Special Appearance Affidavit to Challenge Jurisdiction

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
Post Reply
MyCountryIsLost
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:44 pm

Special Appearance Affidavit to Challenge Jurisdiction

Post by MyCountryIsLost » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:28 pm

It's a beginning for all the case law I could find relevant to challenging Jurisdiction.
If people only knew how powerful challenging jurisdiction can be. This is a compilation of cites/case law and info I've found on challenging jurisdiction.

NOTE: One of the best ways I've found to challenge it is to A. Do it right away B. Do it via affidavit of special appearance, so you never have to step foot into their court room (thereby acquiescing/surrendering to their jurisdiction and giving them all the ammo they need to claim that you surrendered to their jurisdiction by walking into their court....) so make a "Special Appearance by Affidavit", which is designed to challenge their assumed/presumed jurisdiction. Until you challenge it, they're going to claim it.

This is a rough doc. I haven't used it yet, so know that up front. BUT...it's a compilation of a LOT of the data/info you will need to create your own. See below...use what you can, if you can, for whatever purposes you can/find useful. If you think it's garbage...then don't use it. It's just information...how you choose to use it is completely up to you. I'm telling you what I think it could be used for and how I think one might approach a Special Appearance by Affidavit to challenge the courts subject-matter and/or in personam jurisdictional claims over you for simply traveling in your private property.

See below:

1 more thing...a Special Appearance is specific to challenging jurisdictional issues. IF you raise ANY OTHER ARGUMENTS or POINTS about ANY OTHER THING RELEVANT TO THE CASE, the court will assume you have then, in that moment stopped appearing specially and will then see you as appearing generally. Important fact to know if you ever plan to use an Affidavit of Special Appearance to keep your physical self out of their courtroom and keep the case on paper...that you file, that speaks FOR YOU, because you wrote it and filed it for the court record. Beyond that, its good to shut up unless you REALLY know what you're doing because everything is a trap of language to lure you into some sort of tacit or implied consent or jurisdictional consent.


Notice of Special Appearance by Affidavit -
Challenge of jurisdiction under Title 5 USC 556(d)-[burden of proof is on the government.]

Quaelibet Jurisdictio Cancellos Suos Habet
'Every jurisdiction has its own limits.' Jenk. Cent. Cas. 139.

“A special appearance is an appearance solely for the purpose of testing the jurisdiction.”
Bailey v. Schrada, 34 Ind. 261; Huff v. Shepard, 58 Mo. 246

A special appearance is for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of service or the jurisdiction of the court;
State v. Huller, 23 N.M. 306, 168 P. 528, 534, 1 A.L.R. 170.


COMES NOW RESPONDENT/AFFIANT, Johnny:Joe Sixpack, herein after called "Respondent", in pro per, sui juris, NOT a pro se party with this Affidavit of Special Appearance.

Respondent is appearing before this court Specially, and not Generally, in Pro Per ("in one's own proper person"), Sui Juris, regarding case #: xxxxxxxxxx, which is based on a traffic citation from SomeCity P.D. dated SomeDate/1999.

This Special Appearance by Affidavit is for the purposes of challenging the courts 16 1/2 year presumption and assumption of jurisdiction.

I hereby declare, reserve, claim and retain ALL rights and defects in process. I claim and reserve all of my rights under UCC 1-308. I further declare that I am a Man and NOT a 'legal fiction' I am not a member of the political or legal society over which the court has jurisdiction, and I do not agree to be characterized as a legal fiction.

I, Johnny:Joe: Sixpack, am a living Man. Is there a man or woman who has a claim against me?


1. Challenge Negates Jurisdiction
By this Affidavit, petitioner challenges the subject-matter and in personam jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, this court now is without jurisdiction.

"The presumption that officials have done their duty is limited by the rule that a presumption cannot be based upon a mere presumption, and will not supply proof of independent, substantive facts, such as that a deficiency judgment was entered and docketed by the clerk of the court. "
Mahoney v Boise Title & T. Co. (1926) 116 Okla 202, 244 P 170

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.

"Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven."
Hagans v. Levine 415 US 533 note 3
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.

