FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM
“Let Right Be Done, Though The Heavens Should Fall”
Our government owes the people an “intangible right to honest services” by all government agents, a.k.a. municipal employees/officers. Implicit in this statement is the inferred obligation to the people that our courts will be honest and will be administered by honest officers of the court. Judges and prosecutors must be held to a higher standard of truth and integrity that the citizens for whom they administer the law.
“It is a fair characterization of the lawyer’s responsibility in our society that he stands “as a shield,” …, in defense of right and to ward off wrong. From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as “moral character”.” Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238 (1957)
SCOTUS rendered the decision in Schware being consciously aware of the potential for abuse of power if our courts and law enforcement should, over time, disregard their “fiduciary responsibility” and therewith forfeit their moral character. Jefferson, Lincoln and others cautioned against failure to keep a watchful eye on the judiciary.
When lawyers and judges disregard truth and honesty they neglect their duty to support and defend the Constitution. Due process and equal protection of law are discarded. The court becomes a “rogue/corrupt court”, acting outside the prescribed parameters of law.
Where due process has been stolen, Justice does not and can not exist. Without Justice, FREEDOM IS LOST. This website is created to be “a shield” in defense of right and to ward off wrong. We need to restore integrity to our courts if the American dream is to survive.
The fundamental element for due process of law is the establishment of jurisdiction without which a court may not act for, inter alia, lack of probable cause. Jurisdiction has two (2) primary components; subject matter and in personam jurisdiction. Both components must be satisfied for a court to have jurisdiction to act in a judicial capacity in the matter.
Jurisdiction is so important as a “constitutional right” that once challenged, the test for jurisdiction is, and must be established by the moving party (plaintiff], under the “strict scrutiny” test. In criminal Law. the State is required to demonstrate a “compelling need” for enforcement of the statute in question.
A court that assumes jurisdiction without irrefutable supporting evidence is “at war with the Constitution” which judges have sworn to support and defend. See Oath of Office.
A court may not assume jurisdiction where that jurisdiction is challenged. The moving party has the burden of proof to establish jurisdiction in a court of law. This requirement is critical in criminal cases lest the victim be convicted by abusive and criminal misconduct of prosecutors.
Appellate courts, including SCOTUS, have addressed this issue. Their holdings include:
“Jurisdiction can not be assumed.” Owen v. City of Independence, Mo., 100 S.Ct. 1398 (1980). SCOTUS
“Once challenged, jurisdiction must be answered.” Hagans v. Lavine, 99 S.Ct. 1372, 78 n. 5 (1973). SCOTUS
“Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time, even after trial.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., Ltd., 459 F.Supp. 1161 (DC PA 1980).
The United States Supreme Court, in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24 (1908), stated that “Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction.”; citing Old Wayne Mut. Life Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 14 S.Ct. 1108 (1894); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877). SCOTUS
“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction will subject a court to collateral attack, since the judgment is wholly nugatory.” Riddle v. Cella, 15 A.2d 59, 128 N.J. Eq. 4 (1940).
“Where a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it should refrain from any further exercise of power.” Myers v. Long Island Lighting Co., 623 F.Supp. 1076 (D.C.N.Y. 1985).
“A party can not be estopped from asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction” Burch v. Snider, 461 F.Supp. 598 (1978).
“Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by parties, conferred by consent, or ignored by court.” Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Parsons Corp., 430 F.2d 531 (1970).
“Jurisdiction of person may be waived, but lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be asserted by court sua sponte at any time or at appellate level.” Skidmore v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 529 F.2d 1244 (1976). [Emphasis added.]
“Subject matter jurisdiction is so important that absence of it must be raised at any time, sua sponte, by a court at any level.” Matter of Wildman, 30 B.R. 133 (Bkrtcy Ill. 1983). [Emphasis added.]
“Where a court has no jurisdiction of subject matter, its proceedings are void and judge can derive no protection from them against potential civil liability.” In re: Tip-Pa-Hans Enterprises, Inc., 27 B.R. 780 (Va. 1983).
“The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). SCOTUS
“Engaging in an act of treason against the United States Constitution by any citizen of the United States is an act of war against the United States.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). SCOTUS
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
WE ALL should be offended by any attempt to apologize for the systemic violation of Constitutional rights “under color of Law”.
Clearly, subject matter jurisdiction is a fundamental element for any court proceeding to pretend to have legitimacy. Under Twining, supra, SCOTUS recognizes “jurisdiction” as a fundamental right; a “due process” Constitutional issue. Any court that proceeds without jurisdiction commits a “breach of trust which, when not corrected becomes a “conflict of interest crime”. and TREASON!
