 |
|
Response to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Petition to Show Cause
THORNTON MUNICIPAL COURT, COUNTY OF
______________________________________________________
Plaintiff:
THORNTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
v.
Defendant
RICK STANLEY
_____________________________________________
Rick Stanley
6280 E. 39th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80207
(303) 329-0481
Case Number:
CR -2002-0006386-MS
(ticket no. 6006970)
Defendant’s Petition and Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Show
Cause Where This Court Has Jurisdiction and Petition to Return Property to Defendant
Aggrieved Defendant, Rick Stanley, without assistance of counsel, submits this
Petition and Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Show Cause Where This
Court Has Jurisdiction and Petition to Return Property to Defendant to the pleading
standard described in Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421 (See Hall v Bellmon
935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 06/03/1991) and relies on the Court to explain any
deficiency concerning Defendant’s pleadings as outlined in Platsky v.
C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Additionally, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable
opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v Shillinger
907 F.2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d
1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985)(1), and states as follows:
Authority to Establish a Municipal Court and Jurisdiction
1. In all of the Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s challenge to the City’s jurisdiction over Stanley in this unconstitutional gun ordinance that Stanley was arrested for, nowhere, does Plaintiff acknowledge any of Defendant’s points, summaries or conclusions.
2. Plaintiff’s entire case proving jurisdiction resides under the authority of Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado constitution that Thornton qualifies to form a home rule municipality and then using Section 6-1 and 8-1 of the Thornton charter to authorize the promulgation of ordinances that regulate the conduct of citizens within the municipal boundaries and in conjunction with C.R.S. 31-15-401, the City has the authority to use it’s police power to regulate the conduct of persons within it’s jurisdictional boundaries, for the public health and welfare.
3. The remaining authority cites are all understand and are without question to Defendant.
4. What is in question is whether the Municipal Court of Thornton may violate Rick Stanley’s constitutional and civil rights under the color of law.
5. The Thornton Municipal court and Thornton, A Municipal Corporation, do not, and never have had jurisdiction over Rick Stanley, in regard to ordinances that violate the Colorado State Constitution and the US Constitution, guaranteeing Rick Stanley the right to keep and bear arms – 2nd amendment, and the right which guarantees every person’s right to keep and bear arms in defense of person, home and property – Colorado constitution, Article II, Section 13. When a Municipal corporation such as Thornton, wishes to invoke home rule, as the authority to violate a State and National Constitutional guaranteed right, home rule does not apply based upon the Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 80-1350, “Community Communications Col, Inc. V. City of Boulder, Colorado, et al., decided January 13, 1982, which destroys home rule governance in violation of a higher authority. “As this Court stated long ago, all sovereign authority (within the geographical limits of the United States) resides either with “the government of the United States, or with the States of the Union.” There exists within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two. There may be cities, counties, and other organized bodies with LIMITED LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS, but they are all derived from or exist, in subordination to one or the other of these.” United States Supreme Court.
6. What I found is that there’s just no way AT ALL that the Colorado “home rule city” system allows Thornton to do a gun ban:
Synopsis:
The original Colorado Constitution of 1876 sets up an obvious, personal right to open-carry a firearm. No doubts, no question.
The “home rule” system was added to the Colorado Constitution much later. At the time it was created, a critical piece was added to the “home rule” system (section “H” of the home-rule Constitutional addition):
“…and the enumeration herein of certain powers [that home rule towns get] shall not be construed to deny such cities and towns, and to the people thereof, any right or power essential or proper to the full exercise of such right.”
Whoops. That means any personal individual right that Colorado’s citizens had BEFORE the home-rule addition was put in place, CANNOT BE STRIPPED OUT VIA HOME RULE!!
Busted:)
Don’t believe me? Here’s the 1876 Colorado Constitution online:
http://www.archives.state.co.us/constitution/ - note the utter lack of “home rule,” and the strong self-defense-rights provision (unchanged down to the present). Here’s the actual “gun part”:
Section 13: Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carry concealed weapons.
That Thornton can ban the Holy Bible? Or that they can outlaw congregating with people of like mind? That they can search anyone, anwhere, any time they please, without probable cause and a search warrant? Where does Thornton’s extra-Constitutional “home rule” power end?
Finally, what do you think America’s Founders meant by the words “shall not be infringed?”
7. Rick Stanley, as a sovereign citizen of Colorado, which is a legal standing specified in Article IV, Section 2, clause 1 of the Federal Constitution, ratified in 1789, demands here and now, that a certified copy of the State and US Constitutions be entered into evidence, to join the previously entered certified copy of the judge’s oath of office.
