#2 Americans know what Subject Matter Jurisdiction is before going to court as it is everything

Understanding Sufficiency of
Pleading which empowers the
Judge to act without it, you are
going through Kangaroo Court

We have a two-tiered court system

Courts get their authority by proving sufficiency of pleading

SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADING
Jurisdiction (Personal and Subject Matter
Jurisdiction) is not just important it is
everything and is rarely properly established

• Jurisdiction may be broken down into two categories: personal
jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the
requirement that a given court have power over the defendant, based
on minimum contacts with the forum. Subject-matter jurisdiction is
the requirement that a given court have power to hear the specific
kind of claim that is brought to that court. While litigating parties may
waive personal jurisdiction, they cannot waive subject-matter
jurisdiction. In federal court, under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
is considered a favored defense and may be raised at any point in the
litigation process, even if the parties had previously argued that
subject-matter jurisdiction existed.

• Think of a table with four legs: two
opposing parties (2 legs), Subject Matter
Jurisdiction (1 leg), and a Competent Fact
Witness (1 leg). If anyone of the Legs is
missing, the pleading fails to make the
prima facie case.
• The Judge must establish SMJ first. When
they don’t they issue void orders.

THE NATURE OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION:
• The jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the right of the court to
exercise judicial power over that class of cases, and is said to be
essential, necessary, indispensable and an elementary prerequisite
to the exercise of judicial power. US v Cotton, 535 US 625 (2002); Joy
v Two-Bit Corp., 287 Mich 244; 283 NW2d 45 (1938); Prosecuting
Attorney for Ingham County v American Amusement Co. Inc., 71 Mich
App 130; 246 NW2d 684 (1976), cf, 21 CJS “Courts” § 18, p, 25.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
• In fact, the court may dismiss a case sua sponte (on its own) for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1).

• Without such jurisdiction existing, an order entered by the court is
absolutely void. In re Matter of Hague, 412 Mich 532, 544; 315
NW2d 524 (1982). Therefore, a defense based upon the lack of
jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any
time. Menna v New York, 423 US 61, 62-63 (1975)(citing People v
Carpentier, 446 Mich 19; 521 NW2d 195 (1994) cf, Fox v Board of
Regent of Michigan University, 375 Mich 238, 242; 134 NW2d 146
(1965).

• In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the
court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the
burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter
jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the
court holds subject-matter jurisdiction. Bindell v City of Harvey, 212
Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) (“the burden of
proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.”).

Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
• challenged when one has an attorney,
who tends to want to argue by the hour
until there is a settlement, vs attack the
main issue…jurisdiction (*and the court
rarely has it in No Harmed Party Cases).

• 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. Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558,
522 N.E.2d 841(1988)(“Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of
establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.”).

Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
• The law places the duty and burden of
subject-matter jurisdiction upon the
plaintiff. Should the court attempt to
place the burden upon the defendant, the
court has acted against the law, violates
the defendant’s due process rights, and
the judge under court decisions has
immediately lost subject-matter
jurisdiction.

• In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly
according to the law or statute under which it operates. Flake v
Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) (“the actions, being
statutory proceedings, … were void for want of power to make
them.”) (“The judgments were based on orders which were void
because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them.

• Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as
here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment
is void.”); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921)
(“The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it
has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its
judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally
assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the
established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and
does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or
decree the law or statute which is applicable to it.”

• Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427
N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) (“Though a court be one of general
jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled
by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction.”).

Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
• “There is no discretion to ignore that
lack of jurisdiction.” See Joyce v. US, 474
F2d 215. “A universal principle as old as
the law is that a proceedings of a court
without jurisdiction are a nullity and its
judgment therein without effect either
on person or property.” See Norwood v.
Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini,
49 P. 732.

• “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that
does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” See In Re
Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
• “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no
jurisdiction of the subject matter on
which it assumes to act, its proceedings
are absolutely void in the fullest sense
of the term.” See Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P
27.

Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
• “A court has no jurisdiction to
determine its own jurisdiction, for a
basic issue in any case before a tribunal
is its power to act, and a court must
have the authority to decide that
question in the first instance.” See
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los
Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L.
ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

• “A departure by a court from those recognized and established
requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere
form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one
of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” See Wuest v.
Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

• “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of
due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” See Merritt v. Hunter,
C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

• “the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear
before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be
considered in determining whether in first instance there was a
probable cause for the arrest.” See Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221
F Supp 685.

