as you presented to me in your instant enclosed letter! Or any manner of document from any government file, but as I wrote above, testified to by a living eyewitness, where I have the opportunity to cross examine such purported witness, under oath, under penalty of perjury.
Please see the forty-five appellate court case citations served herewith and incorporated herein by reference.
These appellate court case citations establish that when any manner of jurisdiction is challenged, proof of such claim of jurisdiction must be presented by the asserting entity, in this case, that would be the IRS, not merely claimed by any court judge.
Pease pay particular attention to case citations thirty-nine through forty-five.
And NO, I most certainly will NOT provide you with any telephone number information or ever talk to you orally, without an officially recognized recording device recording every word. I insist that any and all communication between me and the IRS be in written form, so that you cannot twist what I present to serve your evil purposes.
In closing, rest assured, if the IRS can properly establish that I have any manner of tax obligation to the Government of the United States, I will willing pay such tax.
This letter was sent to the IRS office as indicated on the first page, via the United States Postal Service, return receipt card requested.
Please take notice, that a certified copy of this letter, when presented to my employer with the original Postal Service Return Receipt Card, ten days after the date entered on the Postal Service Return Receipt Card, shall serve as and constitute official IRS notice to my employer, that my employer is to immediately stop any manner of income tax withholding from my pay.
Proceeding at all-time under Threat,-Duress and Coercion,
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640
Addendum, attached hereto,
Letter to IRS 11-16-2015
Exhibit A- 45 Appellate Court Case Citations
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640-3618
November 16, 2015
PO Box 149338 St 5501
Austin, TX 78714-9338
Reference: 0866000000; of October 15, 2015 LTR 2801C
Reference SS# 562-53-3157
CHALLENGE TO PRESUMED POLITICAL JURISDICTION
OVER HIM OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND ITS IRS
1. In regard to the above reference, I am hereby presenting the IRS with my official detailed challenge to the United States Government and its IRS’s presumed political jurisdiction and authority over me.
2. Please be hereby advised, the Challenge I herein serve you with will be and is founded on Mathematically Certain Principles that I have never before presented to the IRS in the manner I present herein below. These arguments have never been ruled as frivolous by any Federal Court, to the contrary, the one time they were presented orally to a Federal District Court, that court put the matter on terminal hold forty-five years ago, to avoid addressing issues neither the U.S. Government or the IRS could refute or prevail against, and dared not lose.
3. Please be hereby advised, I strongly believe everyone should pay all and any tax that they properly owe, however, at the same time, I likewise strongly believe that there is no obligation to pay any tax that was not properly assessed or was assessed through fraud on the part of the government, including (but not limited to) enabling fraud initiated and perpetrated by State governments.
4. Please be assured, if the IRS can produce and present evidence to me, duly attested to by a living eyewitness, that I have a taxpayer obligation to the U.S. Government,
that I will then willingly pay any income tax I am proven to be liable to pay.
5. First, unless otherwise indicated in this writing, all words used in this writing shall be construed to have the meaning commonly understood by common ordinary people in their ordinary day to day conversations, and no statutory or secret meaning shall be applied by the government in order to twist the meaning and intent of this writing. No Law Dictionary meaning shall be referred to in order to determine the meaning of any word used herein.
6. It is self evident and cannot be reasonably denied that all human beings (“P/persons”), are born free and politically independent, as a condition of Nature.
7. And, that in order for any Naturally Free Born Person to be subject to the political dominion of any government (such being an artificial entity created by mere men), such Free Born Individual must be either physically forced by criminally applied physical power or the threat thereof, or in some manner, intellectually enticed or coerced or surreptitiously or fraudulently indoctrinated to willingly submit himself to such government’s dominion by in some way being manipulated into assuming an artificial persona, such as United States citizenship or a True Legal Name.
8. Please carefully consider that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution embodies the following concepts:
Government Is Foreclosed from
Parity with Real People.
Basic Principles of the Thirteenth Amendment
“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 aspect of government, including as any law, agency, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, and/or artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Author unknown.
9. As the United States presents itself as a country governed by laws compliant to its creating Constitution, I will reference aspects of that Constitution which, in acknowledgment of my Naturally Free Born Political Independence, establishes and acknowledges that I am free from such government’s dominion unless such government can present proof that I willingly and knowingly subjected myself to its dominion after being fully informed by such government of all the negative aspects and consequences of my purported voluntary subservience to its dominion.