8. To date, Judge Rose has refused Defendant’s demand for a Common Law Constitutional court, with a full twelve (12) person jury trial, with Judge Rose defending Defendant’s Constitutional rights, with jury instructions in concert with Judge Rose’s sworn oath to defend the Colorado State Constitution and the US Constitution, thereby guaranteeing Defendant’s Constitutional rights.
9. With this refusal, this Court, has lost jurisdiction over Defendant in this matter. Defendant can not submit willfully for a voluntary appearance, and has been forced to be here at the point of a gun, carried by corporate thugs posing as defenders of the Constitution and the Supreme law of the land, i.e., Thornton municipal police, and under threat of a bench warrant for Defendant’s arrest. This is a nisi prius court, which is a court that Defendant must agree to jurisdiction. Albrecht v. U.S., 273 U.S. 1, 47 S. Ct.250 (1927) After appropriate accusation, either by indictment or information, court may acquire jurisdiction of person of defendant by his voluntary appearance [Gerstein]. Failing to move to quash warrant of arrest before defect was cured, defendant lost right to object thereto…verified affidavits in federal court by U.S. attorney were sworn to before notary public, not authorized to administer oaths in federal criminal proceedings [U.S. v. Hall]. A person may not be punished for a crime without a formal and sufficient accusation even if he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court special appearance; practice of summons used against corporation versus arrest for individual.
Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 12 Pet. 657, 9 L. Ed. 1233 (1837)…this Court is one of limited and special original jurisdiction, its action must be confined to the particular cases, controversies, and parties over which the constitution and laws have authorized it to act; any proceeding without the limits prescribed, is coram non judice, and its action a nullity [Crater Lake v. Oregon; Maxfield; Manchester]
American Oil v. Neill, 380 U.S. 451 (1965) want of nexus; jurisdiction http://laws.findlaws.com/us/380/451.html.
American Shipbuilding v. N.L.R.B., 380 U.S. 300, 85 S Ct 95 (1965) jurisdiction cannot be obtained by judicial inertia.
Atlas Life Insurance Co. v. W.I. Southern Inc., 306 U.S. 563 (1939) it is the duty of the federal court to determine federal jurisdiction sua sponte (of its own will or motion) [Basso].
Baer v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 503 F. 2d 393 (1974) jurisdictional facts must appear on record…it is the duty of the federal courts to raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it appears from the pleadings or otherwise that jurisdiction is lacking [John Birch]
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Denver, 137 P. 653(1915) jurisdiction; answer; abatement; law; equity.
Nestor v Hersey, 425 F. 2d 504 acts void absent proof of jurisdiction on record.
Northern Pipeline Const. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S. Ct. 2858, 73 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1982) http: //laws.find.aw.com/us/458/50.html Jurisdiction in rem, in personam (2885).
Olson v. District Court of Salt lake County, 93 Utah 145, 71 P. 2d 529 534 excess of jurisdiction
Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 (1980)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/445/622.html
abolished good faith assertions of jurisdiction;
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877) In personam jurisdiction [Black’s 5th at 711; Oregon]
Portland Trailer & Equipment, Inc. v A-1 Freeman Moving & Storage, Inc., 9805-03819; CA A104316 (Or. 04/19/2000) http://159.121.112.45/A104316.htm. Plaintiffs have the burden of alleging and proving facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Dreher v. Smithson, 162 or App 645, 648, 986 P2d 721 (1999), rev den 329 Or 589 (2000). We construe pleadings and affidavits liberally to support jurisdiction. Id. Once the jurisdictional facts are established, we review the determination of personal jurisdiction for errors of law. Boehm & Co. v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., 125 Or. App 249, 252, 865 P2d 413 (1993). At Trial and again on appeal Plantiff’s contend that personal jurisdiction existed under various subsections of ORCP 4.
Bialac v. Harsh, _____U.S. _____, 34 L. Ed.2d 512, 463 F.2d 1185 (9th 1972) objection to jurisdiction based on lack of complete diversity between the parties is never waived, nor is it lost by stipulation.
state of operation is the corporation’s principal place of business;
jurisdiction is jurisdiction
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 646, 13 Wall. 335(1872). Where there is no jurisdiction there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction; The discretion vested in courts, where private rights are concerned, is judicial, not unlimited. It is contrary to natural justice that a party should be proceeded against and degraded without being heard, and which cannot be done without summoning the party and giving him an opportunity to be heard. But if, from malicious and corrupt motives, he usurped jurisdiction knowingly, the fact that he claimed to be acting as a court, and acted erroneously, cannot afford him any protection (648).
