Learnin

Learnin vs Unifund - Get my garnished funds back

Recommended Posts

If you 'vacate' a judgement, what do you do for a writ (of garnishment)?  Right now my motion is titled 'Motion to Vacate Void Judgment/Order and Stay Execution Of Writ Of Garnishment; Declaration'.

 

But thinking about it, I don't want to stay the execution, I want it revoked/cancelled/voided etc.   If the Judgement gets vacated, does anything automatically happen to the Writ?  I assume I still need to have the court revoke/cancel/voided etc, get an order telling the bank to release teh funds and tear up the writ, etc.

 

Motion for....And Relief From Writ Of Garnishment?  

 

Or should I jsut leave it at 'Stay of Execution of Writ Of Garnishment' and if the judgement gets vacated, I can orally ask for relief from the writ?

If the judgment is vacated the court should, by all means stay the writ, until the case is heard in court. But you have a great chance to get this dismissed with prejudice. You can prove that they knew you lived in Cali but they served you in WA. They will claim it was substituted service. I do not know about WA rules of trial procedure, but in Indiana before service can be substituted the plaintiff has to show the court that they tried to serve you personally but were unable to and they need the courts approval for substitution. Check WA rtp's and see what they say about substituted process.

My argument would be that the Plaintiff knew you were in Cali but they filed in WA in order to obtain a fast judgement, this could be construed as fraud. If you can prove this you could receive statutory and punitive damages. I would go see an attorney. We need to be careful so you will not end up owing them damages for claiming fraud and not being able to prove it.

RULE CRLJ 4 PROCESS
(d) Service.    (1) Of Summons and Complaint. The summons and complaint shallbe served together.    (2) Personal in State. Personal service of summons and otherprocess shall be as provided in RCW 4.28.080-.090, 23B.05.040,23B.15.100, 46.64.040, and 48.05.200 and .210, and other statuteswhich provide for personal service    (e) Service by Publication and Personal Service Out of the Jurisdiction.    (1) When the defendant cannot be found within the territorialjurisdiction of the court (of which the return of the sheriff ofthe county in which the action is brought, that the defendantcannot be found in the county, is prima facie evidence), and uponfiling of an affidavit of the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney,with the court stating that he believes that the defendant is nota resident of the county, or cannot be found therein, and that hehas deposited a copy of the summons (substantially in the formprescribed in this rule) and complaint in the post office,directed to the defendant at his place of residence, unless it isstated in the affidavit that such residence is not known to theaffiant, and stating the existence of one of the caseshereinafter specified, the service may be made by publication ofthe summons by the plaintiff or his attorney in any of thefollowing cases:    (i) when the defendant is a foreign corporation, and hasproperty within the county;    (ii) when the defendant, being a resident of the county, hasdeparted therefrom with intent to defraud his creditors, or toavoid the service of a notice and complaint, or keeps himselfconcealed therein with like intent;    (iii) when the defendant is not a resident of the county, buthas property therein which has been brought under the control ofthe court by seizure or some equivalent act;    (iv) when the subject of the action is personal property inthe county, and the defendant has or claims a lien or interest,actual or contingent, therein, and the relief demanded consistswholly, or partially, in excluding the defendant from anyinterest or lien therein;    (v) when the action is brought under RCW 4.08.160 and4.08.170 to determine conflicting claims to personal property inthe county.
RCW 4.28.080

(16) In lieu of service under subsection (15) of this section, where the person cannot with reasonable diligence be served as described, the summons may be served as provided in this subsection, and shall be deemed complete on the tenth day after the required mailing: By leaving a copy at his or her usual mailing address with a person of suitable age and discretion who is a resident, proprietor, or agent thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the person to be served at his or her usual mailing address. For the purposes of this subsection, "usual mailing address" does not include a United States postal service post office box or the person's place of employment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a great chance of getting it dismissed with prejudice at the hearing on the motion to show cause?  That would be cool.

 

I'm not worried about them claiming substituted service. Obvious it wasn't, in a variety of ways, and I'm confident I could have that conversation.  Will have to bone up on WA code of course, but the base fact that they mailed me collections notice in CA seems tough to get around. I don't want them to just claim 'oops' and dismiss, I want to get them.

