You Can’t Touch Me! — Sovereign Citizens and the Jurisdictional Gambit: 23 Misquoted Cases…

Sovereign Citizens and the Jurisdictional Gambit:

You Can’t Touch Me! – 23 Misquoted Cases

Shortlink to this blog: https://wp.me/p3nYC8-1q5
Index of Blogs http://wp.me/p3nYC8-106
Introduction to Sovereign Citizens http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

Since they refuse to adhere to the law unless they feel like it, sovereigns are often found in courtrooms as defendants. Indeed there is a class or group of sovereigns who adopt the ideology because they are already criminals who don’t want to be responsible for their actions and a religious — err, political theory that says they can’t be held responsible unless they agree seems pretty attractive!

One primary tactic when in court is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case against the sovereign citizen. One reason they refuse to enter the courtroom or the railed off portion (the bar) is because their mythology says to do so makes them agree to a contract to be citizens or at least to subject themselves to the Court. (Of course that is not true…it is based on the idea that the government is a corporation and your obligation to obey laws only derives from making a contract with government. That’s simply nonsense, the US and each State are sovereign and individuals are not.)

Sovereigns believe they are not subject to the law or the authority of the court unless they agree, so this would be a good strategy if that were true. Of course it is not, the courts readily assert jurisdiction given to them by their legislature over certain kinds of cases (subject matter jurisdiction) over any person at all (person among other things meaning “human being” according to Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Ed.) who is within their territorial jurisdiction (in personam jurisdiction) or for an offense or infraction committed therein.

In fact if they really were not subject to the Court they wouldn’t appear at all …but they know the police or other authority will be looking for them and will arrest them. Since sovereignty has as a salient point the ability to exercise control that is enough to show they don’t have it and the courts do...

So there is quite a lot of talk about jurisdiction on the Internet / YouTube School of Sovereign Citizen Law Studies (no, it doesn’t exist but many seem to be graduates nevertheless…)

So through a YouTube video where there was some yammering about jurisdiction, in researching answers I found the document below, an amazing one at that.

Amazingly wrong.

This is correct, in that jurisdiction is fundamental, and if a court doesn’t have jurisdiction it cannot render a valid verdict or judgment in a case.

But they insist that the instant they challenge jurisdiction everything must stop until there is absolute proof of jurisdiction. In fact they sometimes claim that the case cannot even start until jurisdiction is proven and since in their mind jurisdiction doesn’t exist, the court can’t even talk to them about it…

And of course, once the court overrules their objection and finds that it has jurisdiction, they are likely to keep arguing about it anyway; and so end up in contempt of court… in fact sovereigns are so convinced of the rightness of their positions that even when the courts tell them they are wrong on any point, they keep on arguing and arguing…

If jurisdiction is apparent, the court proceeds.

If it is challenged the party maintaining that jurisdiction applies must provide proof of jurisdiction.

Not proof beyond all doubt. Not here and now. But at the Court’s timing. And it is the Court’s decision whether it has jurisdiction.

Anyway that leads us to this document which like so many makes the rounds of the Sov sites, is cut and pasted and never ever read or verified (ok I exaggerate a few places actually do look at these things…but not many).

It is illustrative that it contains erroneous citations such as “Latana” instead of “Lantana” that appear over and over on the sites that purvey this stuff; this is a clue that they didn’t ever actually check the citation.

So I read “23 cases” and find actually about 19 actual cases, as two are repeats (which demonstrate someone (everyone) didn’t even do a basic proof-read); and then some “not cases.”

Apparently quote marks mean something else to sovereign legal scholars than to me, because they were not quotations found in the cited opinions almost every single time. I tried searching the cited cases for the words in the document in quotation marks. And they weren’t there. Sorry they just weren’t there.

Yes, nearly every single one of these is, or contains, a misquotation of the case, sometimes substantial sometimes not; sometimes it’s a good paraphrase but it’s not a quote and accuracy matters; sometimes I couldn’t tell what the case really said about jurisdiction because I didn’t want to read them all in their entirety… it’s a lot of reading.

When I could do so credibly I provided a corrected quote. Which IS in the decision.

Well here we go…

How to Beat Any Court Case – National Liberty Alliance

“The National Liberty Alliance (NLA) is a proactive organization. You must do your homework, study the law, and be willing to put in the effort and time for your own paperwork. We DO NOT provide legal advice in anyway. [sic] If you do not want to learn the law and you want someone else to do the work for you, then you should consider other options than those on this site. But, if you want to help us stop judges and attorneys from stealing children, homes, and money from the people, then join us and register. If these things have happen to you, rest assured you are not alone. Many of our members have had children stolen, homes robbed, and many other injustices happen to them. Please make sure to signup so we can all make a difference.”

“23 Case Citations”

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.

Without any source, I offer no opinion on the assertion. Maybe some court said it somewhere some time. No way to tell.

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 § 25, pp. 388-89.

I don’t have access to this document, which is not a legal authority; so I cannot find the case on which this is allegedly based. But it’s an encyclopedia that collects decisions for ease of research.
The opinions are what the law is, not the encyclopedia itself.