A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter, any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible (651).
James Brown v. Richard Keene, 33 U.S. 112, 115 (1834)
The decisions of this court require, that the averment of jurisdiction shall be positive, that the declaration shall state expressly the fact on which jurisdiction depends. It is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from its averments.
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F.2d 416 jurisdiction must be proved.
Sandnes v. Sheriff, 200 N.Y.S. 9, 299 N.Y.S. 9, 164 Misc. 355 acts of a court without jurisdiction being void and not just voidable; reversible once challenged and not proved to exist.
Shelton v. Sill, 49 U.S. 441, 448 (1850_ Congress, having the power to establish the courts, must define there respective jurisdictions.
Courts created by statute can have no jurisdiction but such as the statute confers [Vide: Abuse of discretion; A verbis legis non est recendendum; Coram non judice; Hoc quidem perquam durum est, sed ital ex scripta est; Judicial immunity; Organic Act; Quod non legitur, non creditor; Sic interpretandum est ut verba accipiantur cum effectu]
Special Indemnity Fund v. Prewitt, 205 P.2d 306 (Okl. 1948) no presumption to jurisdiction.
Stanard v. Olesen, 347, U.S. 609, 74 S. Ct. 768, 98 L.Ed. 1151 (1954) A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law [5 U.S.C 558 b]
Burgess v. Nail, 103 F.2d 37 (10th 1939) Error in the determination of questions of law or fact upon which the court’s jurisdiction in the particular depends,…is error in the exercise of jurisdiction (43) [Black’s 5th 487]
One who accepts and retains the benefits of a void judgment is estopped to assert its invalidity. The principal applies to cases where the invalidity arises from want of jurisdiction of the person or over subject-matter of the action (44).
Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471, 99 S. Ct. 1831, 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979) The question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction, and therefore may be assumed without being decided. Cf. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. V. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 279 (1977); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946): [Fn.5].
Cofrode v. Circuit Judge, 44 N.W. 623 (1890) It is well settled that a court may gain jurisdiction over the person when the accused voluntarily appears, answers charges and thereby surrenders jurisdiction to the court [Dougan; Kendall v. U.S.; Jones v. Andrews].
Crater Lake v. Oregon, 26 F. Supp. 363, 364 (1939) A hundred years ago, it was announced that when an objection to jurisdiction has been made, or may be made, in any cause, …it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction [Rhode Island; K.V.O.S. v. A.P].
Dougan v. McGrew, 357 P.2d 319 (1960) It is well settled that a court may gain jurisdiction over the person when the accused voluntarily appears, answers charges and thereby surrenders jurisdiction to the court [Codfrode; Kendall v. U.S.; Jones v. Andrews].
Erskine v. Hohnbach, 81 U.S. 745 (1872) An officer is not protected by an order of process void for want of jurisdiction in the court or judge issuing it [Duncan v. Darst; Leadbetter; Thurston].
Evans v. Sukperior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco, 14 Cal.2d 563, 96 P.2d 107, 116 want of jurisdiction.
Joyce v. U.S., 474 F.2d 215 (3rd Cir. 1973) where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction [28 U.S.C. rule 12].
Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226 (1922) jurisdiction, it requires an act of Congress to confer it.
Lasky v. C.I.R., 235 F.2d 97 (9th Cir. 1956) parties may stipulate to jurisdiction of person, but not subject matter.
Litvak Meat Co. v. Denver Union Stock yard Co., 303 F. Supp. 715 (Colo. 1969) Administrative officers and agencies as well as courts have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction [5 U.S.C. 551, n 10]..
Louisville v. Portsmouth Savings Bank, 104 U.S. 469 (1881) A fiction of law will not prevail where the fact appears, or where there is no voluntary submission to the courts jurisdiction [U.S. v. 1960 Bags of Coffee, 8 U.S. (Cranch) 398, 3 L.Ed. 602 (1814)].
Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818 (6th 1970) Defense of judicial immunity is very broad but it does not afford any protection to judge acting in clear absence of jurisdiction nor does it protect him in non-judicial activities powers delegated to Kentucky fiscal court are legislative and administrative, county judge does not have judicial immunity.
A quasi-judicial officer; such as a prosecuting attorney, who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without authorization of law, cannot shelter himself from liability by the plea that he is acting under color of office.
Maxfield Lessee v. Levy, 4 U.S. 330 (1797) The Jurisdiction of this court is not prima facie general, but special (332) [Hudson; R.I. v. Mass;Bollman].