• “Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but
by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of
jurisdiction lies with the asserter.” See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178.
The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield’s Lessee
v. Levy, 4 US 308.

Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
• “A court has no jurisdiction to determine
its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in
any case before a tribunal is its power to
act, and a court must have the authority
to decide that question in the first
instance.” See Rescue Army v. Municipal
Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US
549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

• “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it
clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no
authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” See
Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

• “The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been
challenged, it must be proven.” See Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502
(1980). “Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” See
Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.

• “Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” See Hagens v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.

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

Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
• “No sanctions can be imposed absent
proof of jurisdiction.” See Standard v.
Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556
and 558 (b). “The proponent of the rule
has the burden of proof.” Title 5 U.S.C.,
Sec. 556 (d). “Jurisdiction can be
challenged at any time, even on final
determination.” See Basso v. Utah Power
& Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910.

• “Mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction)
have been abolished.” See Owens v. The City of Independence, 445
US 622 (1980). “A departure by a court from those recognized and
established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence
to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of
depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of
jurisdiction.” See Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
• “In a court of limited jurisdiction,
whenever a party denies that the court
has subject-matter jurisdiction, it
becomes the duty and the burden of the
party claiming that the court has subject
matter jurisdiction to provide evidence
from the record of the case that the
court holds subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991)
(“the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting
it.”). “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.” Loos v American
Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)(“Where
jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the
plaintiff.”).

• The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction
upon the plaintiff. Should the court attempt to place the burden
upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the
defendant’s due process rights, and the judge under court decisions
has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction.

• In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly
according to the law or statute under which it operates. Flake v
Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) (“the actions, being
statutory proceedings, … were void for want of power to make
them.”)

• (“The judgments were based on orders which were void because the
court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after
acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the
limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void.”); Armstrong
v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921)

• (“Where a court’s power to act is controlled by statute, the court is
governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising
jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of
the statute.”)

• In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st
Dist. 1990) (“The jurisdiction of a court in a dissolution proceeding is
limited to that conferred by statute.”); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee
Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981)

• (“Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act
on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed
by the rules of limited jurisdiction.”);

• “The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has
a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its
judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally
assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the
established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and
does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or
decree the law or statute which is applicable to it.” In Interest of M.V.,
288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997)

Lack of Judicial Immunity
• Thus, neither Judges nor Government attorneys are above the law.
See United States v. Isaacs, 493 F. 2d 1124, 1143 (7th Cir. 1974). In
our judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can
be imagined than a corrupt judge or judges acting in collusion
outside of their judicial authority with the Executive Branch to
deprive a citizen of his rights.

• In The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), Sir
Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the Magna Carta restricted the
power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings
would be void, and actionable.

• When a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso
ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or
minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the
Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not
jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a
person who is not a judge], and actions will lie against them without
any regard of the precept or process . . . Id. 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038-41.

• A majority of states including Michigan have followed the English rule
to find that a judge had no immunity from suit for acts outside of his
judicial capacity or jurisdiction. Robert Craig Waters, ‘Liability of
Judicial Officers under Section 1983’ 79 Yale L. J. (December 1969),
pp. 326-27 and 29-30).
Right to sue a Judge

Right to sue a Judge
• As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Pearson, 2
Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872),
‘[w]here there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for
discretion is incident to jurisdiction.’

The constitutional
requirement of due
process of the law
is indispensable:
• The constitutional requirement of due
process of the law is indispensable:
• “A judgment can be void . . . where the
court acts in a manner contrary to due
process.” Am Jur 2d, §29 Void
Judgments, p. 404.
• “Where a court failed to observe
safeguards, it amounts to denial of
due process of law, court is deprived
of juris.” —Merritt v. Hunter, C.A.
Kansas 170 F2d 739.
• “Moreover, all proceedings founded
on the void judgment are themselves
regarded as invalid.” Olson v. Leith 71
Wyo. 316, 257 P.2d 342.).

The Law of Void Judgments
and Decisions Supreme Court
Decisions on Void Orders
The Law of Void Judgments and Decisions Supreme
Court Decisions on Void Orders

Supreme Court Decision on Void Orders
• A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections.
The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the
constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also Restatements, Judgments
' 4(b). Prather vLoyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910.

• The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal
protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of
government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those
constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L
Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.

• A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid
adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by
any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none
of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force
or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to
enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are
themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 44, 45.

