http://docs.google.com/View?

id=dfpfrrpm_38hqdqm5f2

7 elements of jurisdiction and void judgments.

cap1sucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatlife
Hello Everyone, I have a similar situation, however I am not familiar with the term of
"vacating" a judgment. What does it mean to "vacate" the judgment? More importantly,
what is the process of vacating a judgment?

Thanks,
Greatlife
Vacating a judgment isn't the easiest thing in the universe to accomplish. Fact is that in
most instances getting a judge to vacate (overturn) his own decree is quite impossible
despite the claims of many web sites to be found all over the internet. There are valid
reasons to attempt to get a judgment vacated but in order to be successful the motion to
vacate must follow the guidelines set out in Federal Rules of Procedure 56 through Rule
62.

If you want to understand Rule 56 and if you want to understand the rest there are NEXT
links to lead you to the next rule. Although only a synopsis, the general idea is that the
defendant must prove that the court had no jurisdiction or that new evidence has been
discovered that would have changed the outcome if it had been known at the time or that
some judicial error had occurred.

In order to find out whether or not the court had jurisdiction one must understand the 7
elements of jurisdiction which are as follows:
ELEMENT 1. The accused must be properly identified; identified in such a fashion that
there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others;
otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party"
defense. Almost always the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT, any
means of identification is equally valid if said means differentiates the accused without
doubt.

ELEMENT 2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A
number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for
alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example:
Colorado National Monument Superintendent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog, or a
dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could
bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. ("I'm sorry, your
Honor. I assumed that the regulation indicated by that number was a legitimate statute.
My secretary must have made an error.") For any act to be triable as an offense, it must
be declared to be a crime.

ELEMENT 3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language

1
and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand the nature of the
charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense
complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; nor by the
language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describe a specific offense
whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be
stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.

ELEMENT 4. The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a third party. Some
positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse. Some certain person must take
responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the
only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party
(corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided.
Anyone else testifying that he heard that another party was injured does not qualify as
direct evidence

ELEMENT 5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot
reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely
without risk.

ELEMENT 6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be
valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law,
procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable
cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a
citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom. All
political dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.

ELEMENT 7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process,
the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation,
i.e. (Article III judge). Without the limiting factor of a court of competent jurisdiction, all
citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty being imposed at any bureaucrat's whim.
It is conceivable that the procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of
facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.

So yes, it is conceivable that almost any judgment can be overturned (vacated) provided
you know the law and what it's requirements are, be able to spot the failings or errors of
the court or the plaintiff's attorney and know how to properly proceed to get the job done.
Not an easy task by any means. Another requirement is that you must have the funds
available to carry it out because you could get into some really horrible legal battles, have
to carry it out via appellate and maybe even supreme courts. That's the hard way to do it
and easily ends up being extremely expensive as well. Even with the necessary cash and
legal talent you could easily lose in the end.

So why go through all of that when there is another way to go that is much, much easier
and almost guarantees a win? How about a way to win that has a provable history of over
28,000 cases filed against debt collectors with a 98% success rate for the consumer
plaintiff? I don't know about you but I'd take those odds any day and it all starts with a

2
simple letter known as a validation letter sent to the debt collector via certified mail
return receipt requested.

So if it is so simple then why do the majority of people lose in local courts? The answer
is simple and that is because the only question before the court is whether or not the
defendant owes the debt and if not then why not. Of course, the obverse of that coin is
why do the majority of people win in fedeal courts? The answer is equally simple. The
reason is that the only question before the federal court is whether or not the defendant
broke the law. Nothing else matters in either court.
__________________
Click here! Get Piping Hot info Piping Hot Twitter Piping Hot News All the law blogs
Cap1sucks links page

Edit this page (if you have permission) |

Google Docs -- Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets.