Rule of Law Radio Archive Search Engine

Did you raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction?

because I maintain the judge had no subject matter jurisdiction,

And without subject matter jurisdiction, the judge is civilly prone.

Reason being, no criminal accusation by some credible person, no subject matter jurisdiction, period.

and that complaint gives the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction for the purpose of an examining trial and that purpose only.

So the court had no subject matter jurisdiction

You see, the judge didn't have subject matter jurisdiction

The most sure way is to go after subject matter jurisdiction.

Due process violation or subject matter jurisdiction makes it go away.

I look at that and the judge would have to say, I have no subject matter jurisdiction.

You see, when the policeman takes you before a magistrate, he has to present a criminal complaint to the magistrate in order to give the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction.

Then they have to serve, that invokes the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Then they have to serve process, that's the summits that has to be served on the person who's the defendant, the person supposed to pay the mortgage.

pointing out that the judgment should be vacated because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or there was no service of process sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

Yes, the subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged no matter how remote in history.

because basically at this point in time, if you can't raise an issue regarding a failure to confer subject matter jurisdiction

because it leaves the judge without subject matter jurisdiction

judge for acting without subject matter jurisdiction.

for acting without subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

He has no subject matter jurisdiction.

You can sue the judge if he acts without subject matter jurisdiction or in personam jurisdiction,

And for the judge for acting without subject matter jurisdiction, in effect, he is impersonating

They lose subject matter jurisdiction until a magistrate makes a probable cause determination.

Had a duty to determine that these factors existed before so that he could determine whether or not he had subject matter jurisdiction

subject matter jurisdiction, because it would stop all the proceedings.

It's an instant remedy. If the court has no subject matter jurisdiction, you should not be

If he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, he's impersonating a public official.

Judge, you do not have subject matter jurisdiction in this matter

Became a criminal trespasser and denied you subject matter jurisdiction

Get the court in any way the chance to deny themselves subject matter jurisdiction

and this court has subject matter jurisdiction.

The judge does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

I mean the lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Challenged subject matter jurisdiction, that's between you and the judge.

If the judge doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction,

Unless you can go back and show that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, you're

When it goes to subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged

So even if the judge had subject matter jurisdiction, if he violated a law relating to his office,

of the peace to ensure that she had, or he had, subject matter jurisdiction.

You cannot waive subject matter jurisdiction.

without subject matter jurisdiction.

citizen to give the court subject matter jurisdiction.

That's what they must have to give them subject matter jurisdiction and it gives you a accuser

But as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction, the judge is walking on thin ice here.

What I've been maintaining is that if a judge acts without subject matter jurisdiction,

or not he has subject matter jurisdiction.

So, if the judge doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, what is he?

This thing of asking the judge to rule that he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction,

It was the judge's duty to make sure he had subject matter jurisdiction before he attempted

or cost them subject matter jurisdiction.

He don't have subject matter jurisdiction, period,

If you don't want to be in court and you feel like they don't have subject matter jurisdiction,

subject matter jurisdiction

there's no subject matter jurisdiction

there is no subject matter jurisdiction

in order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction

Then, if you have been arrested with no warrant, it is the warrant based on a valid criminal complaint that gives the court subject matter jurisdiction.

He prepares a warrant, and it is that warrant that gives the court subject matter jurisdiction. Now, they would have had it if the warrant existed already, and the policeman could arrest on the warrant.

Absent a criminal complaint, there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

The first thing the judge has to do is show that he has subject matter jurisdiction

Before you even talk to the prosecutor, the judge, if he don't have subject matter jurisdiction, he's a criminal

Go to subject matter jurisdiction, make him prove that the law applies to you

If he doesn't, he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction

had no subject matter jurisdiction.

You can file the admission of no subject matter jurisdiction as judicial notice, not something

And he's done something really stupid, admitting that he had no subject matter jurisdiction.

Challenge to the jurisdiction based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction

because you'll maintain that the court never had subject matter jurisdiction, so everything is void.

Well, the judge is no different if he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction,

is whether or not he has subject matter jurisdiction.

We can charge the officer with acting without subject matter jurisdiction, impersonating a public official.

It appears they have a subject matter jurisdiction problem.

Do you do a subject matter jurisdiction challenge?

Here's why I say it goes to subject matter jurisdiction.

the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

that's the jurisdiction over the person as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction.

when he has not demonstrated his subject matter jurisdiction.

because he has no subject matter jurisdiction.

criminal affidavit the court is without subject matter jurisdiction and is has no more authority

Yeah, you can tell them what I do is I sue your behind when you act without subject matter jurisdiction

The officer had no subject matter jurisdiction, period.

Alfred, he came on to private property where he had no subject matter jurisdiction.

No subject matter jurisdiction.

I guarantee you, you can have it thrown out for like a subject matter jurisdiction simply

You disqualify the judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he's not a judge

I know you said that there's an issue with subject matter jurisdiction

Failure of due process causes them subject matter jurisdiction

And subject matter jurisdiction is a lot better because it cannot be waived

And subject matter jurisdiction must come first

The court has to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction

And there are a lot of ways for them to lose subject matter jurisdiction

Therefore, they are insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

Because if I don't raise an issue to subject matter jurisdiction

The court can act as if he has subject matter jurisdiction

But once I raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction

Then the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction until it proves that it has subject matter jurisdiction

Anyway, back to our original question of impersonal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction

So in going for subject matter jurisdiction I've got a lot of things I can deal with

Okay Randy, subject matter jurisdiction

Okay, so Randy, you were talking about subject matter jurisdiction

I will claim that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction

You can always attack subject matter jurisdiction, no matter how remote in history

appeal is filed that court loses subject matter jurisdiction and this act was a

The promise to appear gives them no subject matter jurisdiction.

This calls for writ of mandamus. The judge is disqualified. He has no subject matter jurisdiction,

to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with these

and that any law enforcement agency who would apprehend someone for this also lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

First, you have to get past subject matter jurisdiction.

You only argued that issue if you got past subject matter jurisdiction.

It's not my place to determine whether or not the petitioner has subject matter jurisdiction.

because if you didn't determine that you had subject matter jurisdiction,

No subject matter jurisdiction, no immunity from suit.

So subject matter jurisdiction falls by the wayside.

insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

And once the court is noticed that the pleadings failed to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction,

You've notified the judge that he has no subject matter jurisdiction.

If he attempts to continue to exercise subject matter jurisdiction,

You might look at preparing a countersuit and sue the judge himself, claiming he has no subject matter jurisdiction

But instead of simply challenging the subject matter jurisdiction, they went after the judge

to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. And the court's responsible

then the pleadings in the case are not sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

are insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,

It's not your place to determine whether or not the judge has subject matter jurisdiction.

Okay. First thing is they have lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 201.904 Texas Transportation Code.

So that's two grounds for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Does the judge have subject matter jurisdiction?

He's going to subject matter jurisdiction.

to invoke subject matter jurisdiction to the court, and subject matter jurisdiction can

Randy just said subject matter jurisdiction can always be challenged.