• No Opportunity to Be Heard
A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an
opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights.
Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not
entitled to respect in any other tribunal.

• "A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions
addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433,
60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861:
"A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of
the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the
judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." People v.
Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]. "If a court grants relief, which
under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that
extent void." (1Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) An illegal order is forever void.

• "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an
inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a
dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power
to do so exists." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep.
448]. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any
authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1Freeman on
Judgments, 120c.) An illegal order is forever void.

The Law of Void Judgments and Decisions Supreme
Court Decisions on Void Orders
• "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances
it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that
extent void." (1Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) An illegal
order is forever void.

Justice John F. Molloy
• “The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a
bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and
wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the
elected Congress and state legislatures.”
-- Justice John F. Molloy

Do not be
coerced into
waiving your
rights
• The Supreme Court has warned, "Because
of what appear to be Lawful commands on
the surface, many citizens, because of
their respect for what appears to be law,
are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance [and deceptive
practices in inferior administrative State
courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S.
179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185
(1956)

The Supreme
Court has
stated:
• The general misconception among the public being that any
exercise of state regulatory or police power bearing the
appearance of law is in fact in agreement with the law of
the land, and is, therefore, legitimate in its operation as
imposed. A statute is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat.
Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), a
concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not "a law,"
(Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v.
State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v.
Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165)
• The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to
be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly
coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance [and
deceptive practices in inferior administrative State courts]."
(United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100
L.Ed. 185 (1956)

You do not have
to be an attorney
to represent
anyone. Don’t be
fooled

The Constitution
(6th Amendment
allows you
anyone you
choose without
limitations)
• The United States Constitution does not give anyone the
right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any
other "hearsay substitute." The 6th Amendment is very
specific that the accused only has the right to the
“assistance of counsel” and this assistance of counsel can be
anyone the accused chooses without limitations. "The term
[liberty] ... denotes not merely mean freedom from bodily
restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to
engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire
useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring
up children, to worship God according to the dictates of this
own conscience... The established doctrine is that this
liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of
protecting public interest, by legislative action (Meyer v.
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400).

States cannot
exclude a
person from
the practice
of law
• A State cannot exclude a person from the
practice of law or from any other
occupation in a manner or for reasons that
contravene the Due Process Clause
(Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353
U.S. 232). The practice of law is an
occupation of common right (Sims v.
Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925). Therefore
there can be no sanction or penalty
imposed upon on because of his exercise
of Constitutional Rights (Sherar v. Cullen,
481 F. 2d 946 (1973).

Litigants can
be assisted
by unlicensed
laymen
• Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed
laymen during judicial proceedings
(Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virgin ia State
Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335

Pleadings
shall be so
construed as
to do
substantial
justice"... "
• (2) Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48
(1957). "Following the simple guide of
Rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so
construed as to do substantial justice"...
"The federal rules reject the approach that
pleading is a game of skill in which one
misstep by counsel may be decisive to the
outcome and accept the principle that the
purpose of leading is to facilitate a proper
decision on the merits."

Legal Process is no more than a
stressful war of words, tricks, and
bullying…
• “The legal process is no more than a stressful
war of words, rituals, papers, perceptual
tricks, bullying, and prevarication. Once a
human being is respected as the very reason
for having a justice system in the first place,
the litigant can begin to put into effect the
mandates of ADA and ADAAA”.
Karnen
Huffer (2012)
See:
Unlocking Justice (2012)

• (1) Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex
rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v.
Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Litigants can
be assisted by unlicensed laymen during
judicial proceedings.

• individuals with disabilities continually
encounter various forms of discrimination,
including outright exclusion,
overprotective rules, and policies, failure
to make modifications to existing
practices, exclusionary qualifications
standards and criteria, segregation, and
relegations to lesser services, programs,
activities, benefits, jobs or other
opportunities

• ) Title 42, Chapter 126, Equal Opportunity
for Individuals with Disabilities, Sec 12101,
Sec 12182 and 12181 states that no
individual shall be discriminated against by
disability in the full and equal enjoyment
of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of any
place of public accommodations by any
person who owns or operates a place of
public accommodation,

• the American with Disability Act use: Title II
and III request the courts to support this law.
• Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957).
"Following the simple guide of Rule 8(f) that
all pleadings shall be so construed as to do
substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject
the approach that pleading is a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive
to the outcome and accept the principle that
the purpose of leading is to facilitate a proper
decision on the merits."