RELEVANT IRREFUTABLE FACTS
GOVERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY
10. As established in the Thirteenth Amendment and acknowledged in the anonymous quotation in the reference herein above, in paragraph 8, it is irrefutably self evident that Governments are artificial political entities created by men.
11. It is likewise irrefutably self evident that the men creating such artificial political entities have no individual Naturally endowed authority to command the obedience, subservience or conformance of other men; and, no numeric combination of such creators can reasonably enable them to create such authority based merely on their mutual association. Zero + zero = zero, no matter how many zeros are added, the total will always be zero!
12. On July 4, 1776, the British subjects living in the Thirteen British Colonies of North America revolted against their British Monarch, King George III, and deposed him, thereby each of such former British subjects immediately became individually free and politically independent and politically sovereign over their own individual persons, with none of them, or any combination thereof, having any authority to command the obedience, subservience or conformance of any other; and, no combination of such men could reasonably create authority to command others to obey or conform to the command(s) of any such combination, without the voluntary submission of those “others”. See ¶ 8, herein above.
AS AN ASIDE:
13. In regard to voting, unless all those voting individually agree prior to any vote, to individually submit themselves to the outcome, such outcome cannot reasonably require the conformance of any non-voter or voter who did not agree o conform prior thereto; consider this question:
“How many men voting, would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off an unwilling woman?”
14. The foregoing question clearly and irrefutably establishes that voting is a criminal act any time the outcome is purported to require the conformance of the otherwise unwilling! (Except as provided in the 14th Amendment, whereunder a fully informed voluntary intentional claim of United States citizenship would negate any criminality of the application of vote outcome to U.S. citizen non-voters, as will be addressed herein below).
BACK TO THE PRESENTATION OF
15. In writing the Preamble to the Federal Constitution, the Framers thereof established and set forth therein, the purpose of the Constitution, which was/is (as stated therein), to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Themselves and Their Posterity. Surreptitiously therein the Founders created the Sovereign Political Class as being the People of the United States (pay attention to the words!).
16. The Preamble (in relevant part):
“We the People of the United States … in order to Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
17. This wording is self evidently both limiting and exclusionary, pertaining only to the People of the United States and THEIR Posterity, and does NOT mention or include or imply the inclusion of the application of such protection to any individual(s) who might, through naturalization or otherwise, volunteer themselves into the lower political status of citizen of the United States, being a subservient political status, likewise surreptitiously created in the Constitution by the Founders, in Section Two of Article One thereof (pay attention to the words!). But the unlimited degree of subservience inherent in claiming United States citizenship was NOT established or defined until 1868, in the 14th Amendment.
18. Although the word “People” does not usually carry any inherent political implication (as does the word “citizen”), the word “People” can be imbued with a political meaning when used in a context intentionally formulated for that purpose, as is self evidently the intention in this instance in the Constitution’s Preamble. (Pay attention to the words!).
19. It is significant here to again take notice that the Founders specifically reserved the application of the Constitution’s securing of the Blessings of Liberty to Themselves and THEIR Posterity – NOT the posterity of any other heritage linage! This specifically excludes any and all immigrants and their posterity and even excludes the posterity of those born of the People Class who might elect to unknowingly and unintentionally “voluntarily” designate themselves as citizens of the United States. (Pay attention to the words!).
20. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution proclaims Natural Law as being part of the Constitution, being that the government of the United States and the governments of the Several States, have no authority to command, in any manner, the subservience of any individual, political or otherwise. That is, “Involuntary servitude shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. Please note that the Thirteenth Amendment does NOT prohibit voluntary servitude; i.e., voluntary citizenship. See ¶ 8, hereof.
21. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution does NOT declare that anyone born in the United States to automatically becomes a citizen of the United States due simply to such birth (again, pay attention to the words!).
22. The Fourteenth Amendment does define United States citizenship (such citizens being those persons who have been naturalized or, if born in the United States, have individually intentionally taken some “voluntary” official action, or un-intentionally and unknowingly done so, causing themselves to thereby become “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), and such Amendment declares the duties of such citizens, to pay the public debt, without question (in the Fourth Article thereof) (again, pay attention to the words!).
23. The above constitute irrefutable historical evidence that the government of this country was created by ordinary men who had no ability to imbue the government they created with authority in excess of that which they were, individually, Naturally endowed, which would enable them to command the political subservience of other men; therefore, in order for other men to become subservient, such other men would have to be, in some manner, enticed or indoctrinated, to volunteer themselves into or cause themelves to believe they were born naturally into political subservience.