Rusk could have no subject matter jurisdiction

Could have no subject matter jurisdiction

Like in the order I put in, it is hereby ordered that the court is without subject matter jurisdiction and the cause is dismissed.

with the content. They never address the form. And as far as subject matter jurisdiction,

jurisdiction as a special appearance. If you challenge subject matter jurisdiction,

Yeah, now on subject matter jurisdiction, there's another caveat to that too. Do not argue the

directly or you are waiving the grant of subject matter jurisdiction. If you try to argue the facts

of the law you're being charged with, you are waiving subject matter jurisdiction. Do not do

Subject matter jurisdiction, if they don't have it, they never get it. Right. And nothing you can

there is no subject matter jurisdiction. It's just like when they cite a person rather than a man

I waive then subject matter jurisdiction? No. The first thing you ask them is what

subject matter jurisdiction. And generally, the merits of the case won't go to subject matter

jurisdiction. What will go to subject matter jurisdiction is where the crime was committed,

that the pleadings brought before the court are sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction

of service, the filing did not invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

And these are the things you deal with in subject matter jurisdiction. Do not let them go to the

where it is. So, what if in my first motion to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the

trick you past subject matter jurisdiction. When the judge asks you a question or when

And from subject matter jurisdiction details, in each ticket, you've only got one minor

a subject matter jurisdiction.

Oh, well, you're right there. There's no argument on that point. They're flawed from the get-go because, one, first thing, they're issued against the party to which they do not apply. Subject matter jurisdiction is nonexistent.

The eviction is not before the, if the matter of the eviction involves an amount of money greater than $10,000, you can make the claim that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

If it's me in the courtroom, when the court rules summarily that it has subject matter jurisdiction, I ask the bailiff to arrest the judge.

Therefore, the original pleadings are insufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in the court.

We want to keep looking for things that go to subject matter jurisdiction.

Is there anything in the pleadings or in the procedures that might go to subject matter jurisdiction?

If he doesn't have anything signed by the creditor, he has no standing to bring an issue before the court, goes to subject matter jurisdiction.

This goes to standing. You challenge subject matter jurisdiction of the court,

You move to disqualify the court. You move the court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

That goes to subject matter jurisdiction. It can be brought at any time.

So, learned counsel is going to understand subject matter jurisdiction.

Right, we were talking about subject matter jurisdiction. The petitioner has to have standing.

If he doesn't have standing, then he cannot invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Well, when it goes to subject matter jurisdiction, you remind him that absent subject matter jurisdiction,

Yes, and insufficient service goes to subject matter jurisdiction. Steve, you there?

Once you've challenged jurisdiction, the thing about jurisdiction, you cannot give the judge subject matter jurisdiction.

but you're coming before them at arm's length to ensure your rights until a determination of subject matter jurisdiction is made,

Subject matter jurisdiction, you cannot give them, period.

I have to have subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law.

or even the grand jury subject matter jurisdiction.

And I said, well, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this issue.

The court first has to have subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction within the territory, within the region, and now he has to have jurisdiction over you as the person.

If you live in a given county and there is a justice of the peace in that county, the justice of the peace has subject matter jurisdiction over class C misdemeanors.

So, they never invoked the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and it wasn't your

If you plead that the city is without subject matter jurisdiction for whatever reason it is,

I was wondering if they could move to dismiss for like a subject matter jurisdiction.

And we also tried to challenge subject matter jurisdiction.

And I told him the first thing to do is plead no subject matter jurisdiction.

And then we got into this little give and take about the local police not having subject matter jurisdiction within a county building.

As soon as I started to raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction

And I just kept objecting and I said that we need to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Whichever one has original subject matter jurisdiction in this level of office.

Actually, I had a question back to the subject matter jurisdiction.

When you're challenging that subject matter jurisdiction

until he establishes that he has subject matter jurisdiction.

He knows he's subject to criminal prosecution for acting without subject matter jurisdiction.

And because he never let them get past subject matter jurisdiction.

So once he moves past subject matter jurisdiction, you object to everything.

I would like just a final word on subject matter jurisdiction.

When a court tries to do anything that doesn't address subject matter jurisdiction, I object.

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to be filed, which I am also going to integrate

Okay, what if, what happens when you file the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction

This is a, for me, this is a new issue that a judge can't hear subject matter jurisdiction

It's not my place to determine whether or not the judge has subject matter jurisdiction.

It is the judge's place to determine whether or not he has subject matter jurisdiction

because if he happens to accidentally sit in a case where subject matter jurisdiction

law so that the pleading on its face is sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction

whether or not he has subject matter jurisdiction over that 3,000 pound tin can.

We were talking about subject matter jurisdiction and Eddie, I lost my place.

to subject matter jurisdiction be heard in accordance with law before any other matters

So first thing we always want to do, subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction,

subject matter jurisdiction, object to anything that does not go to subject matter jurisdiction.

You haven't changed all my questions, but I do have one about the subject matter jurisdiction

the subject matter jurisdiction for traffic stops and things.

Yeah, well, subject matter jurisdiction is going to apply in any court.

not sufficient testimony before the court to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction

If a judge can't determine whether he has subject matter jurisdiction, then on every

the case to make a determination of subject matter jurisdiction.

Well, if the judge has subject matter jurisdiction, he absolutely can proceed.

But if we challenge jurisdiction and he does have subject matter jurisdiction, he can certainly

And I've heard that there's case law that says once subject matter jurisdiction is challenged,

judge in fact has subject matter jurisdiction, I can do all the dance I want to and he's

Calling today, first I guess I could have some insights into the matter of you guys were questioning subject matter jurisdiction earlier.

To actually get into what I would assert at that point is that they have subject matter jurisdiction you acquiesced.

You can waive your right to in personam jurisdiction, but not to subject matter jurisdiction.

The court will presume you've waived your right to subject matter jurisdiction, but that doesn't happen.

Then I wanted to go back to subject matter jurisdiction.

No, but the reason I called is I was curious about the subject matter jurisdiction.

The main thing I want to get across to people is if you think the judge doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction

and the judge rules that he does have subject matter jurisdiction,

the subject matter jurisdiction of the previous court?

So if there was no jurisdiction, and actually what I'm trying to get people to do on subject matter jurisdiction is to go after the judge immediately.

We were talking to Jerry from Oregon about subject matter jurisdiction.

So are you suggesting that once you see that the judge isn't going to recognize that he has no subject matter jurisdiction,

It's not your place to determine whether or not the judge has subject matter jurisdiction. It's the judge's place to determine that.

It's the judge that asserts the jurisdiction. The prosecutor makes the claim, and the judge has to look at the claim and see if it invokes the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

If a judge sits without subject matter jurisdiction, he's impersonating a public official.

That's why the judge has to make sure that he has subject matter jurisdiction before he exercises any authority, because if he doesn't, he has no immunity of any kind.

You go in with a countersuit in your hand. When the judge denies the plea to the jurisdiction, you hand the counter complaint to the judge, which accuses the judge of impersonating a public official acting without subject matter jurisdiction, in which case he has no immunity from suit, and you countersue him in the instant case.

You sue the judge himself. Now here's the problem the judge has. You make the pleading, and you state in the pleading that the judge is without subject matter jurisdiction, that the judge has acted, purported to act under color of a nonexistent authority, and in the process denied you full and free access to enjoyment of right, and that's a violation of due process, which is a tort as a matter of right.

You don't have to prove that the judge doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject matter jurisdiction to the court, that the court has subject matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject matter jurisdiction.

See, that's for the, still, the court has to look at the pleadings of the prosecution to determine if the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Okay. So what we do is we make up a lawsuit against the judge claiming that he acted without subject matter jurisdiction and therefore is subject to civil suit and we sue him personally.

We were talking to Jerry in Oregon about subject matter jurisdiction.

When a judge acts without subject matter jurisdiction or when he makes a decision that's not judicial and what that goes to is an administrative decision or a decision that violates a ministerial duty.

But the primary one is subject matter jurisdiction.