 

So it will get:

1.  Dismissed at the hearing to show cause

2. Not get dismissed and have a trial scheduled (within 60 days, it sounds like)

 

If 1, I can do a federal case as plaintiff.

If 2. I can....do discovery and a countercomplaint (I think that's what it's called in WA) and hope they settle.

 

Open to other scenarios/options that I'm not seeing.

 

You said to go with "they knew I was in CA but sued in WA for a quick and uncontested judgment".  Should I add that in one or both of the motions in the next post?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

UNIFUND CCR, LLC

                           Plaintiff,

v.

 

Learnin

 

                           Defendant

 

 

Case No.:xx-x-xxxxx SEA

 

 

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF WRIT OF GARNISHMENET; DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

 

 

 

 

            1. Relief Requested. The defendant moves the court for an order vacating the void judgment entered in this action and staying enforcement of the writ of restitution.

            2.  Statement of facts and issues.  This motion is based on the following grounds: 

A.  Absence of Process of Service

            Defendant was not served (notice of) summons and complaint. No individual at Defendant’s residence was served (notice of) summons and complaint.  Defendant’s residence was not in the State of Washington at the time of commencement of this action.  Defendant has resided in California for approximately the past six (6) years and resided in California at the time of the commencement of this action. 

//

//

B.  Fraud.

Upon information and belief, Defendant alleges that fraud has been committed and committed upon the court, to be proven at trial. 

The Court allowed the Plaintiff to continue with the case due to misrepresentations by the Plaintiff.   This cannot be determined until the case is reopened and the Defendant is afforded his right to defend himself.

3.  Evidence Relied Upon.  This motion is based on the attached declaration of Learnin and Exhibits A-F.

4.  Authority and Argument.  This motion is made pursuant to CR 55 and CR 60.

“A void judgment must be vacated whenever the lack of jurisdiction comes to light.”  Mitchell v Kitsap Cy., 59. Wash. App 177, 180-81, 797 P. 2d 516 (1990)

“A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to vacate a default judgment is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion.; however, a court has a nondiscretionary duty to vacate a void judgment.”  Leen v. Demopolis, 62 Wash.App. at 478; in re Marriage of Markowski, 50 Wash. App. 633, 635, 749 P.2d 754 (1988); Brickum Inv. Co. v. Vernham Corp., Wash.App 517, 520, 731 p.2d 533 (1987).

 

Date:   October 23, 2013                                               __________________________________

                                                                                       Defendant’s Signature
                                                                                       __________________________________

                                                                                       

 

 

 

DECLARATION

 

I, Learnin, declare as follows;

1.     I am the defendant in this civil action.

2.     I request that the void judgment entered in this action be vacated and that enforcement of the writ of restitution be stayed  until the motion to vacate judgment can be heard for the following reasons;

3.     The first I knew of this legal action was when I discovered that my Wells Fargo bank account and been completely emptied of funds, without notice.  Upon investigating with the bank, they informed me of the Writ of Garnishment.

4.     Without notice, a total of $2,xxx.xx was taken from my Wells Fargo bank accounts.  A $125 Legal Order Processing Fee was charged by Wells Fargo, leaving a total of $0.00 in my bank accounts.

5.     I have resided in California since approximately November 2006.

6.     I resided in California at the time of commencement of this legal action.

7.     I was not served with Summons and Complaint in this action.

8.     No person at my residence was served with Summons and Complaint in this action.

9.     In a mailing I received approximately August 12, 2012, that was dated August 08, 2012, UNIFUND informed me that UNIFUND was collecting upon a debt with an (alleged) balance of $XXXXXX.   UNIFUND addressed this letter to my California mailing address.. (See attached EXHIBIT A)

10.  In a letter dated October 15, 2012, I responded with notice #1 of an administrative process in the form of FIRST NOTICE/DEMAND VALIDATION OF DEBT AND PROHIBITION OF REPORTING OF NEGATIVE CREDIT. (see attached EXHIBIT B)

11.  UNIFUND provided an inadequate response in a letter dated November 2, 2012.  UNIFUND addressed this letter to my California mailing address. (See attached EXHIBIT B)

12.  In a letter dated November 26, 2012, I responded with a SECOND NOTICE/OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.  (See attached EXHIBIT C)

13.  UNIFUND responded with a letter dated December 4, 2012 providing another inadequate response.  UNIFUND addressed this letter to my California mailing address. (See attached EXHIBIT C)

14.  In a notice dated January 15, 2013, I responded with an AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE OF DEFAULT  (See attached Exhibit D)  UNIFUND did not respond.

