Evans, Ralph Kenneth
Opinion
_../j § , §§ l » 0 Z ln the matter of Case3 WR-75,351-02
Dan Flynn member of the legislative house of Texas and an officer of the Texas State Guard. You had the duty to see that my rights were protected and you have failed to report to the court of competent jurisdiction to insure my rights were protected and the 7th amendment Court open. But you have failed to do so. lt is your duty to make sure that all courts shall be open and to maintain their purity and efficiency.
"l\/lisprision of felony" is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U. _S_. C §_4:
W|ioever, having knowledge ofthe actual commission ofa felony cognizable by a court ofthe United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to somejudge or other person in civil or military authorig under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Dan F|ynn l have made you aware of crimes against me that have been going on for years and you have ignored me and the crimes
The Texas Legislators have the power of impeachment of corrupt and criminal l,_ \! racketeering judges and officers of the Courts RECEl \ E'.D ll _ COURT OF CRll‘!llNAL APPEALS
ihis State of .Te)_ tord ChlefJustice Cambden long ago"hel'd that a court's authority and jurisdiction must be legislatively conferred by a statute: "If it is law, it will be found in,our-bool Melo v. US, 505 F:2d 1.026. _ _» ~; . c _ "The law requires proof ofjurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings " Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533. 'T'here is no discretion to ignore that lack ofjurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. .;»_~; ' - ir‘.i‘.~:"..‘_'_ "4_~\ » ~¢' »~~~j.;' "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction .'v_ ;:;.~\,1 Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2cl 416. "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New Yorl<, 37 F Supp 150. _ "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or propertv." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dil|on v. Dil|on, 187 P 27. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional rlght, is an excess ofjurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived -ofjuris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v.Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685. Vehicle/Traffic "An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doo|an v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Ca|. 640. "Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation Such -an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Ca| 596. "When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicial|y, but merely ministerial|y". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583. "A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additiona||y, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284. "Ministeria| officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the |egislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Ca|. 1. "The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 105. A Few Cases on Jurisdiction Lord ChiefJustice Cambden long ago held that a court's authority and jurisdiction must be legislatively conferred by a statute: "If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it is not be found there, it is not law." Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howel|'s St. Tr., Col. 1029, 1065-1066 (1765). "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._" Me|o v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "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. Read US v Lopez and Hagans v Levine both void because of lack of . jurisdiction, ln Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. If you read the supreme court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want ofjurisdiction. If it
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Evans, Ralph Kenneth (Evans, Ralph Kenneth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.