And that's why we set up subject matter jurisdiction as a way to defeat summary judgment.

You make the claim that he has no subject matter jurisdiction based on the fact that he has no immunity based on the fact that he has no subject matter jurisdiction.

So what I'm saying about the court's going to say it has subject matter jurisdiction.

That's a fact in controversy by making the allegation that the court acted without subject matter jurisdiction.

he has to prove up subject matter jurisdiction because he's the one that started the fight.

the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

that he had no subject matter jurisdiction to issue the summons. And I filed a criminal

the court was about subject matter jurisdiction to issue the summons. But on his face, it

for the last, you know, there's no statute of limitations on subject matter jurisdiction.

to make it where it will have sample affidavits, sample motions, sample subject matter jurisdiction

the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

the petitioner and determine if it is sufficient to invoke his subject matter jurisdiction

standing to invoke subject matter jurisdiction, the judge is vulnerable.

Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived.

What you need to do is brief out subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Let me find a judge without subject matter jurisdiction.

Can you get to his subject matter jurisdiction?

Yeah, can you find a way to undermine subject matter jurisdiction?

Because if they don't show authority, they don't have standing. If they don't have standing, they're unable to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

If you could find a way to undermine subject matter jurisdiction

Acting without subject matter jurisdiction, there is no immunity

Then he's without subject matter jurisdiction and you can sue him

This goes to subject matter jurisdiction.

And if he does not, he is unable to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

you have to prove that maritime has subject matter jurisdiction.

within the subject matter jurisdiction of admiralty that was what I was looking

the case if the law has subject matter jurisdiction I'm granting it you can't

adjudicated till the judge no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over you

you've got subject matter jurisdiction which is over the subject and it sounds

choose a law that has subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the

jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction can always be challenged at any point

things from your previous callers. Kimberly, subject matter jurisdiction can be raised

And I was wondering if, you know, subject matter jurisdiction is an issue, Randy.

Then file a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

No, then challenge the subject matter jurisdiction, that can be brought at any time.

no charging instrument, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

No subject matter jurisdiction.

jurisdiction and also within the court subject matter jurisdiction on some other ground the

The only issue you can raise is one of subject matter jurisdiction,

That's where you go not to the merits, but to the subject matter jurisdiction details.

No, go to subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction.

That's because without them, the court's without subject matter jurisdiction.

I think I'm going to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court because I

So if the municipality is enforcing these when they don't have subject matter jurisdiction,

that. But basically unless you challenge subject matter jurisdiction, they're not going to

Oh no, no Then California has no subject matter jurisdiction, period

You've never been in California California cannot have subject matter jurisdiction

Go back to subject matter jurisdiction.

He can get into the fight claiming that he can file a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

Even if he wasn't ordered to appear, if he was ordered to appear on a date certain and he wasn't driving in commerce, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

Yes, so what he needs to do now is prepare a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, motion to dismiss, and motion for expungement.

Denton County has no subject matter jurisdiction in the case,

The magistrate has subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.

Report references to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon these

uh... subject matter jurisdiction to take on

district had no subject matter jurisdiction well i asked her that i

Subject matter jurisdiction, how did you get subject matter jurisdiction over me?

That's the place to start subject matter jurisdiction.

Okay, so, Randy, go ahead. You were telling Rick about the subject matter jurisdiction.

And if there is no assessment, the agents without subject matter jurisdiction and committing fraud,

and rule they have no subject matter jurisdiction.

and then claim they have no subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss it.

state claim upon which validity can be granted. This court is without subject matter jurisdiction

the dismissal of your counterclaim. You see, the judge can have no subject matter jurisdiction

over the primary claim, yet have subject matter jurisdiction over the counterclaim. So if

he's dismissed the primary claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, yours is different.

He has subject matter jurisdiction over your claim. And if he rules that you take nothing,

subject matter jurisdiction. He can absolutely dismiss the case. And that's what he did.

So the court had no option, even if the court felt like it had subject matter jurisdiction,

he went to subject matter jurisdiction and found he didn't have it, he would have dismissed.

This is a picture of the check that you would get if you could show that you have subject matter jurisdiction.

Well, you're hoping it was a challenge of subject matter jurisdiction, he never, his

You're approaching the court at arm's length, court has not established subject matter jurisdiction,

What are the grounds for your claim that the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction

Yeah, the judge is acting without subject matter jurisdiction, and the way I look at

it, if the judge doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, it's not my place to make that

Because if he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, he's impersonating a public

The judge has to look in the record to find his subject matter jurisdiction.

That's the only place he can look, and the record must support subject matter jurisdiction.

Yeah, subject matter jurisdiction first but what aspect of subject matter jurisdiction?

court without subject matter jurisdiction.

about, okay, I'll raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, prosecutor is going to

I want to have the subject matter jurisdiction of which there will be several different subject

Okay, first thing we do is obviously maintain that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction

And now in submitting that motion for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, what

So under subject matter jurisdiction first, application of the code second, and we have

If they don't have subject matter jurisdiction,

there's nothing you can do to give them subject matter jurisdiction, period.

They had no subject matter jurisdiction to start with.

because it effectively goes to subject matter jurisdiction.

If I can find that well randy, you said it's never too late to go back and challenge the subject matter jurisdiction

So the court and the officer is acting without subject matter jurisdiction. So you're going to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject

Yo bubba show me where you got subject matter jurisdiction to put your hand on me

So have you found where he got subject matter jurisdiction on private property?

city lost subject matter jurisdiction because they didn't follow the standing law, that

Yes. If, if the court that it was in lacked subject matter jurisdiction,

Subject matter jurisdiction.

If she is not a person to whom the law applies, subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.

Subject matter jurisdiction should have been the first.

he's disqualified as a witness and is unable to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,

If it's not there, he does not have standing to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,

They all went to sufficiency of the paperwork to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

about uh you know subject matter jurisdiction and if i plea do i lose my chance to question the

subject matter jurisdiction okay you can never waive subject matter jurisdiction no matter what

you do period okay yeah subject matter jurisdiction can be addressed at any time even long after the

and the only way the court can get subject matter jurisdiction

accusation to be sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

a subject matter jurisdiction at the head so seemingly because it would obdiate the contract

and it is fraud that subject matter jurisdiction can be something that would be attacked at

as a credible person and deny him subject matter jurisdiction to act in any official

And when a fraud is committed on the court, it deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Oh yes, if the judge acts without subject matter jurisdiction or you can make a valid sounding claim that he acted without subject matter jurisdiction

Okay, standing goes to subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged when?

If it's not verified, it does not, it's insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

No verification, no subject matter jurisdiction

Every judge involved. The first thing the judge has to do is make absolutely certain he has subject matter jurisdiction

So it is the court who must ensure that that original petition is verified in order to give the court subject matter jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged no matter how remote in history

There's nothing you can do to give me subject matter jurisdiction

No, subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged no matter how remote in history

You betcha, no subject matter jurisdiction?

So how is he going to get this judge's financial statements at this point in time by challenging subject matter jurisdiction?

For your purposes, you file a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court first

and ensure that they were sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

Accusing him of acting without subject matter jurisdiction, therefore he was impersonating a judicial officer and was without immunity of any kind

And that would give the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction for the purpose of holding an examining trial

So the affidavit is sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

But only to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction is not valid for anything else

Challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction the importance to the judge themselves.

If you challenge subject matter jurisdiction or if you're considering subject matter jurisdiction, you can never give a court subject matter jurisdiction.

In Gerstein Pew, it explains that the warrant is the document that gives the state subject matter jurisdiction and authority to continue to hold you,

You better prove up to me subject matter jurisdiction.

