CHALLENGE JURISDICTION PROPERLY 1st claim and fact Plaintiff/the court (challenges the jurisdiction under Article 1 sec. 8 clause 17, & demands to know the nature & cause of the action) also pursuant to Indiana trial rule 12 .(B) (1) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, 12 (B) (2) Lack of jurisdiction over the natural/private person,. Since, the plaintiff/court is challenging the jurisdiction, of the Magistrate. So plaintiff decided to see what case law on this matter denotes. (Basso v Utah power & light company 495, F 2d 906 910) Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and must be proven not assumed. (Latana v Hopper 102 2d 188) (Chicago v New York 37 F SUPP 150) The court must prove on the record all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. Further more the following laws have not been met or upheld to allow jurisdiction please see the following. 1. No information/charging document has been lawfully issued to obtain the appearance of any Defendant in this matter as required pursuant to IC 35-34-1-2. Without the existence of lawful information/charging document, plaintiffs/the court makes only a special appearance before this Magistrate to inform the Magistrate of error in this matter. 2. plaintiffs/court has not been served an information/charging document supported by any first hand material fact witness, affidavit of probable cause, or ANY instrument from which any reasonable natural/private person could determine probable cause, thereby initiating the courts jurisdiction in compliance with IC 35-34-1-2 and in compliance with the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment protections. See State v. Kaahaaina, 2001 Haw. App. LEXIS 204 (Haw. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2001) Holding that the State failed to properly initiate the criminal proceeding against the defendant because the defendant was never formally charged orally or by written complaint supported by sworn statement or affidavit and thus failed to initiate jurisdiction in the District Court. 3. Without sufficient and lawful process as directed per IC 35-34-1-2; at minimum, the courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked and, therefore, no matter is before this court and this matter is void AB INITIO. This failure to follow IC 35-34-1-2 violated the Defendant’s due process rights. See State v. Kaahaaina, 2001 Haw. App. LEXIS 204 (Haw. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2001) Holding that defendant was improperly charged because the information charging document used by the officer failed to comply with HRS § 805-1 and HRPP Rule 7 (d). 4. This state court is without jurisdiction, precludes the judge from making an offer of a plea to the defendant in error without, in so doing, putting fraud upon the Magistrates court.. 5. The Prosecutor in this matter knew or should have known that without the issuance of sufficient process, there is no charge or complaint against plaintiff. 6. The man/woman acting as judge in this matter, who has had this matter brought before him/her in this court, knew or should have known that the Magistrates court is patently, unambiguously, and wholly without jurisdiction because the insufficiency of process used in this matter precludes initiating the court’s jurisdiction. As well article 1 section 8 clause 14 says clearly the government makes the rules for the government not the people. 7. In light of the facts before the Magistrates court, the person acting as judge must act minister ally and should, sua sponte, dismiss or remove this matter from the court with prejudice as it is void AB INITIO. Therefore, the Montgomery County Superior Court 1, State of Indiana is given mandatory judicial notice under rule 201 of the FRCP by plaintiffs/court, in light of the foregoing lawful and valid facts, that there is no matter before this court and that any and all parties who pursue any trial of this matter are acting in fraud and misrepresentation and in violation of clearly established law, procedures, rules of evidence, and of the fact, the state court, is in error.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:34:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015