15.  Against their agreement in the previously described administrative process, in June 2013 UNIFUND ran a credit inquiry on my credit report.

16.  On May 14, 2013, Charles Reeves served Summons and Complaint upon an unidentified woman at a location in King County.  Again, I have not resided in Washington for at least 6 years.

17.  As of this date, I have received no communications of any kind from UNIFUND nor their attorneys regarding this legal action.

18.  I am filing this Motion To Vacate Judgment And Stay Execution of Writ Of Garnishment in good faith and in all matters have told the truth to the best of my knowledge.

 

I swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing statements are true.

           

Signed in Edmonds, Washington on October 23, 2013.

 

 

================================================================================

 

UNIFUND CCR, LLC

                           Plaintiff,

v.

 

Learnin

 

                           Defendant

 

 

Case No.: xx-x-xxxxx SEA

 

 

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: VACATION OF JUDGMENT/ORDER AND STAY OF EXECUTION OF WRIT OF GARNISHMENT

 

 

 

 

            Learnin respectfully moves the court for an order requiring UNIFUND CCR, LLC to appear and show cause why the Motion To Vacate Judgment/Order of the Court and Stay Execution Of Writ Of Garnishment should not be granted.

 

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND GROUNDS TO VACATE THE ORDER

 

Learnin is asking the Court to vacate the following void Order:    ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The void Order to be vacated was entered on:  September 5, 2013

The void Order should be vacated because Learnin was never served Summons and Complaint or any other required notice, and because he resided in California at the time of commencement of this lawsuit. 

Additionally,  UNIFUND was well aware that King County was the incorrect venue to bring this action in that UNIFUND knew, as evidenced by their own actions, that Learnin’s place of contact was in California and not at the Washington address that they are falsely claiming to be his residence.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

 

Signed in the city of Edmonds in Washington on October 23, 2013.

 

 

________________________________

Learnin, Defendant In Pro Per

 

 

 

EVIDENCE RELIED ON IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE IN COURT FILE

 

1. Learnin’s Motion And Declaration To Vacate Judgment And Stay Execution Of Writ Of Garnishment. (This motion and declaration accompany this Motion For Order To Show Cause)

2. The Exhibits attached to the above Motion and Declaration including a copy of Learnin’s California Driver’s License and a copy of Utility Bill statement from California 

 

//

//

AUTHORITY

Learnin’s Motion To Vacate Judgment/Order is made pursuant to the following:

1.     Civil Rule 60(B)(1): Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or irregularity in obtaining the Judgment/Order;

2.     Civil Rule 60(B)(4): Fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party;

3.     Civil Rule 60(B)(5): The Judgment/Order is void;

 

 

PROPOSED ORDER

A Proposed Order accompanies this motion.

 

 

 

Dated:  October 23, 2013                                                       Respectfully Submitted, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, frustrating week.

 

1.  Legal help at the law library gave me a packet, containint tmeplates for orders and motions.  Great.  But it is missin gone little tiny thing....how to get a hearing date/time.

 

The instructions say to get the 'order to show cause to vacate' signed ex parte by a judge.  But that requires a hearing date.  After two hours going between three different courthouse employees and several law librarians on the other side of the floor (who constantly shook their heads at why the clerks were sending me back to the library instead of just helping me get a date), I spent the $60 to send the thing to the judge to get it signed.  An hour later, denied, because of wrong date/time/place.     Ok, so I ended up selecting an 'ex parte hearing time for the motion to vacate judgment' hearing, and it's not ex parte.  Ok, fine, learning curve.