And if this judge does approve up subject matter jurisdiction, then I'll be suing this judge personally.

Judge, who are you? How did you get subject matter jurisdiction to stand before me and order me around?

OK, Randy, you're walking through how the court gets subject matter jurisdiction.

So when I go before the judge, I'm going to ask the judge specifically how that judge got subject matter jurisdiction in the case.

And the judge is going to say that the police officer filed a complaint. Well, specifically, how is that done in a way that gives you subject matter jurisdiction?

So how did you get subject matter jurisdiction? Ordinarily, you would get it after the person has been brought before a magistrate

The complaint is in there that gave the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction,

and a warrant which will give the state subject matter jurisdiction.

That's how this judge is to get subject matter jurisdiction.

and therefore I'm going to maintain that the court is without subject matter jurisdiction, because that warrant was not forwarded to the court

Anyway, okay, that's how you get to subject matter jurisdiction of the court,

court can still not have subject matter jurisdiction.

They're asking this judge, where did you get subject matter jurisdiction to

ensure that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction.

It would give the court subject matter jurisdiction.

And if they get subject matter jurisdiction on one act of a criminal conspiracy, they get jurisdiction on all of it.

I filed papers demanding proof of subject matter jurisdiction.

And I do want to go to subject matter jurisdiction.

then we go to subject matter jurisdiction.

And I have a different way of addressing subject matter jurisdiction than most attorneys do.

It's in the mindset of the attorney to object to call the issue a subject matter jurisdiction.

is insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

So how do you challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court?

Do you file a motion and say, oh, blah, blah, you don't have subject matter jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction in personum and subject matter jurisdiction, primarily.

You can give them in personam jurisdiction by waiving it, but you cannot give them subject matter jurisdiction.

However, if you act like they have subject matter jurisdiction, even if they don't,

and they act like they have subject matter jurisdiction, they will adjudicate a case against you just as if they did.

So while you can't give them subject matter jurisdiction, if you don't raise the issue, it doesn't become an issue.

So always the first thing you want to do is question subject matter jurisdiction.

If they have, they lost subject matter jurisdiction.

or think that they have given power of attorney without even raising the issue of subject matter jurisdiction?

Therefore, they are without subject matter jurisdiction.

Bullet point number seven, after appearing as promised and no magistrate having subject matter jurisdiction being present

And she set the date for November 4th, and she said that apparently she accepts the motions, any motions, because I told her I was going to challenge subject matter jurisdiction.

You will maintain that the complaint is insufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in the court.

And that can invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the magistrate.

That is sufficient for filing a complaint which will give the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction

Ta-da! Now while a hearsay evidence is sufficient to give the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction

What it does do is deprive you of subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether or not I committed this act.

so I'm going to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

because basically all it is is that the J.P. court does not have subject matter jurisdiction,

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Okay, because what I wanted to do was file for dismissal because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

Once again, lack of subject matter jurisdiction rears its ugly head for them, okay?

And if the statutes don't apply, neither the judge, prosecutor, or officer have subject matter jurisdiction.

No subject matter jurisdiction, no immunity from personal lawsuit.

Yes, I challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of this court because the information contained in this affidavit

I challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of, I'm sorry, I didn't get quite all of that.

In order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction, the law they're hauling you in under must apply to you.

If the law doesn't apply to you, there is no subject matter jurisdiction associated with it.

And we start taking them apart, claiming that because of these violations, they're without subject matter jurisdiction, we sue them personally.

I said, under those circumstances, you have no subject matter jurisdiction.

you know, dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

And then, okay, that gives the court, that invokes the court's subject matter jurisdiction,

subject matter jurisdiction or had no

If he doesn't have standing, then he is unable to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

And the petitioner doesn't have standing, then the judge does not have subject matter jurisdiction and he is impersonating a public official

And that goes to subject matter jurisdiction

If I were you, I would file another document titled challenge to subject matter jurisdiction

Claimed he didn't have subject matter jurisdiction but this particular petition had not been notarized

When I put this together would you wait until you get a response on the motion and then go ahead and put forth the challenge subject matter jurisdiction?

Put the challenge subject matter jurisdiction in immediately

And that's the subject matter jurisdiction will ask for that

No subject matter jurisdiction, no immunity

You have to get the judge outside his subject matter jurisdiction.

If you're going to come to a court and attempt to invoke subject matter jurisdiction with that court,

then their pleadings are insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

It's my position that it is not my place to determine whether or not the judge has subject matter jurisdiction over a cause when he exercises authority over me.

and he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, I'm going to counter suit him and file criminal charges against him for impersonating a judicial officer

and let him prove up his subject matter jurisdiction to a grand jury where he should be proving it up instead of coming into court and say it just doesn't matter.

So if we start taking the judges to the wall, the only time you can sue a judge when he has no immunity of any kind is when he acts without subject matter jurisdiction.

However, if the original pleading is insufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in the court, he's not a judge.

Therefore, the petition is insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Am I going to go to the court and say, oh, Mr. Judge, you don't have subject matter jurisdiction?

No, I want to go to the district attorney and say the judge doesn't have any subject matter jurisdiction in this case, and I want you to arrest him.

That's how you challenge subject matter jurisdiction.

And it goes to what I've been saying about subject matter jurisdiction. It's not my place to determine subject matter jurisdiction.

Yes, it is his place to determine whether or not he has subject matter jurisdiction.

Even if there was a case, there's no subject matter jurisdiction.

The first thing he has to do is show he has subject matter jurisdiction.

You had to have made them in order to prepare them in order to give the court subject matter jurisdiction.

If you file a recusal or disqualification, another judge has to hear it, but not the subject matter jurisdiction.

But on subject matter jurisdiction, you should file a cross-complaint against the judge.

So you allege no subject matter jurisdiction, no immunity. He has to hire his own attorney to prove that he does have subject matter jurisdiction or immunity.

was that the court was without subject matter jurisdiction because there was no complaint

It takes a criminal accusation to give the grand jury subject matter jurisdiction in

has no subject matter jurisdiction

subject matter jurisdiction. Learn what

Challenge that subject matter jurisdiction.

subject matter jurisdiction.

They cannot do it because subject matter jurisdiction is something that when you challenge it, they

And without jurisdiction, this just goes to show that they don't have subject matter jurisdiction.

Absent a valid oath of office, he is absolute subject matter jurisdiction and authority,

There's just simply no subject matter jurisdiction.

Well, the case law has the appearance of granting him subject matter jurisdiction,

So they are, as you say, without subject matter jurisdiction, and the authority just isn't there.

and the federal court will come in and say, oh, well, we don't have subject matter jurisdiction.

You have subject matter jurisdiction not over the federal issues,

but since you drug it up into the federal court, you have subject matter jurisdiction over the state issues.

So if there are no regulations for him to do what he did, it's void. No subject matter jurisdiction.

And as we know, subject matter jurisdiction can be brought up at any time in court, out of court, if you're in the can.

and then litigate on it lack of subject matter jurisdiction counter complain against the

you challenge subject matter jurisdiction what I've been telling people is you don't

the judge accusing him of acting without subject matter jurisdiction and impersonating a public

if he didn't have subject matter jurisdiction it was his duty to determine that before he

subject matter jurisdiction he opens the door for us to come after him yeah see that's what

before he does anything in a case whether or not he has subject matter jurisdiction that was the

he said well it's not my place to determine subject matter jurisdiction of course it's your place

No subject matter jurisdiction

So that means that the document's insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Therefore, it didn't meet the rules, so it wasn't sufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in the court.

