Motions vs. Affidavits . It is ultra important to understand that you must head everything you submit in writing with Affidavit of Fact, because they can, and they do deny a Motion, as motions are discretionary and applicable to colorable courts, ordinances, statutes and codes, but not to LAW. Further it applies to corporate, or colorable people (negroes, coloreds, blacks, whites, etc.) because it is a discretionary action that can be and usually is denied! denied! denied! . Note: As in a meeting, a motion requires a second and can be denied without even being looked at, as these lower courts often do. An Affidavit of fact cannot lawfully be denied, and must be visited and either answered or rebutted, otherwise it stands as Truth, or, if it requires an answer by the court, it creates an injunction, and the court cannot lawfully move forward until answered. If not answered the matter must be dismissed due to lack of due process of law, lack of prosecution. . The utilization of Affidavit MUST BE THE ONLY FORM OF COMMUNICATION with the Court by a Sovereign or any person acting in a Lawful manner. . NOTE: NOTE: NOTE: Although a Motion is the proper form in a proper Court, as opposed to Colorable Courts, most people are in fact dealing with and challenging the Jurisdiction of the Inferior Courts, or COLORABLE Courts, who are NOT acting Lawfully or properly, and because a Motion ADMITS to the Jurisdiction of the Court, and a Motion is DISCRETIONARY, the Court chooses not to honor the Motion, or not to Second it, thus it is DENIED. . One must become sufficient enough in Law, and can, and does, come into the Court with their flags, and fully know that while they could be Amicus Curae (a friend of the Court) they cant be amicus curae if the Court is an unlawful court. How can they be a friend of an unlawful court? They must be partial when it comes to colorable law. They can enter the Court as Consul which is secured in the Constitution as your Right to Consul. (Article III, Section 2 and in Vienna Convention, Article 36). In that position they are able to set the Court and the proceedings in order within the bounds of Law, by their knowledge and their very being there in Special Appearance (not general appearance). Special Appearance means they are NOT there in submission to the jursidiction of the Court. General appearance means they are submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. How can you submit to a court that has no jursidiction to adjudicate in the first place? Being present in Special Appearance means you are not there to be adjudicated upon, but only to clear up a matter(s). Once we get this innerstanding, we may have possibly reached the goal for all Nationals, as they ARE THE LAW! They are truly Law Abiding. The point, and the current challenge, is to know What Law Is and What Law Is Not. Special Appearance vs. General Appearance 1. If a defendant by his appearance insists only upon objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person and confines his appearance for that purpose only, he has made a “special appearance,” but if he raises any other question, or asks any relief which can only be granted upon hypothesis that court had jurisdiction of his person, he has made a “general appearance.” Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Harrah, 248 P.2d 814, 815 2. While a special appearance may be made to attack court’s jurisdiction over defendant’s person, joining therewith of attack on plaintiff’s affidavit renders appearance a “general appearance” waiving all objections to such jurisdiction. Sowl v. Union Pac. R.Co., 72 F.Supp. 542, 543 3. A defendant, who files an answer to the merits or in any manner attacks plaintiff’s case, thereby, makes a “general appearance,” and gives the court full jurisdiction over the person of such defendant. Jefferson Park Realty Corp. v. Kelley Glover & Vale, 12 N.E.2d 977, 979 4. A voluntary appearance whereby a defendant obtains an extension of time in which to plead is a “general appearance.” Youngblood v. Bright, 91 S.E.2d 559, 561 5. A special appearance by defendant for purpose of filing a motion to dismiss restraining order and bill to enjoin collection of judgment did not constitute a “general appearance.” McFarlane v. McFarlane, 293 N.W. 895, 897 6. If an appearance be for purpose of objecting to jurisdiction of court and is confined solely to such question, appearance is “special,” but any action of defendant, except to object to jurisdiction which recognizes the action as in court, will amount to a “general appearance.” Guthrie v. Threlkeld Co., 192 P.2d 307, 308 7. A “general appearance” may be entered by making a motion, by filing an answer, and in other ways. Welter v. Bowman Dairy Co., 47 N.E.2d 739, 744 8. Where defendant filed an answer, it made a “general appearance,” and thus conferred jurisdiction of the court over itself from the date of the appearance. Hart v. Rigler, 295 N.W. 308, 310 9. A general demurrer, filed without protestation is a “general appearance.” Pacific Selling Co. v. Albright-Prior Co., 59 S.E. 468, 469 10. An appearance made only for the purpose of moving to dismiss an action on one of the grounds specified in section of Code of Civil Procedures is made only on the hypothesis that the party is not properly before the court and is a “special appearance.” Frohman v. Bonelli, 204 P.2d 890, 893 11. A party who appears for the purpose of applying to have proceedings set aside for want of jurisdiction waives nothing by such appearance. McCaslin v. Camp, 26 Mich. 390, 391 12. A party’s appearance with a statement that he appeared “specially” is a “special appearance,” though no objection to the jurisdiction was specified. Marr v. Cook, 111 N.W. 116, 117 13. A “special appearance” is an appearance for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction, to the proof, or to some other specific matter, without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court as to any other matter. National Furnace Co. v. Moline Malleable Iron Works, 18 F. 863, 864 14. A “special appearance” must be made for purpose of urging jurisdictional objections only and must be confined to a denial of jurisdiction. Blake v. Union Ins. Exchange, 46 N.E.2d 141, 142 15. An appearance for any purpose other than questioning the jurisdiction of the court is “general” and not “special” notwithstanding that the appearance is accompanied by the claim that the appearance is only special. The Ucayali, 47 F.Supp. 203, 206 16. A demand for a copy of the complaint constitutes neither a “general appearance” nor a “special appearance.” Lisle v. Palmer, 29 N.Y.S.2d 975, 976 17. Party desiring to challenge jurisdiction over his person waives “special appearance” and enters “general appearance,” by calling into action powers of court over subject-matter of controversy. Application of Goorich, 68 P.2d 597 18. The appearance of an attorney for the sole purpose of moving to dismiss the action for irregularities in the proceedings is a “special appearance,” and the right to dismiss may be insisted on. Woodard v. Tri-State Milling Co., 55 S.E. 70, 71 19. An appearance is “special” when its sole purpose is to question court’s jurisdiction. Behr v. Duling, 260 N.W. 281 20. Appearance for sole purpose of challenging jurisdiction over person is “special appearance.” Robinson v. Glover, 244 N.W. 322, 323
Posted on: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:40:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015