 

So then local rules and the head librarian dude says the next move is to get a hearing date from the assigned judge's baliff.  i call and leave a message and email Thursday.  Monday late in the day I get a response from the Bailiff:   "Please file your motion with the court in accordance with the civil rules. Generally, these motions do not need oral argument so you do not need to coordinate a hearing date with the court. We highly recommend you seek local legal counsel because these issues can become very complicated."

 

 

Ok, so...

 

THe good news is, legal help is back tomorrow Tuesday. The bad news, it's been a damned week trying to get this thing in.

 

 

So Tuesday is dedicated to parking downtown and the law library:   looking for more civil rules, legal help, getting the damn thing in.

 

Questions for those knowledgeable in Washington Civil.

 

1.  Does a Motion To Vacate Default Judgment require an order to show cause?

2.  Does it require, or allow for, oral argument?

3.  What civil rules describe oral/non-oral argument criteria?

 

 

Man, just when I got comfortable with california rules/system....WA seems to have added a whole other level of complicated.

 

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well, if you want to do a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Stay Execution of Writ of Garnishment in Seattle;

 

1.  Do all the paper work for Order To Show Cause, Motion on Order to Show Cause, Motion to Vacate, Proposed order on Motion to vacate, Declaration in Support, Note of Motion (form get from the information desk).

2.  Pick a hearing date M-F that is minimum 6 days post time the other side would get served.

3.  Put that date on the Order To Show Cause form, no time because it's a non-dispositive and thus non-oral argument hearing (I'd write that in there), and the courtroom of the Assigned Judge.

4.  Take the Order To Show Cause, Motion on Order to Show Cause, Motion To Vacate to the Ex Parte via the Clerk desk and pay $30 (returned the next 1-2 days) or $60 back in an hour or so or less (I got one back in an hour, one back in 20 minutes).  This is a relatively new system and seems to be a new money making scheme by the court as the clerk told a couple people while I was in line that one could walk down to the Ex Parte court and do it yourself and not pay for 'their service'.
5.  Assuming you get the Order to show cause granted, then file the Motion to Vacate (though I think they already filed it when doing the Order to show Cause but I filed it anyway just to make sure)(they don't file the Proposed order to vacate default judgment) and Note of Motion.  Then serve everything.

 

That took me a week and a half to figure out with the help of the law librarians, the debt relief legal clinic, various less than helpful court clerks, and a bailiff that refused to give me a hearing date (even though Local Court Rule 7 requres it) and for some impossible reason still thinks I was trying to get a date for/his judge to hear my Order to Show cause when I repeatedly explained that I needed a date only he can give me for a motion to vacate hearing which is required on the Order To Show Cause form without which it won't get granted.  It was many many emails back and forth of 'who's on first?'.  

 

Who knows, maybe I didn't need to do the Order to Show Cause and could have just picked a date and filed the Motion to Vacate Void Judgment on day one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so:

 

Motion to Vacate Default Judgement and Stay Execution of Writ of Garnishment was scheduled for tomorrow Friday.

 

Two days ago Unifund/Suttel&Hammer sent a release of funds to Wells Fargo, that put funds back in my accounts, though they kept the $125 legal processing fee they charged me (and will only reverse that if I get a Letter of Error from either Unifund or the Court).

 

Today Thursday I got a call from the Bailiff, the Plaintiff put in a motion to dismiss without prejudice and and to vacate the default judgment, which A.  I never recieved notice of and B. the Judge signed, so the case is closed.

 

I'm kind of wishing I had put in a countercomplaint...I hadn't expected them to dismiss before the motion to vacate was heard, and the speed with which they dismissed/vacated the default judgement confirms for me what I knew...I had them by the shorthairs.   So I probabluy should have countercomplained.

 

But, funds are back in my account, the case is dismissed.  I'd want to ask for dismissal with prejudice, but it's a done deal, I'd have to reopen it or something now.  Probably not worth it?

 

So that's a little win.   

 

 

1.  I'm planning to send the lawyer an email telling them to fax a letter of error to the bank so I can get my $125 back.   They'll be leaving me injured if they don't.

Plus, it would be an admittal that they made an error, which would be good to use against them later.  I think I'm pretty safe from them coming back at me, but of course that is based on 'common sense', so they certainly still could.