Eddie has got probably 50 things that keep that judge from having subject matter jurisdiction.

This guy has no subject matter jurisdiction.

Once we send in a motion to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

the subject matter jurisdiction of the court before the judge tries to exercise authority

You have to have standing to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court before you come in.

We sent him a letter that showed lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the smaller court,

Also file a cross-complaint against the judge, acting without subject matter jurisdiction.

He does not have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on this issue.

We claimed the judge didn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

The answer didn't address subject matter jurisdiction,

the judge would realize that he has no subject matter jurisdiction

No, it's not too late. The seminar material goes to subject matter jurisdiction. Subject

have jurisdiction, you cannot give them jurisdiction, period, subject matter jurisdiction.

You can waive in person jurisdiction. But if they don't have subject matter jurisdiction

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. And they will deny, they will refuse to hear

raise the issue. You can't give them subject matter jurisdiction. They don't have it. None

of this applies to you. You go back and challenge it for subject matter jurisdiction. Everything

to claim no subject matter jurisdiction. For everyone else, you sue for injunctive relief.

of any kind. But if you claim no subject matter jurisdiction, they have to prove that they

did have subject matter jurisdiction or each is personally liable. This will jerk a big

official for failing to ensure that the pleadings were sufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction

There's a challenge based on subject matter jurisdiction, based on double jeopardy, and something else I don't remember off at the moment what it is

File a cross complaint against the judge for acting without subject matter jurisdiction

I have a lot of good case law going directly to subject matter, a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction

You challenged subject matter jurisdiction, the court failed to prove up subject matter jurisdiction

Therefore, it is without subject matter jurisdiction

You make that claim that the judge acted without subject matter jurisdiction

But the most important thing about a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is that is the only case in which the judge is totally without any immunity of any kind

You make the claim that because of these facts, the judge is without subject matter jurisdiction

We will, the county, the answer only addressed immunity when the judge had subject matter jurisdiction

It did not address lack of subject matter jurisdiction

The point is, no subject matter jurisdiction, no immunity

When the prosecutor, when the county attorney answered the complaint, he never went to lack of subject matter jurisdiction

He presumed, he argued that when the judge has subject matter jurisdiction, he has absolute immunity

They lack subject matter jurisdiction

Is that he has no subject matter jurisdiction

Go challenge the tax assessor as having no subject matter jurisdiction

It's a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I have the motion for the Administrative Procedures Act already done. I just had to get this one section integrated into it.

If you use the materials, you're challenging subject matter jurisdiction.

So you can't give them subject matter jurisdiction if they don't have it.

You challenge subject matter jurisdiction.

If they have it, they have it. That's all there is to it. You cannot give the court subject matter jurisdiction.

You always want to challenge their subject matter jurisdiction, but you cannot give it to them by showing up.

Now, what you can do is you can waive your challenge to subject matter jurisdiction,

before the challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction has been addressed.

without fully pushing the point of arguing subject matter jurisdiction,

You can't give them subject matter jurisdiction. You cannot waive subject matter jurisdiction.

You can waive your challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

You can challenge subject matter jurisdiction no matter how remote in history.

You can always go back and challenge subject matter jurisdiction at any point in time,

You challenge subject matter jurisdiction, he is nothing until he proves that he hasn't.

You only do that once they've proved up subject matter jurisdiction,

But on yours, each cause you have, each problem with it, if it goes to subject matter jurisdiction, I would address each one individually.

Because if the judge finds he has no subject matter jurisdiction, there is only one thing he can do.

Those are the only two things he can do when he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

Also, you want to move to strike the pleading as insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

But, Randy, can you ask for a bill of particulars without invoking subject matter jurisdiction?

I wouldn't want the other side to hate this motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

especially if it's dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

about agency as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction

challenging subject matter jurisdiction

when it comes to the challenge of the subject matter jurisdiction?

And they did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

At no time did they have subject matter jurisdiction.

Do you make it a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

are sufficient to invoke his subject matter jurisdiction.

He said, it's not my place to determine subject matter jurisdiction, it's yours.

You never get to the answer until they get past subject matter jurisdiction.

If they rule against you on subject matter jurisdiction

You need to look at the original goings-on and go back and challenge subject matter jurisdiction.

The trickiest is to get them outside subject matter jurisdiction and sue them.

around just like you guys are I've already challenged the subject matter jurisdiction

her subject matter jurisdiction or anything and so I'm wondering that you know the under the

them of acting without subject matter jurisdiction okay the the the the case hinges you know the

if you allege that the judge acted without subject matter jurisdiction and they they will say oh

she had subject matter jurisdiction well that's a matter in a factual matter in contention before

from from what you said is that once i in this case challenged the subject matter jurisdiction

Isn't that a violation of state law? Oh, everything is a violation of state law until they prove up subject matter jurisdiction

tiny minute details here it all goes to subject matter jurisdiction no matter how many pieces you break it into

It goes to subject matter jurisdiction

He should file a habeas corpus and claiming that no complaint, no subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Now, above and beyond that, subject matter jurisdiction is a separate argument

The subject matter jurisdiction may not exist.

question they don't it goes to subject matter jurisdiction yeah if these people don't have

authority to stand before the court you're unable to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the

the filing was insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and cross-complained

They had it into municipal code, and therefore, they had no subject matter jurisdiction.

They admitted they didn't have subject matter jurisdiction from the beginning. That means absolutely zero immunity from civil litigation.

If you claim the judge acted without subject matter jurisdiction, the judge has zero immunity from suit on that issue.

You claim the judge has no subject matter jurisdiction and they'll come back and claim that the judge, when he's acting within his jurisdiction, can't be sued.

Because the allegation was, it's not what you can prove up, but the allegation that you make, we allege that the judge was without subject matter jurisdiction.

Yes, Ken, just move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Yes, move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

and of course since no one had filed a motion seeking to hold them in contempt, they were acting without subject matter jurisdiction

Sent you a letter saying that they had no subject matter jurisdiction.

No subject matter jurisdiction.

He dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the case was originally

But get this, he dismissed the case because he ruled that the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction

not lack subject matter jurisdiction.

In other words, the judge agreed with us that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

the federal judge said, I don't have, the federal court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

Generally, when a judge has no subject matter jurisdiction, there's only two things he can

He can, I'll say he can, okay, if he has no subject matter jurisdiction, there's only

Yeah, he had no subject matter jurisdiction, but the state court did.

So if he's going to say he has no subject matter jurisdiction, the case was removed

His own ruling said he had no subject matter jurisdiction, no subject matter jurisdiction,

We dismiss with prejudice. We have no subject matter jurisdiction under 12B6. We dismiss

we lack subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissed with prejudice. They use a standard form.

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which they cannot do. They can only remand it back

We simply claimed that the agent had no subject matter jurisdiction to do what he did. And

No subject matter jurisdiction means no standing to be represented by the state. This US attorney

Sparks agreed that he had no subject matter jurisdiction.

We claim the justice of the peace had no subject matter jurisdiction.

Without subject matter jurisdiction, you have no immunity. So until the judge demonstrated that he had subject matter jurisdiction, the county attorney was stopped from representing him and expending county funds to do that.

his subject matter jurisdiction, we will stipulate that he has absolute immunity.

However, the accusation was not that the judge, while acting within his subject matter jurisdiction,

The accusation was that he did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and the answer by the

prove that he had subject matter jurisdiction, he had no right to representation by the state.

