Jurisdiction Musings…. for an "At Law" argument/approach; (vs. equitable)
This is just observations, personal interpretations, and things to consider and investigate for yourself.
Not every county or state may be run the exact same way, thus everyone must do their own research, comparing their facts as compiled, to the laws that apply in their state and county.
Fact 1. Texas State has no Constitutional basis for Ad Valorem Property Tax. It's been abolished for years.
CN - The Texas Constitution
Fact 2. Texas State has delegated this Ad Valorem Property Tax to its Counties to Collect for them, and then deposit with Texas State Comptroller.
Fact 3. Texas State Comptroller's Office Website admits collecting more than 60 different types of taxes; one of which is Ad Valorem Property Tax.
Fact 4. The County's Tax Collector (de jure elected official) does not collect property taxes; only car license tags, (along with voter's registration)
Fact 5. The County's Commissioner's Court has contracted with the Chief Appraiser to not only assess, appraise, send statements and to collect
Fact 6. The Chief Appraiser does not possess an Appraisal License, an Oath of Office, nor a Bond. She is not elected. She is Contracted by Commissioner's Court, according to the true de jure tax collector of the county. On their .net webpage, (not listed as a county government office) it says that "the County Appraisal District makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information is the responsibility of 'the user'. The County Appraisal District shall not be liable for errors contained herein or for any damages in connection with the use of the information contained herein."
FACT 7. Along about the end of September/First of October, home owners receive an Estimated Tax Notice. It says "This is not a Bill. Do not Pay!". Then, about 6 weeks later, home owners receive a STATEMENT instructing homeowners to Pay 1234.56, but it does not specify what specie it wants it paid with. Statements presume a Bill has been sent, when in fact no bill has ever been sent or received. The Tax Code (if you are in fact a Taxpayer- see taxation page for definition of TERM and are made liable for the Tax), requires the Appraisal District to send you a BILL! Even when asked, a BILL is never mailed! Notice most property tax statements do not typically include a dollar symbol. Even if they do have something that resembles a dollar symbol, the symbol used is a Mexican peso symbol, not a U.S. Dollar Symbol.
Texas Tax Code Section 31.01 requires the assessor to prepare and mail a tax bill to each property owner listed on the tax roll or to that person's agent by Oct. 1 or as soon thereafter as practicable each year. In the case of mortgaged property where taxes are paid from an escrow account controlled by the mortgagee (mortgage holder), the notice requirements are satisfied by sending the tax bill to the mortgagee. Written authorization by the property owner is not required in order to deliver the tax bill to the mortgage company when the mortgage company acknowledges that it has authority for payment of taxes on the property.
For purposes of this section, a tax bill includes both the tax bill and separate statements referenced in Tax Code Section 31.01. http://comptroller.texas.gov/taxinfo/proptax/taxbills/#a1
Tax assessments state “you have a balance due…” “if you paid this balance…” “you
can review your account balance”
Fact 9. The County takes a "person" to Court, in the name of the School District,(artificial corporate entity), under the umbrella of THE STATE OF TEXAS, (another artificial corporate entity), [Remember, it's unconstitutional by Texas State Constitution], using STATE Codified Statutes as their Authority (which are codified from the Statutes at Large, supposedly as required, without substantive change)…. but does not require the Statute to interpret its own definition of TERMS used to define WHO is made Liable for Taxation…. This critical key to interpretation the TERM PERSON is missing, but this nexus is being presumed.
When you challenge Jurisdiction, The District Court claims they have jurisdiction (which they do over land in the County), but the question is: Do they have In Personam Jurisdiction of the man or woman, who has not been proven to be a "TAXPAYER", a "PERSON", a "LEGAL ENTITY", nor "LOCATED IN THIS STATE" nor has their land been proven to be "REAL ESTATE" , "PROPERTY", or "RESIDENTIAL". It is in fact, private land, not in commerce, nor for profit, possibly even "unrestricted"; having no nexus with the County, as the County has not issued a Corporation Instrument, nor any License to Do Business….. creating a nexus that would give them Jurisdiction. See Van Brocklin v. Anderson
Fact 10. Jurisdiction:
The Texas Constitution, Art. 5. - Judicial Department, § 8. Jurisdiction Of District Court.
District Court jurisdiction consists of exclusive, appellate, and original
jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where
exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this
Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body.
District Court judges shall have the power to issue writs necessary to enforce
Equity in State District Court? Take a Look!!!