 

Any thoughts on the topic of getting my $125 back?  I can't see the court doing a Letter of Error for me so it's got to be from the Plaintiff/lawyer.

 

 

2.  I kind of want to sue them in Fed court since they erred SO BADLY  (or small claims court).  Any reason not to?

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the help, that's win #2 (sure it's a little win and they messed up pretty bad, but still, it's a win).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so:

 

Motion to Vacate Default Judgement and Stay Execution of Writ of Garnishment was scheduled for tomorrow Friday.

 

Two days ago Unifund/Suttel&Hammer sent a release of funds to Wells Fargo, that put funds back in my accounts, though they kept the $125 legal processing fee they charged me (and will only reverse that if I get a Letter of Error from either Unifund or the Court).

 

Today Thursday I got a call from the Bailiff, the Plaintiff put in a motion to dismiss without prejudice and and to vacate the default judgment, which A.  I never recieved notice of and B. the Judge signed, so the case is closed.

 

I'm kind of wishing I had put in a countercomplaint...I hadn't expected them to dismiss before the motion to vacate was heard, and the speed with which they dismissed/vacated the default judgement confirms for me what I knew...I had them by the shorthairs.   So I probabluy should have countercomplained.

 

But, funds are back in my account, the case is dismissed.  I'd want to ask for dismissal with prejudice, but it's a done deal, I'd have to reopen it or something now.  Probably not worth it?

 

So that's a little win.   

 

 

1.  I'm planning to send the lawyer an email telling them to fax a letter of error to the bank so I can get my $125 back.   They'll be leaving me injured if they don't.

Plus, it would be an admittal that they made an error, which would be good to use against them later.  I think I'm pretty safe from them coming back at me, but of course that is based on 'common sense', so they certainly still could.

 

Any thoughts on the topic of getting my $125 back?  I can't see the court doing a Letter of Error for me so it's got to be from the Plaintiff/lawyer.

 

 

2.  I kind of want to sue them in Fed court since they erred SO BADLY  (or small claims court).  Any reason not to?

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the help, that's win #2 (sure it's a little win and they messed up pretty bad, but still, it's a win).

Since they turned tail and ran, go to your prosecutors office and ask them about filing a conversion suit against them. Do not let them off this easy. They know they are wrong and are trying to make themselves look good. 

I would also file and fdcpa claim against them, they violated all kinds of provisions of the fdcpa. And California has their own fdcpa which is more stringent than the federal laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nice going. you have them on a blatent foul. They know this and have dismissed to cover their tracks. play nice and get your 125 dollars back. usew the court documents for your proof at the bank.

 

The bank will only reverse the 'legal processing fee' of $125 if they receive a 'letter of error'.  The court isn't going to send that, so I'm pondering whether to ask SUttel&Hammer/Unifund to send a letter that the writ of garnishment was sent in error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since they turned tail and ran, go to your prosecutors office and ask them about filing a conversion suit against them. Do not let them off this easy. They know they are wrong and are trying to make themselves look good. 

I would also file and fdcpa claim against them, they violated all kinds of provisions of the fdcpa. And California has their own fdcpa which is more stringent than the federal laws.

 

 

Hmmm.  Thanks, I'll look into that.

 

Do you mean conversion suit as this definition describes, for getting my $125 back?  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conversion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.  Thanks, I'll look into that.

 

Do you mean conversion suit as this definition describes, for getting my $125 back?  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conversion

No i meant criminal conversion of the money they took from your bank under fraudulent conditions.

 

Black's law dictionary

Criminal conversion: knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over property of another person.

Property: Anything that a person owns

Personal property: Anything a person owns other than land or buildings, also known as chattel, to include money.

Anyone who intentionally or wrongfully interferes with another person's personal property commits trespass upon a chattel.

intentional interference means a person had the intent to interfere; It does not matter that the person interfering with the property did not know that the property belonged to a particular person, the determining factor is whether the interfering person damaged or possessed personal property that properly belonged to another.

Wrongful interference mean that one of three things had to take place 1)  Actual damage to the personal property, 2) Substantial deprivation, or wrongful use of the property for a significant period of time, 3) Dispossession, either by stealing or asserting control over the property. In your case they have performed the last two.