MODERN INDUCEMENT OF SUBSERVIENCE
ADDITIONAL IRREFUTABLE FACTS
EXPOSING FRAUDULENT INDOCTRINATION
24. When born human babies have no knowledge or frame of reference in regard to any issue what-so-ever; that is, such babies have no cognitive ability to take note of when they were born, where they were born or who their own mother was, nor to be aware even, that they had just been born or what their gender is, or that there are gender differences;
25. That is, due to the foregoing, no one, no matter their age , intelligence or education, has any ability to “know” “who they are” or where they originated from!
26. Additionally, neither do such human babies or small children, or even including adolescents and teenagers, have any frame of reference to enable them to determine whether what they are being taught or exposed to in public schools or elsewhere, is good for them or merely good for those “adults” who are in a position to indoctrinate such young humans into a mind-set of political subservience.
27. This condition is irrevocably true and continues no matter the age of the individual or what information the individual becomes aware of later in life. To “believe” is NOT equivalent to knowledge obtained by cognitive observation or actual intelligent participation.
28. No human baby has/had any ability to consider or choose “his” own name.
29. No human baby has/had any ability to participate in the creation of a certificate recording or registering his own birth.
30. No human baby has/had any ability to file a certificate of his birth with a government office.
31. It is widely known and recognized that the parents of human babies are most usually, the persons who determine the name by which their new-born children shall be known.
32. It is widely known and recognized that the creators of intellectual property are the natural owners of such property.
33. Based on the foregoing, it is thereupon self evident that upon the parents creation of a name by which their new-born child shall be known, that the parents are (or would be if they were alerted to this fact by an honest government), the Natural owner of such name (the parents would be the owner of the name, NOT owners of the child – children are NOT property).
34. No human baby or minor child has/had any ability to own any property other than the parts of their own body.
35. Nature provides all human babies with arms, legs, fingers and toes, all attached to and are clearly the property of the baby.
36. No human baby has/had any ability to legally own the name entered on a certificate of his birth by his parents or whomever else may have conjured up such name.
37. Nature does NOT provide or attach a name to any human baby.
38. That is, human babies have no ability to own the name entered on a certificate created in regard to their birth, if any.
39. Birth certificates recorded with the government do not include a claim of ownership of the name entered thereon by the parents; nor do such birth certificates include any contact information enabling the state to contact the parents at a later time in regard to the parents ownership of, or abandoning of the parents ownership of the name entered on such birth certificates.
40. All Fifty of the States of the United States have a statute pertaining to the states disposition of abandoned property. In the state where I live, California, there is such an abandoned property statute.
41. The abandoned property “catch all” section generally states, whereunder the state of California becomes the owner of all abandoned property not specified in any preceding section.
42. This “catch all” section would include all names entered on birth certificates filed in California, after a period of time of years after such birth certificates are filed with the government of California.
HOW STATES ATTAINS “VOLUNTARY”
SUBSERVIENCE OF FREE BORN PEOPLE
THROUGH FRAUDULENT INDOCTRINATION
43. In the government’s indoctrination centers, euphemistically known as public schools, children are fraudulently indoctrinated to believe that they were born into United States citizenship, contrary to the provisions of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution.
44. And likewise contrary to the Natural politically independent status of every person; imbued into them upon their birth; (please see ¶ 8, herein above), And;
45. During the course of their development and “education”, the government “schools” indoctrinate children to believe such children must present “their” birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license in order to operate the child’s own automobile (or other vehicle).
46. Upon attaining the age of sixteen years, the child, then a young adult, but none the less, still an adult, old enough to be held accountable by society for his conduct, and his voluntary entered into agreements, or contracts, the young adult presents himself to the government’s local driver license issuing office to apply for the issuance to him by the state, of a driver license, or so he has been fraudulently indoctrinated to believe in the government’s indoctrination centers, AKA: “public schools”.
47. Unknown and intentionally unrevealed to the young adult at that time, is the fact that the state at that time, has no authority to require the young adult to procure a driver license in order for the young adult to operate his own automobile or other vehicle.
48. This is true because at that moment of time Natural Law (as set forth in explanatory writing cited herein above in paragraph 8), and as clearly embodied in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment, deprives the state of any authority to enforce any such requirement on Free Born individuals who have not, as adults, voluntarily agreed to be subservient to the government of the State, or subservient to the government of the United States.