(a) Except as provided by Subsection....
(d) of this section, a district court has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all proceedings by or against a trustee and all
proceedings concerning trusts....
Texas State District Courts - New Texas Court Rule state:
When the Monitoring Judge has designated a case as complex, the Monitoring Judge shall then assign the case in
random order to one Judge for all further pre-trial matters and for trial and
insofar as is practicable a proportionate share of such cases shall be assigned to each civil District Court.
If Civil and Statutory, it would be referred to as a Complex Case… If in Equity, it would be referred to as a Complex Matter, as a motion to monitoring judge for to designate the matter a complicated matter, (as akin to a complex case) and show equity is asked for on motion...to avoid multiplicity of suits... with a Prayer for Order for Determination Hearing, so judge can determine the equities of the parties...Order to have clerk docket the matter on a Special Equity Term Docket, and if there is not one running then to bring it back from vacation (but in the meantime that judge can sign the order while it is on vacation) to issue permanent injunction as you are quia timet....etc.
The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority,
or is introduced by its permission;
but does not extend to those means which are employed by congress to carry into
execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States. The
attempt to use the taxing power of a state on the means employed by the
government of the Union, in pursuance of the constitution, is itself an abuse,
because it is the usurpation of a power which the people of a single state
cannot give. The power to tax involves the power to destroy;
So, if it's unconstitutional for Texas to levy any Ad Valorem Property Tax on
any property within this state, but the STATE delegates this duty to the county
to do it for them…. why wouldn't the County have to sue under County laws
and rules, in a County Court (instead of using STATE codes, and sue in
the name of the STATE OF TEXAS) in a District Court, to possess proper
[T]he United States Supreme Court recognizes the sanctity of land transfers, and
has expressed reluctance to interfere with land rights in which no reservations
were present when conferred, stating that: "Generations of land patents have
issued without any express reservation of the right now claimed by the
Government. . . . [W]e are unwilling to upset settled expectations to
accommodate some ill-defined power to construct public thoroughfares without compensation."
Fact 13: If we file a Show Cause, and the Court does not Timely Answer Show Cause, One may try Entering a Summary Judgment, and provide a directed Judge's Order.See more on this subject of Jurisdiction; both the person (in personam) and subject matter jurisdiction in this case: Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604 (1990)
(Note: This link will produce a 548 page WORD document)
1. "A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
2. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments Â§ 25, pp. 388-89.
3. A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972)
4. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
5. "Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
6. "A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
7. "The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal", VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )
8. "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).
9. "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." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026.
10. "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
11. "The burden shifts to the court [or charging entity] to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416.
12. "Court [or charging entity] must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150.
13. "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven [by the charging entity]." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
14. "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.
15. "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985).
16. "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." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
17. "Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
18. "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.
19. "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.
20. A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void.
Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970). Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785.
21. Challenge to court's jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss, Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d. 22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984.
22. Since jurisdiction is fundamental, and it is jurisdiction alone that gives a court power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before it, jurisdiction must be continuing in the court throughout the proceedings [meaning at the time charges were lodged], Re. Cavitt, 254 P.599
23. Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction [of the charging entity], Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P,27.
24. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court [or the charging entity] without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
25. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear [due to lack of jurisdiction of charging entity] is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
26. "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." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
27. "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." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 93 4, 937.
28. "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.
29. "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." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
30. A motion to set aside a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction is not subject to the time limitations of Rule 60(b). See Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986).
31. A judgment is void, and therefore subject to relief under Rule 60(b)(4), only if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction or in circumstances in which the court's action amounts to a plain usurpation of power constituting a violation of due process. United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990)
32. Where Rule 60(b)(4) is properly invoked on the basis that the underlying judgment is void, "'relief is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory.'" Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 n.8 (10th Cir. 1979)).
33. In order for a judgment to be void, there must be some jurisdictional defect in the court's authority to enter the judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306, 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983); Dragotoiu, 133 Idaho at 647, 991 P.2d at 379.
34. A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
35. "Though not specifically alleged, defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under FRCP Rule 60(b)(4)." Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), aff'd, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982).
36. "A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time." 261 Kan. at 862.
37. Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the "reasonable" time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit.
38. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). "On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it." Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, supra, at 453. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter "spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States" and is "inflexible and without exception." Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884).Cited in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 US 83 - Supreme Court 1998
Cede / Relinquish All Rights and Title In and To Land Granted, No Reservations Kept