The subject matter jurisdiction is what he's asking about is that what you're thinking of

more serious because if you show lack of subject matter jurisdiction the judge is subject to suit

if I raise an issue about subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction,

If they were required to immediately schedule you for a hearing to settle subject matter jurisdiction,

subject matter jurisdiction, but whoever wrote that complaint, if it was based on hearsay,

waive subject matter jurisdiction. All right. What I was wondering... But you can never ever

waive subject matter jurisdiction. Well, that's basically what this is about. I had a case,

But nobody asked for it. So we really didn't have subject matter jurisdiction. And my attorney

subject matter jurisdiction, therefore this shouldn't stand? Motion to avoid judgment.

He received the citation within the boundaries of the state and that gave him subject matter jurisdiction.

And we're saying that before you can take an action or this goes to subject matter jurisdiction

We always go back to that, they don't get anywhere else until they answer subject matter jurisdiction

If you have a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction that wasn't answered

Subject matter jurisdiction, sue the judge, he has no jurisdiction until it's proven

Sue the judge personally, it's the only time you can sue the judge, no subject matter jurisdiction

The subject matter jurisdiction of the law, the impersonal jurisdiction of the law

They must have subject matter jurisdiction.

and they don't have it, then you argue subject matter jurisdiction right then and there.

a credit card issue sued the judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

court subject matter jurisdiction they're afraid that there's some kind of

looked at that and said I don't have subject matter jurisdiction and just

Motion to vacate the judgment due to the court never having subject matter jurisdiction.

after being informed that the court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

If they lack subject matter jurisdiction, once you challenge it,

I could file a dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

which the court has to have before they have subject matter jurisdiction, fail to seal

or they don't have subject matter jurisdiction

when do we challenge subject matter jurisdiction authority to even talk to me?

Go for his... First of all, I would look for anything that goes to subject matter jurisdiction.

A motion to avoid judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it violated this

nor the subject matter jurisdiction, and you've got them cold dead to rights, and you can

Works for me, and subject matter jurisdiction is the big deal.

If he fails to prove up subject matter jurisdiction, that's the only time you can sue him personally.

their authority, then we challenge the subject matter jurisdiction first thing.

Okay, do you have challenges to the subject matter jurisdiction, do you have due process

In any appeal, if the trial court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction, the appeals court

cannot get subject matter jurisdiction either.

That goes to subject matter jurisdiction.

I've got a large file on subject matter jurisdiction.

Right, unless, the only ones you can use are challenges to subject matter jurisdiction.

to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction in the court because it doesn't meet the

The whole thing got thrown out for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

If the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, she cannot grant the court subject matter

Subject matter jurisdiction, first place.

before the court gets subject matter jurisdiction.

Claiming that he is without subject matter jurisdiction, he is therefore without immunity

When he ruled that he didn't have subject matter jurisdiction

And since he didn't have subject matter jurisdiction

And I wanted to go back and challenge subject matter jurisdiction on that.

have no standing to do so there for no subject matter jurisdiction.

You do have time because primarily what you're going to charge is lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction can be filed at any time.

If the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, it never, ever accrues.

There's no way you can give me subject matter jurisdiction I have no matter what you do.

Yeah, wait, let me finish on subject matter jurisdiction.

This is really important because we have a lot of guys in legal reform telling people, oh, you don't go down to court because they don't have subject matter jurisdiction.

Because even if they don't have subject matter jurisdiction, you can, by your capitulation, let them act as though they do have subject matter jurisdiction.

So by showing up, you cannot give a court subject matter jurisdiction they do not have.

If I'm pretending to be a judge, nobody can give me subject matter jurisdiction if I don't have it. Period. End of story.

You don't waive subject matter jurisdiction, you can still challenge it.

of petitioning for dismissal based on rule 12, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that is for frivolous pleading, and then the judge

Since the state has subject matter jurisdiction, not the municipality,

He has no subject matter jurisdiction over you.

And the action does not give the court subject matter jurisdiction over you.

Challenge his subject matter jurisdiction.

No warrant means no subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction means no immunity of any kind.

citation is unable to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

So we should be able to go after the judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

the court has subject matter jurisdiction over you unless you were using it.

We're not talking about subject matter jurisdiction.

Yeah, we've got a number of ways to go in after subject matter jurisdiction.

I do know that subject matter jurisdiction was challenged, and that I

Okay, then file against the judge for acting without subject matter jurisdiction.

For him to act without subject matter jurisdiction, 18 U.S. Code 242.

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be presumed and it cannot be created.

So once we start looking into having insurance, tags, all of this, they've never had subject matter jurisdiction in 50 years.

on subject matter jurisdiction.

And subject matter jurisdiction can never ever be waived, ever.

In that case, you can't always just blow out subject matter jurisdiction.

If there's a situation where like say a judge loses his civil immunity for some reason because he made some ruling that was outside of subject matter jurisdiction

If he answered other than a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction,

And to challenge subject matter jurisdiction

And I told him to challenge subject matter jurisdiction

how would i object to that challenge subject matter jurisdiction

The individual in question motioned to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

the video. Has jurisdiction been waived or can subject matter jurisdiction still be challenged?

Subject matter jurisdiction could still be challenged.

Yes. If they didn't have jurisdiction in the beginning, subject matter jurisdiction,

the magistrate has subject matter jurisdiction, but he does not have impersonal jurisdiction.

the magistrate in this county to trial, that goes to subject matter jurisdiction and that

Okay. Well, on the point of subject matter jurisdiction, on what do you base the assertion

establish subject matter jurisdiction? Eddie, you're on. Say that one more time.

for a municipal court to establish subject matter jurisdiction? The fact that 46.01 Code

He made a substantive ruling in the case, but yet the judge admitted that he had no subject matter jurisdiction.

If he's going to say he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction,

so he can't dismiss it with prejudice if he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for unclean hands,

You're addressing subject matter jurisdiction, not impersonal.

This is saying that the attorney on the other side has failed to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

It must be verified or the petitioner failed to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court in the first instance.

So the court had no subject matter jurisdiction.

It's not your place to determine subject matter jurisdiction.

If the petitioner failed to meet the rules of court, his petition was insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, and the court was just pretending to be a judge.

First crack out of the hat, the judge had to have subject matter jurisdiction, just like me.

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

for the purpose of dismissals without subject matter jurisdiction.

You're going to file your objections based on the fact the original municipal court had no subject matter jurisdiction

And we're going to challenge subject matter jurisdiction of the county court because the original court lacked jurisdiction, and here's why.

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Because he's challenging subject matter jurisdiction through Article 3 Section 29.

filed a motion for challenging subject matter jurisdiction.

Any other motion won't affect the validity of the motion for subject matter jurisdiction.

You can't just go in and file a motion for subject matter jurisdiction and do nothing

That's subject matter jurisdiction.

Both of those issues go to subject matter jurisdiction.

The second is closer to the merits but it still goes to subject matter jurisdiction.

subject matter jurisdiction does?

a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction and so they would have a second motion to

subject matter jurisdiction and personam and personam jurisdiction.

That goes to subject matter jurisdiction.

It's just that before you get to the officer, you go to subject matter jurisdiction.

Well, what court has subject matter jurisdiction, I think is the real question.

You challenged subject matter jurisdiction and they overruled it?

Oh. Subject matter jurisdiction would end the case and it would be inappropriate for everyone

he can't invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

Either the accused has to voluntarily start making payments or a court of competent jurisdiction and proper subject matter jurisdiction has to make a final ruling in a civil judgment in a trial de novo to translate the forfeiture by the commission into a statutorily defined debt

the invoked subject matter jurisdiction of the state.

so that if the warrant appears later, you can maintain that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction

So that would render the court without subject matter jurisdiction until a warrant shows up.