49. The question here is:
“Why does the government require a driver license applicant to present a birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license when there is no information on any birth certificate that can serve to connect such document to any specific individual?”
50. Additionally prompted question: “As there is no information on such document that would be required in order for the state to create a positive identification of the individual, to enable the individual to be later positively identified, so why then the State’s birth certificate presentation requirement?”
51. The forgoing questions are especially relevant when it is considered and acknowledged that the ownership of the most significant information on a birth certificate, being the name entered thereon, is most certainly not the legally owned property of the driver license applicant.
52. Under the rules established under the State’s abandoned property statutes, the ownership of the name by the creator has been abandoned due to lack of maintaining any official ownership claim, which makes it most likely that ownership of the name has been assumed by the state under the state’s disposition of abandoned property statute; again, in California, where I live, the state’s ownership of the name seemingly occurs a specific number of years after the document is recorded with the state.
53. Could it be more clearly self evident that the state’s requirement of the presentation of “his” birth certificate by a driver license applicant, where the state has become the apparent owner of the name entered thereon, that such requirement constitutes the means whereby the state surreptitiously causes the applicant to unknowingly apply to the state to issue him a franchise license to use such seemingly state owned name, whereby such name is deemed to thereby be the applicant’s “True Legal Name”; causing the applicant to have unknowingly volunteered himself to thereafter be acting under an artificial persona and thereby caused himself to become subservient to the state in every activity when acting in the role of that artificial persona.
54. This is a condition commonly known as “citizenship”, but not legally established as such. What this driver license “ceremony” actually does is establish a “voluntary” subservient contractual relationship of the former free born individual to the state, as a licensed franchisee.
55. By using this surreptitious procedure, the State has gained the “voluntary” subservience of the individual without the state’s open and notorious violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Federal Thirteenth Amendment.
56. Additionally, this is clearly an intentional flagrant violation by all Fifty of the Several States, of the self evident principle set forth and explained in paragraph 8, herein above, and as embodied in the 13th Amendment.
HOW THIS APPLIES TO ME
IN REGARD TO THE IRS
57. The Federal Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude acknowledges that everyone born on the land area of North America, claimed by the United States government to be under its political dominion, are born free and clear of any political subservience to any political entity, as does the anonymous explanatory writing in paragraph 8 herein above.
58. In order for me to (at this time), be subservient to the government of the United States and its IRS, the government of the United States must present its proof that I knowingly and willingly, having been fully informed of all of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, and then intentionally gave up the free and independent status I was born with, to willingly surrender myself to the political whimsy of the government of the United States or the state wherein I live.
59. It is not incumbent upon me to prove I am not subject to the IRS, it is for the IRS to prove I am.
60. No statute enacted by Congress can establish such condition; and neither can any Section of the IRS Code, as none of the foregoing can apply to me until AFTER written proof that I knowingly and willingly, intentionally volunteered myself into such condition is presented to me by the IRS, from its existing files and records.
61. Moreover, any purported proof presented by the IRS must be supported by the sworn testimony of a real live eyewitness, who can and will testify as having personally witnessing my intentional voluntary act of subservience, after such witness observed a government officer explain to me what I was giving up and what all the negative consequences were that are incumbent in United States citizenship.
62. I claim my Political Status to be of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776, being among the former subjects of King George III, who rebelled against and denounced said King on that Glorious Day!
63. As a member of such Posterity, I claim as my Common Law right of inheritance, that the Government of the United States must accord me my right to live here free from government interference, on the land secured by my antecedents successful rebellion, and on such other land acquired as a direct result thereof, which shall include all Fifty of the Several States, and all island possessions of the United States, but shall not be limited thereto.
64. As for my proof of such status, I have no proof other than my existence here and my claim thereof. No person can claim their origin, not any staff member of the IRS or any justices of the Supreme Court or even the President of the United States. Our mere claim of out origin and status is all that is required. The presentation of a birth certificate proves nothing as the person presenting it cannot prove such document was created in regard to their birth. Such documents are accepted as proof only because it serves the dishonest purpose of the state to do so.
65. Additionally, as the government of the United States and the government of California have conspired together to fraudulently indoctrinate me, in order to fraudulently deny me my Natural Political independence, I claim, under the Law of Necessity, my right to continue to use any and all documentation and information issued to me by either or any government agency of any and every description, such as a driver license, Social Security Number, Passports and/or any and all other similar item, which may be “required” by any monetary institution or professional association or employer or police or sheriff’s entities, or to enable me to travel to and return from any foreign country.