 

Now you may ask "what is the difference between the two? First one is a criminal offense and the other is a tort. The difference, however, is the degree of possession the interfering person has assumed. If the interfering person has merely challenged the right of possession, then there has been a trespass to chattel. If the interfering person, however, has created a virtual "forced sale"(in other words the person took actual possession) of the property to himself, then there is conversion, In other words the person converted ownership of the property without any legal authority to do so.

 

An example would be if someone steals property from you and you are able to recover the property with minimal or no damages, then you may have a cause of action in trespass to chattel. If, however, the same person steals the property and sells it to another, or keeps it for himself, then you will have a cause of action in conversion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - be sure to move your $$ to a smaller, local bank or CU so this doesn't happen again. 

 

 

Yep, definitely changing my banking strategies.   Anybody's account could get hit with a writ at any time from any shyster anywhere....that's scary.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

No i meant criminal conversion of the money they took from your bank under fraudulent conditions.

 

Black's law dictionary

Criminal conversion: knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over property of another person.

Property: Anything that a person owns

Personal property: Anything a person owns other than land or buildings, also known as chattel, to include money.

Anyone who intentionally or wrongfully interferes with another person's personal property commits trespass upon a chattel.

intentional interference means a person had the intent to interfere; It does not matter that the person interfering with the property did not know that the property belonged to a particular person, the determining factor is whether the interfering person damaged or possessed personal property that properly belonged to another.

Wrongful interference mean that one of three things had to take place 1)  Actual damage to the personal property, 2) Substantial deprivation, or wrongful use of the property for a significant period of time, 3) Dispossession, either by stealing or asserting control over the property. In your case they have performed the last two.

 

Now you may ask "what is the difference between the two? First one is a criminal offense and the other is a tort. The difference, however, is the degree of possession the interfering person has assumed. If the interfering person has merely challenged the right of possession, then there has been a trespass to chattel. If the interfering person, however, has created a virtual "forced sale"(in other words the person took actual possession) of the property to himself, then there is conversion, In other words the person converted ownership of the property without any legal authority to do so.

 

An example would be if someone steals property from you and you are able to recover the property with minimal or no damages, then you may have a cause of action in trespass to chattel. If, however, the same person steals the property and sells it to another, or keeps it for himself, then you will have a cause of action in conversion.

 

 

Great, thanks.  That I can work with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More case law to prove they did not have jurisdiction ,

McNutt Governor of Indiana v general Motors acceptance corp. 56 Supreme Court 502 (1936) They are conditions which must be met by the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor. He must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction. If he fails to make the necessary allegations he has no standing. If he does make them, an inquiry into the existence of jurisdiction is obviously for the purpose of determining whether the facts support his allegations. Jurisdiction can never be assumed it must be proven by the plaintiff claimant.
 

Delanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Super. 90, 464

 Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by the suppression of truth, or by suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech of silence, word of mouth, or look  or gesture.

 

Old Wayne Mut. L. Assocv McDonough, 204 U.S. , 27 S.Ct. 239 (1907) A court  cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.
 

A word of caution, do not just cite these cases to the court, if they challenge you about the cases you need to know the cases, read and become familiar with them. If the court asks you questions over the case and you do not know the case the court can throw your case out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More case law to prove they did not have jurisdiction ,

McNutt Governor of Indiana v general Motors acceptance corp. 56 Supreme Court 502 (1936) They are conditions which must be met by the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor. He must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction. If he fails to make the necessary allegations he has no standing. If he does make them, an inquiry into the existence of jurisdiction is obviously for the purpose of determining whether the facts support his allegations. Jurisdiction can never be assumed it must be proven by the plaintiff claimant.

 

Delanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Super. 90, 464

 Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by the suppression of truth, or by suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech of silence, word of mouth, or look  or gesture.

 

Old Wayne Mut. L. Assocv McDonough, 204 U.S. , 27 S.Ct. 239 (1907) A court  cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.

 

A word of caution, do not just cite these cases to the court, if they challenge you about the cases you need to know the cases, read and become familiar with them. If the court asks you questions over the case and you do not know the case the court can throw your case out.

 

Great, thank you very much!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.