Re: this is AWESOME
- From: "Mockingbird" <mockingbirdbrain@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Dec 2005 07:26:48 -0800
dali wrote:
> Mockingbird wrote:
> > rebecca wrote:
> > > I don't know what's going on here, or how things work, but if she
> > > asked for counsel, it does make sense to me that the judge should rule
> > > on this first before anything else. in any event, below is my favorite
> > > part...
> >
> >
> > As was stated earlier He DID rule on it. He said that he lacked
> > jurisdiction. He did that a MONTH before kathLOON filed her Motion to
> > dismiss defendant's motion to dismiss as a response to their motion to
> > dismiss.
> >
> > Here it is FYI:
> >
>
>
> Isn't this catch-22?
No. It isn't.
>She claims she cannot get a fair hearing in her
> state due to the fact that it's AGAINST the state. (makes sense).
She could/should have filed in the Federal +District Court in
Connecticut. (well actually, she doesn't have ANY claim, so she should
have filed it in the trash can).
Note: FEDERAL.
The Federal Courts are theoretically NOT a part of the State. Civil
rights cases AGAINST THE STATE are heard in the FEDERAL COURT, in part
because there is a CLAIM of a violation of a FEDERAL civil right
granted by the US Constitution and in part because the FEDERAL Court is
considered to be part of the US Government where one might obtain
relief from civil rights violations by a State agency, official or
government.
So, for example, during the Civil rights era in the South many cases
were brought in the FEDERAL Courts--in the very States where invidious
discrimination was thought to have occurred.
A more recent example was the Rodney King case. The officers were
acquitted in State Court on assault and related charges. Since some
people thought that the State didn't give a fair trial in acquitting
the defendant's they were subsequently prosecuted in the Federal Court
for having violated his civil rights under the color of State law.
So, theoretically, the Federal courts are an appropriate forum when one
feels that they can't get justice in the State Courts---so long as
there is some federal claim presented. Presented PROPERLY, that is.
Also, ANY court has to have VENUE as well as personal and subject
matter jurisdiction.
This prevents people from shopping for forums they prefer to gain
strategic advantage.
THEORETICALLY if things were as kathLOON says--in other words if there
was ANY substance to her DELUSIONAL CRAP which I want to be clear:
there is NOT, but IF there were, she should have filed in Federal Court
in CT and then made a motion to transfer citing her corruption nonsense
saying that it was a forum non conveniens.
Which is a motion she's have no chance of winning even based on the
Star Wars stuff.
>Yet other states will not hear it because it will lack jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is a fundamental part of due process. Also, the court
wouldn't here the case because of a lack of jurisdiction AND VENUE.
Also, as the State of Ct points out, there are no justiciable claims
presented, the complaint is not pled properly, sovereign immunity bars
the suit, and though they didn't mention she lacks standing, she
couldn't file on behalf of her children for whom her parental rights
were terminated, and she never even served the defendants. And about a
hundred other problems. Maybe a thousand other problems.
Her "complaint" is NOT in any way a legal pleading.
It is more like a case of explosive diarrhea in writing.
.
- References:
- this is AWESOME
- From: rebecca
- Re: this is AWESOME
- From: Mockingbird
- Re: this is AWESOME
- From: rebecca
- Re: this is AWESOME
- From: Mockingbird
- Re: this is AWESOME
- From: dali
- this is AWESOME
- Prev by Date: Re: this is AWESOME
- Next by Date: Re: The Lyme Times
- Previous by thread: Re: this is AWESOME
- Next by thread: Re: this is AWESOME
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