I can't see where the municipal court could have subject matter jurisdiction.

just all involved, like, subject matter jurisdiction, you know, the practice book and other different

A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction

There's also the lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to complete all administrative remedies

Exactly. You know, I did mention that- The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

You need a motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction on several different points

Okay, when you do not file, you do not give them subject matter jurisdiction

You do not give them subject matter jurisdiction in that effort too, right?

You're misunderstanding the point of subject matter jurisdiction

Whether or not you enter a plea does not convey subject matter jurisdiction

In personum jurisdiction, they can't move forward until they can prove subject matter jurisdiction

If you challenge service, you have to come in under a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction,

I do not accept the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

And we're using your subject matter jurisdiction argument, and we have a criminal complaint in there

When they file for an unlawful detainer, challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

That should take it out of that court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Did you make a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction?

I did that, yes, subject matter jurisdiction and personum jurisdiction.

If they have no subject matter jurisdiction, even the judge is without immunity.

Right and it does challenge the subject matter jurisdiction

What I maintained was no certificate of service in the court record, no subject matter jurisdiction

Because you need that in order for you to have subject matter jurisdiction.

If you don't have subject matter jurisdiction, you are impersonating a public official and

lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there is no controversy before the court.

The prosecutor was made known that there was no subject matter jurisdiction.

The court doesn't not have subject matter jurisdiction only because you raise the

He doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction whether you raise the issue or not.

If he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, he's impersonating a public

like a subject matter jurisdiction, illegal search and seizure,

and the court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

a criminal complaint, a motion challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

Here's my position on subject matter jurisdiction.

If the court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction, then it wasn't the

If he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, then that's the point that

without subject matter jurisdiction.

And the judge admitted that he had no subject matter jurisdiction over the case, yet he dismissed the case with prejudice.

That is a substantive ruling in a case, all right, and he admitted he had no subject matter jurisdiction.

He admitted he had no subject matter jurisdiction.

He can't make a substantive ruling in a case and say he has no subject matter jurisdiction.

the one thing that everyone was in agreement with was that the federal court had no subject matter jurisdiction.

Even if there's no case, even if they say there's no subject matter jurisdiction, you appeal,

I'm compiling all of that into a motion for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

There are tons of filings that you have in there, several are motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Right. Challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

We file a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. Do we have something filed in the court? It

there for me i asked during the first hearing about uh what is the subject matter jurisdiction

to beat the charge with subject matter jurisdiction carcass delicti and stuff of that nature

Did you file a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court?

Then first thing to do is go after subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction is a hoot.

You can file a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction

Right, and I told him to file for motion to challenge subject matter jurisdiction too

subject matter jurisdiction, and the only thing

subject matter jurisdiction.

So you challenge subject matter jurisdiction in this case

subject matter jurisdiction, the magistrate had to

the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction for the purpose of

If the magistrate finds subject matter jurisdiction, he

Now sue him personally because he acted without subject matter jurisdiction and was subsequently disqualified from the case because of that

And maintain that the court acted without subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance

And since he was without subject matter jurisdiction, since it had been challenged and never proven

Therefore the court lacks any and all subject matter jurisdiction

You can't plea into subject matter jurisdiction

If that judge does not have subject matter jurisdiction there is nothing you can do to give it to him

If the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction there is nothing you can do to give it to him

Okay, but if you file your motion to dismiss the lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Then it is the warrant that the magistrate issues after a determination of probable cause that gives the state subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute

Then the accusation is that the court is without subject matter jurisdiction

And I was reading in order for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction,

If there is no subject matter jurisdiction, this is a malicious prosecution.

A special appearance is for three things, a challenge subject matter jurisdiction,

unlawful detainer court without subject matter jurisdiction.

So my suggestion is that if you raise the issue, then clearly the judge lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Okay. Did you have a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction before the court?

until we had a hearing on your challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction.

You want to go after that subject matter jurisdiction.

Do you think I should still focus on the challenge of subject matter jurisdiction

And that's a good tactic to take because if he can establish that and this court, the unlawful detainer court moves ahead, the unlawful detainer court moves ahead without subject matter jurisdiction.

It's when he acts without subject matter jurisdiction.

they lack not only subject matter jurisdiction but impersonal

In other words, if you challenge subject matter jurisdiction based upon something that the law

The pleading before the court has to invoke subject matter jurisdiction of the court

So it didn't meet the rules and therefore was insufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

and the complaint has to meet the requirements of law in order to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction.

And there are generally other steps in due process that must be followed in order to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.

If it's pretty close, then, yeah, 12B6 is essentially a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

then he will afford the complaint to the court having subject matter jurisdiction.

And then the court having subject matter jurisdiction will then convene an arraignment

complaint that gives the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction for the purpose of holding

subject matter jurisdiction. They never do that. They just bypass that point.

How does the court get subject matter jurisdiction?

Yes, the state has no subject matter jurisdiction there.

And anyway, that aside, my main concern was I submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

I'm going to try to be short, but I followed my motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

subject matter jurisdiction.

What he did was fail to meet the requirements of the rules of court and thereby fail to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

what do you do if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction?

If the judge lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this attorney firm filed this suit and it was insufficient on its face.

Either the court has subject matter jurisdiction or it doesn't.

her for moving forward in a case where they have no subject matter jurisdiction. So I'll be more

We're talking subject matter jurisdiction here.

And I recently had my motion hearing for my challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

She denied my motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

So there's no subject matter jurisdiction.

That is subject matter jurisdiction.

what does that do to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court?

What subject matter jurisdiction?

That was our challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

then it's insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

in order for the state to have subject matter jurisdiction,

The magistrate only has subject matter jurisdiction for the purpose of making a determination of probable cause.

That means every single case is subject to be thrown in the trash because they lost subject matter jurisdiction.

subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction or if the order was issued without affording

Therefore they were absolutely without subject matter jurisdiction

And if I did it, you're not going to come to me and challenge my subject matter jurisdiction.

And whether or not that was the case there's only one way to find out and that's to preserve the evidence how do you preserve the evidence of someone on death row you stop the execution how do you stop an execution you go to the mainstay of an issue that can be raised anytime subject matter jurisdiction

So it happens that we had brilliant subject matter jurisdiction challenges to what was going on in the Murrah building bombing what are those article three section two article four section two sixth amendment there's one state that has jurisdiction of the crime

Did the trial court in colorado ever have subject matter jurisdiction to try these cases

to enter a valid judgment. Subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and proper

venue. Subject matter jurisdiction for this would be, is it a municipal court's limited

Okay. So they probably have subject matter jurisdiction. They don't, and we'll come back

They're outside their subject matter jurisdiction.

Then you say when they fail to follow procedure here, they lost subject matter jurisdiction

And I've got a filing of a dismissed, motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and all of it

First thing you do is challenge subject matter jurisdiction and then go ahead and fight your case

Nothing else you do after that gives them subject matter jurisdiction if they didn't have it

He went down and filed a dismissal for like a subject matter jurisdiction,

in the form of a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

is with a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, and they didn't do that.

So it's not a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction, that's not their claim.

What I said on it was, the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The only way you're going to beat this court is to show that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

Lack of proper notice would deny the court subject matter jurisdiction

So you move to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of this court

Demurrer is a challenge subject matter jurisdiction

They say there's supposed to be information on file before they have a subject matter jurisdiction,

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Well, I did file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

motion to deny a motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction.

the subject matter jurisdiction to rule. And he started asking questions. And that's when

Okay, and that's also a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction as well.