It is true, the courts of law in England have countenanced and supported some fictions. Such…and, still more exceptionally, fictions to give a jurisdiction, which otherwise could not be maintained. It is sufficient to say of all these, that they originally took place, when very dark notions of law and liberty were entertained, that they are supported now solely on the authority of long usage; and that no court would not dare to set up a new one. No court in America ever yet thought, no I hope, ever will, of acquiring jurisdiction by a fiction. (334)
McNutt v. G.M.A.C., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S. Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936) jurisdiction; burden of proof.
Melo v. U.S., 505 F.2d 1026 proof of jurisdiction.
Middleton v. Low, 30 Cal. 596 no officer can decide jurisdiction.
Mitchel v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 55 S. Ct. 162, 79 L.Ed. 338 (1935) it is the duty of the federal courts to raise the question of subject–matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it appears from the pleadings or otherwise that jurisdiction is lacking [Baer; John Burch].
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed. 2d 611 (1978) where jurisdiction is denied and squarely challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed to exist sub-silentio but must be proved. [42 U.S.C. 1983; Hagans: U.S. v. More].
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York, 378 U.S. 52, 84 S. Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964) the foregoing makes it clear that there is no continuing legal vitality to, or historical justification for, the rule that one jurisdiction within our federal structure may compel a witness to give testimony which could be used to convict him of a crime in another jurisdiction (694).
Manchester v. Massachusetts, 132 U.S. 226 (1890); 139 U.S. 240 (1891) The criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the U.S. is wholly derived from the statutes of the U.S. [Sic; 1 U.S.C. 204].
Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 64 S. Ct. 559, 88 L.Ed. 733 (1944) administrative law; review; individual rights; equity jurisdiction.
Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386, 67 S. Ct. 810, 91 L.Ed. 967 (1947) state courts have power and jurisdiction to enforce federal law.
Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 460 (1957) The federal judiciary is not empowered to grant equitable relief in the absence of congressional action extending jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
Thompson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446; 62 S. Ct. 673 (1942) Accordingly, if a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of support the allegations by competent proof.
Thursdon v. Martin, 5 Mason 497 An officer is not protected by an order or process void for want of jurisdiction in the court or judge issuing it [Erskine].
U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475, (5th Cir. 1974). It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefore (at 481).
U.S. v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 75 (1838) When the doctrine was held admiralty jurisdiction in cases purely dependent upon the locality of the act done was limited to the sea and to tide waters as far as the tides flow, and that it did not reach beyond the high-water mark.
U.S. v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137 (1933) The criminal jurisdiction of the U.S. is wholly statutory (151).
Moreover, when jurisdiction is challenged, a court of competent authority must not only cite the statute setting forth the crime, but advert to the specific power granted in the Constitution from whence the statute arises [U.S. v. Hall; U.S. v. Fox; U.S. v. Worrall].
U.S. v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670 (1878) Moreover, when jurisdiction is challenged, a court of competent authority must not only cite the statute setting forth the crime but advert to the specific power granted in the Const. from whence the statute arises [U.S. v. Flores; U.S. v Fox, U.S. v. Worrall].
U.S. v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812) The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense [Hudson v. Goodwin; Oliver v. U.S.]
U.S. v. Seatrain, 411 U.S. 726 (1973) jurisdiction cannot be obtained by bootstrapping.
U.S. v. Vreeken, 603 F. Supp. 715 (1984) A challenge to personal jurisdiction is objection based on defect in the institution of the prosecution as contemplated by Rule 12; subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time, not personal jurisdiction [Ford].
U.S. v. Worrall, 2 U.S. 384 (1798) Moreover, when jurisdiction is challenged, a court of competent authority must not only cite the statute setting forth the crime but advert to the specific power granted in the Constitution from when the statute arises [U.S. v. Flores; U.S. v. Fox; U.S. v. Hall].
Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 42, 10 Wall. 1, 6 L.Ed. 253 (1825) And the forms and modes of proceedings in causes of equity, and of admiralty, and maritime jurisdictions, shall be according to the civil law.
Wuest v. Wuest, 53 Cal. App. 2d 339, 127 P. 2d 934, 937 excess of jurisdiction.
Yates v. Hoffman Estates, 209 F. Supp. 757 (IIII. 1962) When a judge exceeds his jurisdiction and grants or denies that beyond his lawful authority, he has perpetrated a “non-judicial” action.
Encyclopedia Britiannica, Vol. 16, pg. 300 (1910) The jurisdiction of the law merchant is proved by fact.