“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)

That Quote is actually correct! The First of Almost No Others…

But they Omitted something important….

“A court has the power to determine its own jurisdiction, and an error in that determination will not render the judgment void. Only in the rare instance of a clear usurpation of power will a judgment be rendered void.”

Wow they are gonna hate that one! No wonder they didn’t include it!

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).

The words reported do not appear in the case cited.

Correct Quote:

“A judgment is void if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the parties, or if its actions resulted in a denial of due process.” 9 Kan. App. 2d 735, Syl. ¶ 5. “A judgment that is void for lack of due process may be set aside at any time.” 9 Kan. App. 2d 735, Syl. ¶ 6. “Further, knowledge of the pendency of an action has no effect on a void judgment.” 9 Kan. App. 2d at 744.

“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.

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

Correct Quote:

“The defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unsupported by affidavits or depositions is incomplete because it requests this Court to consider facts outside the record which have not been presented in the form required by Rules 12(b) (6) and 56(c). Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.”

Comment Note that the “quote” makes what was a request to dismiss based on lack of evidence seem to be a challenge to jurisdiction.

That is dishonest use of the case as well.

“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).

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

“The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal”, VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

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 judgements 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 ).

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

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.

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

CORRECT quote:

“The trial court, by reason of plaintiff’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies, acquired no jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim. When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”

Comment: Note that this doesn’t say “everything must stop immediately”. In fact the court may take some time to determine whether it has jurisdiction, may pursue other matters until it does.

10. “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.”
Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

CORRECT Quote:

“Although it is regrettable that the Government did not raise the FECA issue more promptly, once that issue was raised, the district court had no discretion to proceed to a final adjudication of the cause of action without first requiring the plaintiff to complete the processing of his administrative claim under the FECA. Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.”

(I don’t take issue with that particular opinion, the Courts are not allowed to ignore jurisdictional questions that are real. But it’s not stated that way in the document…the real decision plainly says the court needs to resolve the issue before reaching its final decision.

11. “The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416.

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited. And this is an example of dishonestly representing the case; the court has no such burden. The burden is on the party bringing the action.

Corrected Quote:

“Generally, a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdiction are sufficient, but when they are questioned, as in this case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction.”

Isn’t that strange, that the plain words of the case are changed to make the Court responsible? But such dishonesty is commonly found on sovereign sites. They take quotes out of context, ignore the actual meaning of a decision to present it as something different, and in some situations — often with this particular issue — they simply lie about what it says.

“Court 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.

*Erroneous citation copied over and over and over from sovereign citizen sites without anyone finding the error because they never read the cases, they just copy and paste them.

Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150.

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

Again that error makes it seem the burden to establish jurisdiction from one of the parties onto the court; and presumably this is done in order to uphold sovereign citizen myth…

Correct Quote:

“The above cited decisions and authorities cited therein conclusively establish the rule that if the issue is presented in any way the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon him who invokes it. Since plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proving jurisdiction, there was nothing for the District Court to do but dismiss the cause.”

13. “The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

Presumably the case cited is State of MAINE et al., Petitioners, v. Joline THIBOUTOT, et vir., etc. 448 U.S. 1 (100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555) but the citation itself is erroneous and no case name is stated either.

The words quoted do not appear in the case I found, that may or may not be the case intended.

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.”Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

Correct Quote:

“A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking. Bradbury v. Dennis, 310 F.2d 73 (10th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 928, 83 S.Ct. 874, 9 L.Ed.2d 733 (1963). The party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has the duty to establish that federal jurisdiction does exist, Wilshire Oil Co. of Texas v. Riffe, 409 F.2d 1277 (10th Cir. 1969)….Therefore, lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a federal court by consent, inaction or stipulation.”

California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 93 S.Ct. 390, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972)

Comment: Once again, this doesn’t say “STOP ALL PROCEEDINGS” nor that the case may not continue because jurisdiction has been challenged. It says that when the court feels it is apparent that it lacks jurisdiction it should dismiss the case. Not when the Sovereign Defendant insists that it lacks jurisdiction. And it is the Court that makes the decision, based on whatever it feels is proper evidence of jurisdiction.

“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).

The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

Correct Quote:

“The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may properly be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.”

Rodriquez v. State, 441 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Comment OK the quote isn’t wrong, it is however NOT A QUOTE it’s a paraphrase, a restatement. In legal matters words matter, a correct quote is much better than a restatement because in the restatement something can be added or lost.

Learn how to do real legal research and how to use quote marks!

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. “Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150.

See #12, same case repeated but this time correctly captioned; same quote previously offered; The words quoted do not appear in the case cited.

Comment: The Court is not obliged to prove jurisdiction, it finds it has it or it does not have it, based on the facts, pleading, allegations, affidavits, or evidence before it; or it places the burden on one of the parties to allege the facts that give it jurisdiction; and if challenged the party obliged must offer such proof as in the court’s mind establishes jurisdiction. Normally a plaintiff or complainant will include a statement as to the court’s jurisdiction in its initial filing.

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

As seems to always be the case in this document, the quoted words are not found in the opinion of the court. Rather than being a paraphrase of something in the opinion, or a derivative opinion as to what the court’s statements mean, which is often the case in this document, the quote appears to be made up completely.

Correct Quote:

”…as the board is a tribunal of special jurisdiction the accusation should set forth its jurisdiction. The accusation in this proceeding sets forth facts showing the board’s jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of Dr. Stuck.”

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250. Correct Citation (probably:)
State of MAINE et al., Petitioners, v. Joline THIBOUTOT, et vir., etc. 448 U.S. 1 (100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555)

Comment: Maybe they missed #13 which is the same case. Lack of proofreading doesn’t inspire confidence. These words quoted ALSO do not appear in the case cited if this is that case.

“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.

The quoted words do not exist in the case cited.

Correct Quote (in footnote 2/5)

“Whether an objection that a bill or a complaint fails to state a case under a federal statute raises a question of jurisdiction or of merits is to be determined by the application of a well settled rule. If the bill or the complaint sets forth a substantial claim, a case is presented within the federal jurisdiction, however the court, upon consideration, may decide as to the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged to support the claim. But jurisdiction, as distinguished from merits, is wanting where the claim set forth in the pleading is plainly unsubstantial. The cases have stated the rule in a variety of ways, but all to that effect. . . . And the federal question averred may be plainly unsubstantial either because obviously without merit or because its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.”

Comment: I regret the repetition but searching this case for “administrative agency” or “proof of jurisdiction” or “administrative proceedings” yields nothing. And in any event this is a specific requirement of Article III Courts under Federal Law, there must be a controversy for a case to proceed in Federal Court. State law may not have the same requirement.

“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.”

Correct Quote:

“That a judgment in personam against a defendant who is not before the court either by service of process or by the entry of appearance is void there can be no question.”

Comment: First of all this is NOT a case where jurisdiction is questioned. It is an issue of LACK OF NOTICE. The Court has jurisdiction over the case and the parties, it’s that the notice of the case has not been properly served or shown. The court can’t have power over people who have no notice of the case.

And then, REALLY. AGAIN?

Does the author of this document know what quotation marks represent?? The quoted matter is not in the opinion!

“Challenge to court’s jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss, Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d. 22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984.)”
DANY v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

Correct Quote:

“The [Florida] Department [of Insurance] in effect challenged the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, a challenge which is properly raised by motion to dismiss. See Fla.R. *26 Civ.P. 1.140(b). The only ground on which the court could have considered the suit was as to the claims directed to the facial constitutionality of the statute.”

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,

Re. Cavitt, 254 P.599d (incorrect citation)

Correct Citation: In Re Cavitt 47 Cal.App.2d 698118 P.2d 846

Correct Quote:

“Jurisdiction is fundamental, and as heretofore pointed out, must be continuing in the court throughout the proceeding, because it is jurisdiction alone that gives the court power to hear, determine and pronounce judgment upon the issues before it.”

Comment: Of course the Quote is like so many before, incorrect.

“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, Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P,27.”

Correct Quote:

“It is elementary that the first question which must be determined by the trial court in every case is that of jurisdiction.”

(Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685)

Comment: Was that so hard? Once again, the quote is not found within the opinion cited but at least this one comes close.And of course it doesnt say that a court cannot do anything else while it considers a challenge to jurisdiction; nor does it say who must prove jurisdiction.

OK what did we learn?

1. Sovereign Citizens have no idea how to do legal research, and don’t read the cases they cite, they just copy and paste them over and over and over.

They don’t seem to proofread either.

2. They apparently don’t understand how to use quotation marks. If you made up the words you can’t put them in quotations unless you are quoting yourself. Correctly.

3. They are happy to misquote and misidentify who challenges jurisdiction, how, and why; who is responsible for proving it; and how the courts handle even a proper challenge.They don’t have to drop everything when a challenge is entered and the court determines its jurisdiction. And usually the party proving is the plaintiff or party invoking the power of the court.

4. They make a huge hullabaloo about things but when you look at the real law, it doesn’t.

In fact it is quite rare for a Court to entertain a case where it lacks jurisdiction; but if it does it dismisses. The sovs will say that it happens every single time, because their thesis is that the government has no authority over them.

They expect the Courts to somehow agree. The Courts don’t agree. There is no evidence that the Courts do agree and no written opinion (indeed many to the opposite effect) says that anyone is exempt from the law or can choose not to be subject to the government or court jurisdiction.

4. In fact the Courts do agree on a few points at least: the sovereigns ARE subject to the laws without personal consent and ARE subject to the State’s jurisdiction:

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) [US Supreme Court]

“The several States of the Union …except as restrained and limited by [the Constitution], …possess and exercise the authority of independent States, … every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory.“

United States v. Kenneth Wayne Leaming, (WD Washington D.C.) Order, docket entry 102, 2/12/2013, [District Court] [Order of dismissal does not include this cited Order.]

“The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding ‘things he has read on the internet’ are make-believe. … at the end of the day, while sovereign citizens and Defendant cite things like ‘Universal Law Ordinances,’… they are subject to both state and federal laws, just like everyone else.”

-30-