66. This application of the Law of Necessity is recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case, Holy Trinity Church vs. United States 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226, Feb. 29, 1892, wherein SCOTUS opined that when the strict application of the letter of a statute would result in an absurd outcome, such statute must be construed in a manner to avoid the absurdity.
67. I freely acknowledge that I am subject to be held accountable for any violation of the Common Law crimes of rape, robbery, murder, or trespass, in any Common Law Court created by my Common Law Peers (but NOT in or under any statutory court of any nature what-so-ever, created under any manner of statute by any political government of the United States or by any of its member states).
Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion,
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640-3618
November 16, 2015
Magistrate Court of Los Angeles County
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Executive and Judicial Branches
Edward Reidhead, Wrongly Accused,
(In Lieu of Motion)
OF CHALLENGE TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA’ S
POLITICAL OR CONTRACTUAL JURISDICTION
OVER THIS WRONGLY ACCUSED
THAT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PRESENT PROOF OF ITS JURISDICTION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S INHERENT FAILURE
TO PRESENT SUCH PROOF SHALL CONSTITUTE
ITS AVERMENT THAT ALL CHARGES AGAINST THIS
WRONGLY ACCUSED WERE AND ARE INVALID AB INITIO
Let STATE OF CALIFORNIA and this Honorable Court be advised; The presentation herein and references to the forty-five (45) appellate court cases pertaining to and establishing proper protocols in regard to procedures once jurisdiction has been challenged are not offered herein by this Wrongly Accused as any basis for his Challenge to the jurisdiction of STATE of CALIFORNIA over this Wrongly Accused.
The purpose of such presentment is to guide STATE OF CALIFORNIA and this Honorable Court as to the fact that once such jurisdictional Challenge is entered on the record, any and all previous jurisdiction, of any and every imaginable style or basis is suspended by this Basic Fundamental Jurisdictional Challenge
45 Case Citations
1. “A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties.” Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
2. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments Â§ 25, pp. 388-89.
3. A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972).
4. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
5. “Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
6. “A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
7. “The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal”, VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )
8. “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).
9. “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. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026.
10. “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
11. “The burden shifts to the court [or charging entity] to prove jurisdiction. ” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416.
12. “Court [or charging entity] must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150.
13. “The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven [by the charging entity].” 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
14. “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.
15. “Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985).
16. “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.
17. “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
18. “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.
19. “The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.
20. A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970). Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. Â§ 1785.
21. Challenge to court’s jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss, Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d. 22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984.
22. Since jurisdiction is fundamental, and it is jurisdiction alone that gives a court power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before it, jurisdiction must be continuing in the court throughout the proceedings [meaning at the time charges were lodged], Re. Cavitt, 254 P.599
23. Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction [of he charging entity], Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P,27.
24. “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court [or the charging entity] 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.
25. “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear [due to lack of jurisdiction of charging entity] is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
26. “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.
27. “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 93 4, 937.
28. “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.
29. “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.
30. A motion to set aside a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction is not subject to the time limitations of Rule 60(b). See Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986).
31. A judgment is void, and therefore subject to relief under Rule 60(b)(4), only if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction or in circumstances in which the court’s action amounts to a plain usurpation of power constituting a violation of due process. United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990)
32. Where Rule 60(b)(4) is properly invoked on the basis that the underlying judgment is void, “‘relief is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory.'” Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 n.8 (10th Cir. 1979)).
33. In order for a judgment to be void, there must be some jurisdictional defect in the court’s authority to enter the judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306, 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983); Dragotoiu, 133 Idaho at 647, 991 P.2d at 379.
34. A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
35. “Though not specifically alleged, defendant’s challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under FRCP Rule 60(b)(4).” Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), aff’d, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982).
36. “A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time.” 261 Kan. at 862.
37. Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the “reasonable” time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit.
38. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). “On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it.” Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, supra, at 453. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter “spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States” and is “inflexible and without exception.” Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884).Cited in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 US 83 – Supreme Court 1998.
39. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment,” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
40. “An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness”. (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647).
41. “Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court” -Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).
42, “Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of [a] case.” United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752,
43. “Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct.
44, “No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2, “The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial.” Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.
45. “Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record.” Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People’s Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.
Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion,
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CALIFORNIA 90640
December 14, 2015