THE PHILOSPHY OF SIMPLIFIED PLEADING: as presented to THE JUDICIAL SEMINAR UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON LAW SCHOOL; July 1959: by JUDGE HARRY ELLSWORTH FOSTER: Washington State Supreme Court, Temple of Justice, Olympia, Washington.
It is familiar law that objection to jurisdiction of the person or a defect in the service must be made by special appearance or it is waived, and if overruled, the special appearance must be preserved specifically in the answer. Matson v. Kennecott Mines, 103 Wash. 499, 175 Pac. 181. In other words, the Defendants’s answer must say, specifically, “King’s X.” Such hocus-pocus has survived its usefulness, if it ever had any. It is interred with the general demurrer.
Professor Meisenholder suggests that this device is still retained. That statement, however, is overbroad. Senior Circuit Judge Maris, for the Court of Appeals in the Third circuit, in Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayhertz Amusement Corp. 139 F. (2d) 871, authoritatively disposed of this view as follows:
It necessarily follows that rule 12 has abolished for the federal courts the age-old distinction between general and specific appearances. A defendant need no longer appear specifically to attack the court’s jurisdiction over him. He is no longer required at the door of the federal courthouse to intone that ancient abracadabra of the law, de bene esse, in order by its magic power to enable himself to remain outside even while he steps within. He may now enter openly in full confidence that he will not thereby be giving up any keys to the courthouse door which he possessed before he came in. This, of course, is not to say that such keys must not be used promptly. If the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the person is not raised by motion before answer or in the answer itself, it is by the express of paragraph (h) of Civil Procedure Rule 12 to be treated as waived, not because of the defendant’s voluntary appearance but because of his failure to assert the defense within the time prescribed by the rules. We conclude that within the time allowed for serving the answer the defendant may assert this defense unless he has waived it by some action other than his voluntary appearance. In so holding we are in accord with the decisions of other courts which have considered the question. Blank v. Bitker, 7 Cir., 1943, 135 F. 2d 962; Kaufman v. United States, D.C. Dist. Col., 1940, 35 F. Supp. 900. Compare Phillips v. Baker, 9 Cir., 1941, 121 F. 2d 752.
10. With presentment of all the preceding court citations regarding home rule and the issue of this court’s jurisdiction over Rick Stanley, including the original Petition to Show Cause Where This Court Has Jurisdiction, and the inability of the Plaintiff to show any actual jurisdiction issues beyond the obvious point of City of Thornton being a home rule city, with authority to prosecute violations of ordinances, as long as they do not violate the higher constitutional authority, whereby the home rule charter is derived from. This ordinance in Thornton, obviously violates the Colorado State and National Constitutional rights of Defendant, under the color of law, which negates the jurisdiction of this court. Defendant has repeatedly refused this court jurisdiction in regard to this unconstitutional ordinance, and as the Supreme Court citations have obviously backed up Defendant’s assertions that he had a right to do so, and in the absence of Plaintiff’s ability to defend the city’s jurisdiction to violate Defendant’s Constitutional and Civil rights, this court must vacate it’s position to prosecute Defendant, for lack of jurisdiction.
II. Defendant’s Rights for Property to be Released to Defendant Immediately.
Defendant’s 5th amendment constitutional rights have been violated by the fraud of this Thornton Municipal Corporation, under the color of law, which states “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Defendant’s property, a 357 Magnum handgun, has been taken (stolen) by Thornton Municipal Corporation employees, and Defendant has been given a receipt for his property, certainly without due process of law, and most certainly without just compensation.
Since this Thornton Municipal Corporation, has violated Defendant’s Constitutional, Civil, jurisdictional and property rights, Defendant now comes, and demands the return of his property.
CONCLUSION
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove jurisdiction, when in fact, they have not. In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter what the city has to say about home rule, their charter, or any other matter.
Violation of Defendant’s Constitutional rights in the matter of jurisdiction and property rights is a travesty of justice, and a stain upon the founding principles of this country.
WHEREFORE, for all the reasons stated above and in previous petition, Defendant respectfully requests that his Petition to Show Cause Where This Court Has Jurisdiction and Petition to Return Property to Defendant, be GRANTED.
Dated this __________day of January, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
By_____________________
Rick Stanley
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I herby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant’s
Petition and Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Petition
to Show Cause Where This Court has Jurisdiction and Petition to Return Property
to Defendant has been hand delivered to Gary G. Jacobson, or other City Attorney,
at Thornton Municipal Court, this ___________day of January, 2003.
__________________________________________________________
Signature Date
|
Email Rick Stanley at rick@stanley2002.org |