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S.Ct. 768

“The law provides that once State / Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.”
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 CA2d 751.211 P2s 389

"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 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.
McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. Origins found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308

"It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state such as voluntary subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the court."
Pipe Line v. Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v. Benson 883 US 22

"Therefore, it is necessary that the record present the fact establishing the jurisdiction of the tribunal"
Lowe v. Alexander 15C 296; People v. Board of Delegates of S.F. Fire Dept 14 C 279


2. Jurisdiction Not Within Discretion of Court
Petitioner reminds this court that the matter if jurisdiction is not a matter within the discretion of this court.

“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 court “generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in the suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) . . . .”
Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31 (2007)

"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

"The proponent of the rule has the burden of proof.."
Title 5 U.S.C. §556(d)


3. Jurisdiction Cannot Be Waived
The principles of waiver, consent, and estoppel do not apply to jurisdictional issues—the actions of the litigants cannot vest a district court with jurisdiction above the limitations provided by the Constitution and Congress.

“If the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”
Norman v. Zieber, 3 Orat202-03

4. Jurisdiction Can Be Raised At Any time
Federal Rule 12(h)(3) states that, “f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F2d 906, 910.

"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)

“The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.”
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (citations omitted) (jurisdiction upheld); see also Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004)

On appeal—even for the first time at the Supreme Court—a party may attack jurisdiction after the entry of judgment in the district court.
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).

Even the party that had invoked the district court’s jurisdiction can argue on appeal, to avoid an adverse judgment, that the district court lacked jurisdiction.
13 Wright & Miller § 3522, pp. 122–23

"Where the question of jurisdiction in the court of the person, the subject matter, or the place where the crime was committed can be raised, in any stage of a criminal proceeding; it is never presumed, but must always be proved; and it is never waved by the respondent."
U.S. v. Rogers, District Court Ark.,23 Fed 658 1855

5. Acts by Court a Nullity
Petitioner notices this court that any action taken by the court absent proof of is a nullity.

"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.

"Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack."
Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.

“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.


6: LACK OF JURISDICTION: No witness, no facts, no jurisdiction.

“There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.”
Joyce v. U.S., 474 F2d 215.

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ´assumed´; it must be proved to exist!"
Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S.Ct. 768

“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.


OTHER CASE LAW ON JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES

In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”
Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03

"Where a person is not at the time a licensee, neither the agency, nor any official has any jurisdiction of said person to consider or make any order. One ground as to want of jurisdiction was, accused was not a licensee and it was not claimed that he was."
O'Neil v. Dept Prof. & Vocations 7 CA 2d 398; Eiseman v. Daugherty 6 CA 783

“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).

“Court 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

"Where the question of jurisdiction in the court of the person, the subject matter, or the place where the crime was committed can be raised, in any stage of a criminal proceeding; it is never presumed, but must always be proved; and it is never waved by the respondent."
U.S. v. Rogers, District Court Ark.,23 Fed 658 1855

"Therefore, it is necessary that the record present the fact establishing the jurisdiction of the tribunal"
Lowe v. Alexander 15C 296; People v. Board of Delegates of S.F. Fire Dept 14 C 279


"It is basic in our law that an administrative agency may act only within the area of jurisdiction marked out for it by law. If an individual does not come within the coverage of the particular agency's enabling legislation the agency is without power to take any action which affects him."
Endicott v. Perkins, 317 US 501


“If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such preceding an inferior court, and not aided by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.”
1 Smith's Leading Cases, 816

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.”
Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652


JURISDICTION

I am here by way of Special Appearance to challenge jurisdiction and to have this matter dismissed.

This court has assumed jurisdiction over me for almost 17 years. I believe this court lacks jurisdiction.
It's about time the court proves the stance it's taken for almost 17 years.

1. I want to see the supposed jurisdiction duly placed into evidence. In the copy of the file I have it is nonexistent.
2. I don't believe this court can produce a competent witness against me almost 17 years after the citation was issued.
3. I don't believe this court can produce the citations' issuing officer after almost 17 years.
4. I don't believe this court has a valid cause of action against me.
5. I don't believe this court has any evidence against me, except a citation that is almost 17 years old, signed under threat, duress and coercion (threat of arrest, incarceration).