U.S. v. Will; and Cohens v. Virginia, supra.
See Public Service. 5 C.F.,R. § 22635.101(c).
Jurisdiction is challenged in two cases published in the JUDICIAL ATROCITIES section of this site; Cmwlth. v. Claudia A. Montelione; and Cmwlth. v. Eugene A. Wrona. In both cases, the Cmwlth. failed to satisfy its burden of proof to establish jurisdiction.
In both cases, the State court failed to demand that prosecutors meet this burden and prosecutors “made no effort” to establish jurisdiction in Dauphin County Court. In both cases, the State judiciary is “at war” with the Constitution of the United States.
All criminal charges against Wrona relate to his actions in the Montelione cases. Since the Common- wealth cannot establish jurisdiction in Cmwlth. v. Montelione, there can be no jurisdiction to proceed from the underlying actions.
In the Montelione case [began Oct. 2007], the Office of Attorney General [Thomas W. Corbett, Jr.] initiated the action and DENIED the defendant “due process” by failing to file a “complaint”, a “necessary instrument” for the Commencement of Action. Pa.R.C.P. 1007. The defendant was never served with “Notice”.
For the Wrona case, the District Attorney for Dauphin County perpetrates a “fraud on the court” in the Commencement of Action and disregards established rules of Law which transfers jurisdiction to federal court. Pursuant to Uniform Bonding Code (UBC): RULE 5.0
A State court may not try a criminal matter where the accuser is “the State”. Jurisdiction is automatically vested in a federal court. An appearance of impropriety and susceptibility to prejudice precludes a State court from trying a case on behalf of the State.
“Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872). SCOTUS
Generally, court rules define the parameters to initiate an action and venue for the appropriate court to exercise jurisdiction. Pa. Rules of Civil Proc., Rule 1007 holds: “An action may be commenced by filing with the prothonotary: (1) a praecipe for a writ of summons, or (2) a complaint.
In criminal matters, a presumption that an action is commenced by filing a complaint is consistent with Pa.R.C.P. 1007. In all criminal matters, the accused must be afforded their rights under the U.S. Constitution and the applicable state (Penna.) Constitution.
No other documents may be used to initiate an action without violating procedural rules, which thereby forfeits any jurisdiction of the court.
“The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act.” Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla. 32, 227 F. 417.
Pennsylvania Rules of Court: e.g., Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rules of Appellate Procedure; Rules of Evidence; Rules of Professional Conduct; et al are not Law. Court Rules are promulgated by committees for the Supreme Court of PA; ergo, they cannot be Law since only the legislature has authority to enact Law.
These Rules are, however, the operations manual for officers of the court; public servants, “trustees” for the Public Trust and by whom these “rules” must be honored in the performance of their fiduciary responsibility. PA Const., Article 10(c) Judicial Administration.
A court (judge) acting contrary to the Rules of Court is, by definition, a “Criminal” for committing a conflict of interest “crime”. See Public Service.
The Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article I — Declaration of Rights, sections 9, 10, 13 et al, addresses fundamental protections of the accused in criminal matters. Public officers for the government have a legal duty [fiduciary responsibility] to provide those protections for every person accused of a crime. Failure of the state to provide such protections constitutes a breach of trust that forfeits jurisdiction of a state court to prosecute the accused.
The supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, is the umbrella under which all state laws must conform.
U.S. CONSTITUTION — ( Excerpts )
Article VI. … Clause 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI has not been amended or repealed.
4th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S.C.A., Const. Amend. IV.
5th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. U.S.C.A., Const. Amend. V.
6th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the rights to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. U.S.C.A., Const. Amend. VI.
14th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S.C.A., Const. Amend. XIV, §1.
Warning: Look up & read the cited case for consistency with the facts/issues in your case prior to using the citation.
American jurisprudence has a long history of protecting judges and other public officers from personal liability for their actions in the performance of their judicial and administrative duties. This protection is called “qualified judicial immunity”.
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY IS NOT ABSOLUTE!
“When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980); cert. den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed. 2d 326.
In Rankin v. Howard, supra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986) the Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the “judicial nature” analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive. But Rankin’s ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction.
Some defendants urge that any act “of a judicial nature” entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349.
“A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.” Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938).
Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory v.Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974).
“There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign.” Cooper v. O’Connor, 99 F.2d 133.
“When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction.” State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So.2d 697.
“… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
“No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.” Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859).
“Let Right Be Done, Though The Heavens Should Fall”
Contact Us to share thoughts, ideas and proposals to achieve these noble results.