• Specifically, Title 42, Chapter 126, prohibits (ii) failure to
make reasonable modification in policies, practices, or
procedures, when such modifications are necessary to
afford services, privileges, advantages or accommodations
to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can
demonstrate that making such modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the privilege, advantage,
or accommodations and (iii) states that it is discriminate to
treat individuals differently. the American with Disability Act
use: Title II and III request the courts to support this law.
• Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957). "Following the
simple guide of Rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so
construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules
reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which
one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and
accept the principle that the purpose of leading is to
facilitate a proper decision on the merits."

"... the right to file a
lawsuit pro se is one of
the most important
rights under the
constitution and laws."

• Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640
F. Supp. 905. "... the right to file a
lawsuit pro se is one of the most
important rights under the
constitution and laws."

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedures,
Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend."
A next friend is a person who
represents someone who is
unable to tend to his or her own
interest.

• Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411,
421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v.
Cox, 456 2nd 233. Pro se pleadings are
to be considered without regard to a
technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings
are not to be held to the same high
standards of perfection as lawyers.

• Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151
F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. The plaintiff's civil rights
pleading was 150 pages and described
by a federal judge as
"inept." Nevertheless, it was held
"Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a
suit for protection of civil rights, the
Court should endeavor to construe
Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to
technicalities."

• Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233
(1972) (6th Cir. USCA). It was held
that a pro se complaint requires a
less stringent reading than one
drafted by a lawyer per Justice
Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41 at 48 (1957).

• Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946
(1973). "There can be no sanction
or penalty imposed upon one
because of his exercise of
Constitutional Rights."

• Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720
(1925). B. Platsky v. CIA, 953
F.2d 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991),
"Court errs if the court dismisses
pro se litigant without the
instruction of how pleadings are
deficient and how to repair
pleadings."

• THAT The practice of Law is an
occupation of common right, the
same being a secured liberty right.
(Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720
(1925)

• THAT No state may convert a
secured liberty right into a
privilege, issue a license and fee
for it. (Murdock vs. Pennsylvania
319 US 105 (1943)

THAT The practice of Law authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral
law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the
Creator, which government must respect. The Declaration of Independence (and the Charter
of the Forest) stated the now familiar theme: ‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all
Men and WOMEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ And the
body of the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, enshrined those principles.” (McGowan v.
Maryland, 366 US 420, 563, Supreme Court (1961).
As per the Charter of FOREST, NO MAN IS ABOVE GOD’s LAW. No man can violate another
man/woman’s rights. Your rights are your property. Should another man/woman harm another
man/woman – They will have a trial and they will pay for their emotional, physical and etc
harm.

• THAT "All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right
and justice are, in our laws and must be like things, considered as
void.
• The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be
superseded by no power on earth.
• A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from
whose punishments they cannot protect us.
• All human constitutions which contradict HIS laws, we are in
conscience bound to disobey. Such has been the adjudications of
our courts of justice." (Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114
(1772)

All human constitutions which contradict HIS laws, we are
in conscience bound to disobey. Such has been the
adjudications of our courts of justice." (Robin v. Hardaway,
1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772)

• The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be
Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their
respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into
waiving their rights, due to ignorance [and deceptive practices in
inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350
U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956)

• The United States Constitution does not give anyone the right to a lawyer
or the right to counsel, or the right to any other "hearsay substitute." The
6th Amendment is very specific that the accused only has the right to the
“assistance of counsel” and this assistance of counsel can be anyone the
accused chooses without limitations.
• "The term [liberty] ... denotes not merely mean freedom from bodily
restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of
the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the
dictates of this own conscience... The established doctrine is that this
liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public
interest, by legislative action (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400).

• A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any
other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due
Process Clause (Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232).
• The practice of law is an occupation of common right (Sims v. Aherns,
271 SW 720 (1925). Therefore, there can be no sanction or penalty
imposed upon on because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights
(Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973).

• Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial
proceedings (Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virgin ia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1;
v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335

• Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425).
Members of groups who are competent non-
lawyers can assist other members of the group
to achieve the goals of the group in court
without being charged with "unauthorized
practice of law (NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S.
415);

• Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425). Members of groups who
are competent non-lawyers can assist other members of the group to
achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with
"unauthorized practice of law (NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415);
• United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v.
Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). A next friend is a person who represents
someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest (Federal
Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USC A "Next Friend”).

NOBODY GETS IMMUNITY
Title II of the ADA if anyone plays
administrative trickery especially
the Judges, they don’t get
immunity they ignore the ADAAA

• The Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane, et al., 541 U.S. 59 (2004) pointed out that
Congress Constitutionally abrogated the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, making
suits for damages available to individuals who proceed under Title II of the ADA with
claims of violation of Due Process of Law (Huffer, 2012). This means that if judges do not
adhere to the ADAAA, they lose their immunity from being sued. The Lane case found
that “Congress enacted Title II against a backdrop or pervasive unequal treatment of
persons with disabilities in the administration of state services and programs, including
systematic deprivation of fundamental rights (Huffer, 2012). Specifically, Title II seeks to
enforce a variety of basic Constitutional guarantees, including the right of access to the
courts, infringements of which are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. The court
found that all courts have a duty to accommodate that is perfectly consistent with the
well-established due process principle that a state must afford to all individual a
meaningful opportunity to be heard in its courts. The Supreme Court concluded in Lane,
‘that Title II, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access
to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress’ authority to enforce the
guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment (Huffer, 2012).
Title II of the ADA if anyone plays administrative
trickery especially the Judges, they don’t get
immunity they ignore the ADAAA

VOID ORDERS
• An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of
the court is void and can be attacked in
any proceeding in any court where the
validity of the judgment comes into issue.
(See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2
L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US
714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman
(1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v.
McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914;
McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37
Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.

When a party violates Due
Process or Constitutional
constraints, jurisdiction is
lost

• As the court in Jonson v Zerbst, 304 U.S.
458, 58, S. Ct. 1019; Wuest v. Wuest", 127
P2d 934, 937, when a party violates Due
Process or Constitutional constraints,
jurisdiction is lost and "Where a court
failed to observe safeguard, it amounts to
a denial of due process of law; the court is
deprived of jurisdiction”.

• "Pure Oil Co. v. The city of Northlake", 10
all 25 (1936). World-Wide Volkswagen
Corp. v. Woodson, 44 U.S. 286 (1980) "A
judgment rendered in violation of due
process is void in the rendering State and
is not entitled to full faith and credit
elsewhere.

Relief is not a discretionary matter, but is mandatory

• Luckett v. Boeing Co., 98 Wn. App. 307,
309, 989 P.2d 1144 (1999), review denied,
140 Wn.2d 1026 (2000). When rule
providing for relief from void judgments is
applicable, relief is not a discretionary
matter, but is mandatory, Orner v. Shalala,
30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).

If a court grants relief,
which under the
circumstances it hasn't
any authority to grant,
its judgment is to that
extent void."

• If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to
grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.)
• "A void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v.
Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974) "a court must vacate any judgment
entered in excess of its jurisdiction." (Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd.
No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972)

• A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions
addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US
433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370.
• Federal judges issued orders permanently barring Stich from filing any papers in
federal courts. After Judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen corruptly seized and
started to liquidate Stich's assets, Judge Jones issued an unconstitutional order
barring Stich from filing an objection to the seizure and liquidation

• Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938). "Pleadings are intended to
serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between
litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that
end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness
as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."

• A civil suit is a table with four legs: two opposing parties (2 legs), Subject Matter
Jurisdiction (1 leg), and a Competent Fact Witness (1 leg). If anyone of the Legs is
missing, the pleading fails to make the prima facie case.
• The Judge must establish SMJ first (before the proceeding). When they don’t they
issue void orders.

"Where a court failed
to observe safeguard, it
amounts to a denial of
due process of law.”

• When Judges issues an order WITHOUT establishing subject matter jurisdiction,
they are abusing their authority and willfully committing fraud upon the court, In
re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.3d 393 (1962) Wuest v. Wuest", 127 P2d 934,
937 hold that when a party violates Due Process or Constitutional constraints,
jurisdiction is lost and "Where a court failed to observe safeguard, it amounts to a
denial of due process of law; the court is deprived of jurisdiction", "Pure Oil Co. v.
The city of Northlake", 10 all 25 (1936).

• As the court in Jonson v Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58, S. Ct. 1019; Wuest v. Wuest", 127
P2d 934, 937, when a party violates Due Process or Constitutional constraints,
jurisdiction is lost.

• "Where a court failed to observe safeguard, it amounts to a denial of due process
of law; the court is deprived of jurisdiction", "Pure Oil Co. v. The city of Northlake",
10 all 25 (1936).