I'm trying to determine subject matter jurisdiction.

the court cannot have subject matter jurisdiction.

File a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction and demand that the agent prove up agency

but it goes right back to subject matter jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction. It took a magistrate's determination and probable cause to give the court subject matter jurisdiction.

Since there was no determination of probable cause, the court never received subject matter jurisdiction.

Since there was no determination of probable cause, the court never received subject matter jurisdiction.

The court never received subject matter jurisdiction. Okay, super. I appreciate it.

has no subject matter jurisdiction and demand that the federal judge remand the case back to the state.

At that point, the federal judge would decide whether or not he has subject matter jurisdiction to accept the removal.

And if the judge decides he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction over the issue,

So you would want to go in and argue with the federal court that they simply don't have subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction.

That he had subject matter jurisdiction.

unable to to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court right so therefore they can't go

The court either has subject matter jurisdiction or it does not.

There's no subject matter jurisdiction.

Okay, the only way you'll be able to get to that is by a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

that court lacked all subject matter jurisdiction of the issue and could not adjudicate it.

So would this be vacating the judgment or just challenge the subject matter jurisdiction?

Yeah, challenge the subject matter jurisdiction.

and the pleading would have to be a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction

to show why the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case

They had no subject matter jurisdiction be caused.

You have to go to why they don't have subject matter jurisdiction to hear it in the first place

the county court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction.

Only the JP and municipal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction of fine-only offenses.

And you challenge it on the grounds that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

And in there you will find some motions to disqualify motions to dismiss challenge to your subject matter jurisdiction.

If you file a motion that's incomplete according to law, it doesn't invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

We sued a judge in Austin because he acted on a filing that was insufficient to invoke his subject matter jurisdiction.

lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court

I moved to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

well, the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

If the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case,

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, especially on the driver's license charge.

until your motions ask the judge to respond to the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

that the only way I'll be able to open back up is through subject matter jurisdiction a challenge.

Would they qualify for a subject matter jurisdiction challenge?

So would that qualify for a subject matter jurisdiction challenge?

So the first thing you do is challenge subject matter jurisdiction of the court for lack of

No subject matter jurisdiction.

Now, just so we're clear, why do they not have subject matter jurisdiction?

You file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In the subject matter jurisdiction accusation, you state that the reason they don't have

subject matter jurisdiction is you were not accorded proper notice.

subject matter jurisdiction, I'm sorry, in order for a magistrate to have subject matter

She said that they did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the issue.

then they can't say that they don't have subject matter jurisdiction and they're deprived of it.

If they don't have subject matter jurisdiction, they don't have subject matter jurisdiction, they can't hear the case.

Okay, its stage was that lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations in the claim

Subject matter jurisdiction, were they going to subject matter jurisdiction because of

But once that removal is in, the state court loses subject matter jurisdiction, period, and the state court is not going to mess with the feds.

Without, it has the effect of being a challenged subject matter jurisdiction

then the judge never had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain any of their motions

So this is a subject matter jurisdiction issue for the court

Okay, a special appearance is an appearance for the purpose of challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

If the district judge would have no subject matter jurisdiction, he could take the complaint,

subject matter jurisdiction over criminal violations of state law.

statute in order to give the court subject matter jurisdiction. If it is a criminal

lose subject matter jurisdiction.

If you can show that they don't have subject matter jurisdiction, nobody has any immunity from civil suit.

And as far as them claiming that they were not aware that they didn't have subject matter jurisdiction or didn't have jurisdiction on this property, they're screwed.

you intend to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. All right. And since you're challenging the

subject matter jurisdiction, then it would be inappropriate for me to yield to the jurisdiction

I went to court. I fought both of them. I followed motions in both courts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

but challenges subject matter jurisdiction.

did the judge order me here when he hasn't ruled on the subject matter jurisdiction?

Or, you know, subject matter jurisdiction space and then type in site colon period dot j u d dot Connecticut dot gov.

You have no subject matter jurisdiction because the trustee doing the foreclosure lacks standing

to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

the plaintiff lacks standing to invoke subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Once this court has subject matter jurisdiction over any part of the issue, they have subject matter jurisdiction over all parts of the issue.

Maybe we actually could step in and pick up the reins and take subject matter jurisdiction.

besides the challenge of subject matter jurisdiction, okay?

because of lack of notice, lack of subject matter jurisdiction

for like really important stuff like subject matter jurisdiction and that sort of thing.

The motion to dismiss is used to challenge subject matter jurisdiction only.

But however, it only challenges subject matter jurisdiction.

Now obviously there are problems for subject matter jurisdiction there.

The motion, the challenge, subject matter jurisdiction, the Rule 12, that's what it is.

And because they failed the state of claim, they failed to invoke subject matter jurisdiction

Therefore, they're unable to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in the court.

Okay, you need to file a challenge subject matter jurisdiction,

you always want to challenge subject matter jurisdiction

In order for the grand jury to have subject matter jurisdiction,

you know, you can't have subject matter jurisdictions without a criminal complaint and there's no

would have subject matter jurisdiction and the magistrate under 17.30s required to seal

So the complaint is simply not enough to give the trial court subject matter jurisdiction.

Without a charging instrument, the court has never gained subject matter jurisdiction.

I remember Mr. Harmon going over the specifics of this state. Yeah. Okay. That's good. I do have another interesting thing. As far as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, I found some interesting cases from another gentleman's

now in this case they lack subject matter jurisdiction why exactly what my discussion

Stated no claims because it couldn't say the claim because they came to the court with unclean hands and failed invoke subject matter jurisdiction court.

Since you don't need to go subject matter jurisdiction, just ask the court to strike their pleadings and dismiss the case.

And that's an issue. This court has no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate.

Well, I moved to remand the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

The court lack subject matter jurisdiction

Okay, wait a minute, why did he say he lacked subject matter jurisdiction?

The defendants accept all the allegations as true for the purposes of subject matter jurisdiction

Except as true for the purposes of subject matter jurisdiction

The judge was acting totally without subject matter jurisdiction.

The judge is acting without subject matter jurisdiction.

No, you file a motion to withdraw the magisterially entered plea and state the magistrate entered a plea absent all subject matter jurisdiction in the instant matter.

You did not agree to appear before a court of subject matter jurisdiction.

And there is no court of subject matter jurisdiction until you've appeared before a magistrate.

And all the records forward to the clerk that actually have subject matter jurisdiction.

The magistrate has no subject matter jurisdiction until he has a charging instrument in his hand, which is the criminal complaint.

Okay, a good due process claim, a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

Make up a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

the county justice or municipal court lose the subject matter jurisdiction. And it was required

I would have a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. We'll see.

Okay, one thing I would suggest at this point, if you might want to find out where you are, ask the judge, do you have subject matter jurisdiction over the accusation?

Object, motion, a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.

Once there are at least, once that's in, it's covered, then you can go ahead and address other issues and you won't be waiving the objection to subject matter jurisdiction.

That's essentially what we're going through. You can plea subject matter jurisdiction.

And then you can respond to the original complaint with pleadings, which are objections subject matter jurisdiction.

And in taxes, the pleadings are subject matter jurisdiction and personum jurisdiction.

federal government subject matter jurisdiction.

So the state still has subject matter jurisdiction on common law crimes or violations of Texas

A boy vacate judgment for like a subject matter jurisdiction.

If those things dealing with notice were not done, then subject matter jurisdiction was