This court has no evidence against me.

This court must prove jurisdiction.

WHEREAS, respondent petitions this court for dismissal of this action and release/removal of the bench warrant that has been open for respondents arrest for 16 1/2 years.


================================================================
NOTE: This is just a rough draft. I have not used it yet. I'm still working on it....but thought this to be a useful compilation of sites/case law that can be used to challenge jurisdiction. It's just a compilation of information relevant to challenging of jurisdiction. You should still research the cases to determine validity.

I hope my fellow brothers and sisters find this useful. Peace and good luck getting the chains from around your own neck, I'm still working on it.
snoop4truth
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:08 pm

Re: Special Appearance Affidavit to Challenge Jurisdiction

Post by snoop4truth » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:43 pm

Hello MyCountryIsLost,

Did you know that for traffic ticket purposes, "THE STATE" is all of the people residing within state borders speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives?

Did you know that the second you enter or remain in a state, "THE STATE" (consisting of all of the people residing within state borders speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives) ALREADY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER YOU.... NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO?

Did you know that all the "THE STATE" has to prove to have jurisdiction over you IS TO PROVE THAT YOU WERE IN THE STATE AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE?

Did you know that this presence within the state is established by the police officer testifying that he stopped you within the state for an offense he witnessed you commit within the state?

So, regardless of whether you make a "special appearance" or not, if the court finds you were within the state at the time of the offense, THE STATE WILL HAVE JURISDICITION OVER YOU....NO MATTER WHAT YOU (OR ANYONE ELSE) SAYS OR DOES.

Did you know that "THE STATE" (consisting of all of the people residing within state borders collectively speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives) does not need YOUR INDIVIDUAL "CONSENT" to arrest you, prosecute you or to obtain jurisdiction over you?

Did you know that "THE STATE" OBTAINS JURISDICTION OVER YOU BY THE COLLECTIVE "CONSENT" OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE RESIDING IN THE STATE AND THAT THE STATE DOES NOT NEED YOUR INDIVIDUAL "CONSENT" TO ENFORCE ITS LAWS?

Did you know that the terms, "WE [a PLURAL term] the PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term]", ARE PLURAL TERMS AND REFER TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, AND DO NOT REFER TO YOU THE MERE INDIVIDUAL?

Did you know that in the phrase, "consent of the GOVERNED", the term "GOVERNED" IS A PLURAL TERM (since everyone collectively is governed) AND REFERS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE RESIDING IN THE STATE, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, AND DOES NOT REFER TO YOU THE MERE INDIVIDUAL?

Do you actually believe that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE WOULD COLLECTIVELY ELECT LAWMAKERS TO MAKE THEIR LAWS, COLLECTIVELY ELECT THEIR TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS (city police chief, county sheriff, state governor), ELECT JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS TO HANDLE THE COURTROOM MATTERS.....ONLY TO SIMULTANEOUSLY GRANT YOU THE INDIVIDUAL PERROGATIVE AND THE ABILITY TO AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY FOR VIOLATING THOSE LAWS WITHIN STATE BORDERS?

Read the information below. Someone is taking you for a very long ride.

EVERYTHING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, CARL MILLER, AND HIS TEACHINGS ON WACCOBB.NET https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthre ... d-Champion

EVERYTHING ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG AND HIS TEACHINGS ON PROJECTAVALON.NET.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...y-sheriff-hoax

EVERYTHING ABOUT ROD CLASS AND HIS TEACHINGS ON PROJECTAVALON.NET.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthr ... any-hoaxes

EVERYTHING ABOUT DEBORAH TAVARES AND HER TEACHINGS ON WACCOBB.NET. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...s-depopulation)

Best Regards,

Snoop
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Special Appearance Affidavit to Challenge Jurisdiction

Post by notmartha » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:48 pm

A collective of men has no more right to oppress than any individual man, and a legal fiction called "STATE", created by a collective of men, has even less right. Might does NOT make right.
Post Reply