• World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 44 U.S. 286 (1980) "A judgment
rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not
entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-
733(1878)."[World-Wide Volkswagen Corps.v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)].

• A trial court's decision whether to vacate a judgment or order under CR 60 is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Luckett v. Boeing Co., 98 Wn. App. 307, 309,
989 P.2d 1144 (1999), review denied, 140 Wn.2d 1026 (2000).

• When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not a
discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo.
1994).

It’s a matter of the law the Judge, Attorneys and people
who receive state/federal funds follow the law and stop
playing Kangaroo court with Americans

Article VI of the Constitution

18 USC 1001, 18 USC 241,18 USC 242, 245, 249 seek
relief 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC1986

Example: Lance Vs. Gray Remove that yellow flag
from our soldier’s patch
ADA Advocates [ADA interference]
VA, Court, Bldg 810, State Department hate crimes
Worker Comp, Form 95, VA Benefits, Workers Comp, Social, EOC Security,
Nobody gets to violate your right. Your rights are property – guard it.

18 USC 241, Conspiracy
against Rights

18 USC 242, Deprivation of rights

Right to Sue
– Form 95
(Individual
and Official
Capacity

18 USC 245, Federally
Protected Activity

ADA Advocate
2016 on phone
then 2018
discriminate
Kangaroo Court
using medical
records.
Robert – ordering
him back to work 2
(18 Jun and 31
March) with the
intent to harm/kill

ADA
Interference
Robert’s question to
Voncelle ref: Why did you
tell me NO ref: I can not
work on MLK day is it
because I am white?
Protected- No FEAR Policy
ADA
Executive Order 13164

42 USC 1983, 42 USC
1985, 42 USC 1986

Bill of Rights & Equal Protection

Bill of Rights & Equal
Protection Law

How these
people (United
States, Inc)
think –
Everything is
Business

If you don’t know
your rights, you
don’t have rights

Writ of Mandamus
and Quo Warranto

Writ of Mandamus and Quo Warranto

What every American [adult and child] needs to know
that they don’t teach us in school

What every American [adult and child]
needs to know that they don’t teach us
in school
• Bill of Rights (25 things the government cannot take
away)
• Meaning of the yellow fringes around the Flag
• ADA Rights (TITLES II and III)
• 2 main government (United States Inc., ) contracts within
the Executive Branch

Meaning of the yellow fringes around the Flag

United States Inc., DOD, DOJ just
tell the truth – Start with
removing the yellow fringed
around our American Flag!!!
Please continue to download
and pass along to other
Americans as we use our REAL
TIME CASE TO SHOW THE
CORRUPTION and WHY.
https://www.bitchute.com/video
/Jeh5RPwHhTni/
https://rumble.com/vjhoij-
trump-doj-and-dod-remove-the-
gold-fringed-from-our-flag.html
United States Inc., DOD, DOJ just tell the truth –
Start with removing the yellow fringed around our
American Flag!!! Please continue to download
and pass along to other Americans as we use our
REAL TIME CASE TO SHOW THE CORRUPTION and
WHY.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Jeh5RPwHhTni/
https://rumble.com/vjhoij-trump-doj-and-dod-
remove-the-gold-fringed-from-our-flag.html

GET THAT GOLD FRINGE OFF MY AMERICAN FLAG
NOW

9 April 2021 –
Civil Rights
Division
Executive
Order
10834

ADA Rights (TITLES II and III)

Title II – Nobody gets immunity
Title III- Reasonable Accommodations
can not be denied if agency or Federal
Contractors receives Federal Funds.

2 main government
(United States Inc., )
contracts within the
Executive Branch

• Our Quo Warranto Template
• Marbury Vs. Madison, Title II & Title III
• 18 USC 241 allows you to seek relief
under 1983, 1985, 1986
• Past Precedent (Supreme Court relies
on Past Precedent)

Letter to corrupt DOJ who cannot
touch our case because of the
Westfall Act

Letter to ICC, Justice Anna and etc

#2 Americans know what Subject Matter Jurisdiction is before going to court as it is everything

#2 Americans know what Subject Matter Jurisdiction is before going to court as it is everything

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to #2 Americans know what Subject Matter Jurisdiction is before going to court as it is everything

Similar to #2 Americans know what Subject Matter Jurisdiction is before going to court as it is everything (20)

More from SueBozgoz

More from SueBozgoz (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

#2 Americans know what Subject Matter Jurisdiction is before going to court as it is everything