Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Jurisdictional Challenge

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by pumpkin View Post
    I have not had a success in "dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction".

    Subject matter jurisdiction, IMO, is best challenged by not using those words. They will convince you that the court CAN here that sort of case. And they are correct, except most times there is no 'case' to hear. Pleading 'Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted' by special appearance, is challenging subject matter jurisdiction. Then it is irrelevant what type of cases the court can here, because there is no case. A claim is a pleading and one is required to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. The rules of court will tell you what a claim must contain. Tickets don't accomplish a pleading.
    Perfectly written pumpkin as the same with tax court.
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  2. #22
    A motor vehicle is probable cause to investigate its driver for commercial compliance if this is a requirement .One must dismiss the facts as the charges are based on a commercial fact what has to be challenged is are you infact prima facia a driver on the occasion charged at or near was in commerce or believed = accused.The ownership is the subject the instruments are liability for a DRIVER if a court has a complaint its a in house [courthouse] you is a driver until that facia is challenged thats the venue and commercial standing is the re venue of a Man probates his own cause he is a driver for or is driven steered commercially. I agree thats a brilliant orange pumkn

  3. #23
    I have an interesting one where I will be issuing a jurisdictional challenge. As recent as April I was arrested. On the side of the road I stood on my rights and this irked the police, so they fired up the railroading machine. The circumstances surrounding the arrest do not matter at this point, but the license was signed "True Name - All rights reserved" in Michigan. After the arrest I remembered that 'residence is evidence of commerce'. So when the municipal officers asked me in intake/booking where I lived I gave them a current street address, no more (this didn't match the license information). When asked why I didnt have a "current" license I told them to use the information previously supplied on the license. Unbeknowst to them I had previously tried to get a "current" license but got so far as to get up to sign for the license after waiting and paying at the Secretary of State for them to say "you cant sign like that". So I had them refund me and kept the documentation. Anyhow, they claim that at that point they could not complete the "booking process" and attempted to coerce me by telling me I'd be held indefinitely until I completed the "booking process". There were so many procedural errors that it warrants a new thread come to think of it; back to the jurisdictional challenge.

    They were attempting to manufacture PC - so they played good cop bad cop. While in custody, the arresting officer asked for a blood draw. Having good reason to refuse (and being prevented from seeking counsel all the same) I refused. As it turns out, After this event there is a requirement in Michigan to send in an administrative hearing request on their paperwork which I did with all rights reserved. The mailing (stupidly) was not sent certified and for it to be timely was required within 14 days. After not receiving any correspondence, I sent them a handwritten letter, certified, signed true name, minimizing nexus(es) to commerce and questioning jurisdiction of the administrative agency. I received a letter from the secretary of state saying "we have no jurisdiction because you filed late" which I think is a ruse. A week later I received a "Notice of intent to use technicians report in lieu of testimony" from the DA. The applicable statute in their instructions says to "respond within 14 days" (MCL 6.202). So they've sent me a pleading with no case number and the results of the blood draw finding nothing actionable. They're asking me to file into a matter that doesnt exist! Create the controversy for us? I'm sure this is an attempt to get me to plead into their jurisdiction (because if they had it, would they not have assigned a matter number?).

    Abatement for misnomer? or is there something trickier I can do. Eventually this may develop into a counterclaim for a 1983 case, but I'm questionable about whether that concedes jurisdiction. A few attorney/friends I've consulted say they've never seen such process. There are more details which I can provide, but I thought this a nice start. Any thoughts from the brain trust?
    Last edited by Gonzo; 07-09-15 at 01:57 AM.

  4. #24
    I'm No Brain Trust,,, but............If I’m Reading this correctly: I never heard or read , or been linked to any process like that BS. I check into that.
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  5. #25
    Blood draw? What was the alleged reason for the stop and arrest? Instead of "all rights reserved", I would do "without prejudice". If signing ARR or WoPr , it is probably a good idea to notify the state AG what you mean and send off the letter the same day you get the license.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  6. #26
    Traffic stop. First reason for the stop being, window tint to dark. Then she walked it back and said she had me on video doing 10 over on the interstate. As she was standing at my window the plain view doctrine kicked in and they called for backup, arrested me and began a search due to something in plain view, site, or smell (small amount a marijuana and a pipe). This poster currently undergoing certification for use in Michigan. So she pulled me out of the car and began a search. As I said earlier, I stood on my rights and clammed up after doing so, refusing to answer any questions. This irked them, so when I was booked the reason given (about 2 hours BEFORE being mirandized) was "a string of misdemeanors". When I asked them about where to bail out - I assume they did not like my attitude and changed their stance to "driving under the influence" the reason given that "there were open intoxicants" (Michigan - beer bottles that were being returned for $.10 - a bag had broken and there were some stragglers under the front seat) for the sole reason that they wanted to inconvenience me and be able to hold me under statute. So since I would not answer the questions to complete the booking process I was not able to use a telephone (according to them), however I was mirandized eventually and told I had access to an attorney (which never occurred). When I was initially booked they *offered* me a blood draw, as in Michigan there is an "implied consent" statute which I refused due to being on anticoagulants, and the statute reads that persons of that status are not assumed to have given consent. So she cooked up a warrant from a magistrate, which wasn't presented to me and they threatened use of force to seize my blood while simultaneously threatining to tack on "resisting" charges. They seized the blood and got nothing other than knowledge that supported the breathalyzers findings of .00. and that I consume marijuana. They also said it would take up to 60 days to work through State Patrol lab. This was the end of April. It appears now that the results are back the "case" is "active" again and process is in motion.

    Facts: I was held for 20 hours incommunicado, I continuously requested an attorney which they denied because "I hadnt completed the booking process", I've questioned each offer or counter offered in good faith. Its a mess.

  7. #27
    Blood draw statutes don't work. There is no contract for compelled performance, and the legislature cannot declare anyone 'guilty' for not complying or any other reason. It is a bill of attainder. Doing a quick search within Michigan's rules of court, they are the same for my state. There is one form of action (stated in the civil rules), the civil rules apply to criminal prosecutions unless they conflict (this is stated in the criminal rules), and no other form of action is mentioned or allowed. It seems all the pleadings within the civil rules can be used in criminal proceedings, because they are still civil actions. I looked quickly for 'all style of process shall be..' and found 'The people of the state of Michigan', in the Michigan constitution, though I did not see that it is current (or repealed for that matter), but most states use THE STATE OF MICHIGAN or some other all caps BS, unconstitutional style of process. Anyway, to me it looks like 'failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted' and 'wrong party of interest', and maybe 'lack of injury in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court'. It sounds civil, because IMO, it is civil. Hell, it is civil law for crying out loud.

    Damn dude, did you have a sign on the side of the car too saying FU police? You're just asking for problems there, and what ever happens stay away from a jury. They will crucify you.
    Last edited by pumpkin; 07-10-15 at 12:42 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts