A policy of Insurance is a Maritime Contract

A policy of Insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of

(some claim insurace can give DMV jurisdiction.)
admiralty Jurisdiction. -De Lovio v. Boit 7 Fed. Case Number 3,
776
>>
Title 49 of the United States Code [Transportation] dealing
expressly with interstate transportation:

Section 10501 Federal Zone.))

((Basically one Federal Zone to another

(2) Jurisdiction under paragraph (1) applies only to

transportation in the United States between a place in (A) a State and a place in the same or another State as part of
the interstate rail network;
(B) a State and a place in a territory or possession of the
United States;
(C) a territory or possession of the United States and a place

in another such territory or possession;

(D) a territory or possession of the United States and another
place in the same territory or possession;
(E) the United States and another place in the United States
through a foreign country; or
(F) the United States and a place in a foreign country.
Only state-to-state commerce is governed by the interstate
commerce clause. State-to-territory commerce (or visa versa) is
governed under the governments
territorial authority, and commerce from a state to a foreign
nation is governed by the foreign commerce language of the
clause.
>>
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > 10
10. Interstate commerce and foreign commerce defined
Release date: 2005-08-03
The term interstate commerce, as used in this title, includes
commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the
District of Columbia and another State,

(Between the acts on the soil between Nebraska and Iowa not
interstate??) Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia.
The term foreign commerce, as
used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

IRSInfo:
4852 for is one used to correct 1099, W2, to notify IRS that it is
not a taxable activity.

IRS Liens
Students, note that there is a difference between recording
and filing.
Recording affects title and a filing does not. Notices can never
be
recorded because they do not affect the condition of title.
((J))

>>>

Section Nebr. 27-201 Print Friendly Copy

Chapter 27

Revised Statutes

Rule 201. Judicial notice of adjudicative facts; kinds of facts;

when discretionary; when mandatory; opportunity to be heard;
time of taking notice;

instructing jury.

(1) This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.

(2) A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to

reasonable dispute in that it is either (a) generally known within
the territorial jurisdiction of

the trial court or (b) capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.

(3) A judge or court may take judicial notice, whether requested

or not.

(4) A judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a

party and supplied with the necessary information.

(5) A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to

be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the
tenor of the matter

noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may

be made after judicial notice has been taken.

(6) Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.

(7) In a civil action or proceeding, the judge shall instruct the

jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a
criminal case, the judge shall

instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as
conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

Source: Laws 1975, LB 279, 7.

>>>

(Personal Jurisdiction) This claim of Sovereign Immunity is

further enhanced by the fact that the statute did not and does
not intend to abolish any of the
sovereign Rights retained by the Citizens of California. Statutes
which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges
will not be applied to the Sovereign
without express words to that effect. U.S. v. United Mine
Workers of America, (1947) 67 S. Ct. 677, 686, 330 U.S. 258.
But, in fact and in law, such statutes are
intended to be applied to those who are here as residents in
this State under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Federal
Constitution and the so-called 14th
Amendment.

English common law is the law in Florida and that law gives the
landlord the right to rent or lease his property under whatever
conditions

he wants. Civil rights are something the government grants

those who claim
to be citizens or who can prove residency on federal territory.
The
particular language involved makes no difference. Under the
English common
law, a tenant gains no rights of the property of another by
renting it.

To stop even a mega-lawyer all a person has to do is show the

State of
Floridas administrative courts limited jurisdiction. Since this is
written
law, that limitation to jurisdiction will appear in the capacity of
the
defendant. To defend all the landlord has to do is deny being a
U.S.
citizen or U.S. resident or a resident of the county. (An entity
(or contract) subject to an administrative court.)

Penhallow v. Doanes Administrators

3 U.S. 54; 1 L. Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54 (1795) (could not find to

shepardize)
Government is Foreclosed from Parity with Real PeopleSupreme Court of the United States 1795
Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an
abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can
interface only with other artificial
persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor
substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with
the tangible. The legal manifestation of this
that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court,
etc. can concern (Jurisdiction) itself with anything other than
corporate, artificial persons and the
contracts between them.

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver or

consent, and
may be raised at any time. Rodrigues v State, 441 S.2d 1129
(Fla App 1983).
Where the court is without jurisdiction it has no

authority to render any judgment other than one of dismissal.

Garcia v Dial, 596 S.W. 2d 254, 258 (1980).
No authority need to be cited for the proposition that, when a
court lacks jurisdiction, any judgment rendered by it is void and
unenforceable and without any
force or effect whatever. Hooker v Boles, 346 Fed 2d 285, 286
(1965).
A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must
dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it
becomes apparent that jurisdiction is
lacking. United States v Siviglia, 686 Fed. 2d 832, 835 (1981).

It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the

jurisdiction isa tacit admission that the court has a right to
judge in the case, an is a waiver to all
exceptions to the jurisdiction.
Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush Ky. 8

[see also arraighnment]

Absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any

time by any party or by the court sua sponte. State ex rel.
Grape v. Zach, (supra) (citing Plock v.

Crossroads Joint Venture, 239 Neb. 211, 475 N.W.2d 105

(1991))

The Plaintiff has the Burden of Proof to Show That Jurisdiction

Exists
The party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that
all prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Hatridge v. Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th
Cir. 1969). be attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional
requirements in all cases. Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d
214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987)

Where There is Absence of Jurisdiction Judicial Proceedings Are

A Nullity
If a federal court takes action in a dispute over which it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, that action is a nullity. See Am. Fire
& Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18
(1951); Hart v. Terminex Intl, 336 F.3d 541, 541-42 (7th Cir.
2003) (stating that it was regrettable that the case had to be
dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction rendering everything that has occurred in [the]
eight years [of litigation] a nullity).

Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any

cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it
ceases to exist, the only function remaining to
the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the
cause. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). In Steel Co.
v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523
U. S. 83 (1998) a long and venerable line of our cases, id., at
94, Steel Co. reiterated: The requirement that jurisdiction be
established as a threshold matter
is `inflexible and without exception, id., at 94-95 (quoting
Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884));
for [j]urisdiction is power to declare
the law, and `[w]ithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed
at all in any cause, 523 U. S., at 94 (quoting Ex parte
McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869)).

State v. Thomas, 685 N.W.2d 69, 268 Neb. 570 (Neb.

08/13/2004)
Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to hear
and determine a case of the general class or category to which
the proceedings in question belong and

to deal with the general subject matter involved. State v.

Gorman, 232 Neb. 738, 441 N.W.2d 896 (1989).

(Not a holding)
Thomas does not challenge the power of the district court to
hear and determine a case of this general class. Rather, Thomas
relies on Nelson v. State, 167 Neb.
575, 94 N.W.2d 1 (1959),

[16] We find this reasoning persuasive and therefore hold that

a facial challenge to a presumptively valid criminal statute does
not raise an issue of subject matter
jurisdiction in a criminal prosecution and thus may be waived if
not timely asserted. Nebraska law is consistent with federal law
in that criminal statutes are
presumed constitutional. State v. Hynek, 263 Neb. 310, 640
N.W.2d 1 (2002); State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432, 604 N.W.2d
169 (2000).

SMJ

the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua

sponte by an appellate court. Scherbak v. Kissler, 245 Neb. 10,
510 N.W.2d 318 (1994);
In re Interest of Kelly D., 3 Neb. App. 251, 526 N.W.2d 439
(1994). When a lower court lacks power, that is, subject matter
jurisdiction, to adjudicate merits of a
claim, issue, or question, an appellate court also lacks power to
determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented
to the lower court.
In re Interest of J.T.B. and H.J.T., 245 Neb. 624, 514 N.W.2d 635
(1994); Knerr v. Swigerd, 243 Neb. 591, 500 N.W.2d 839 (1993);
In re Interest of L.D. et al., 224
Neb. 249, 398 N.W.2d 91 (1986); Glup v. City of Omaha, 222
Neb. 355, 383 N.W.2d 773 (1986). However, although an extrajurisdictional act of a lower court
cannot vest an appellate court with jurisdiction to review or
evaluate an evidentiary determination involved in such act, an
appellate court has jurisdiction and,
moreover, the duty to determine whether the lower court had
the power to enter the judgment or final order sought to be
reviewed. In re Interest of J.T.B. and H.J.
T., supra; In re Interest of L.D. et al., supra.

SMJ Can Not Be Waived [U] Quality Pork International v. Rupari

Food Services, Inc., No. A-01-1203 (Neb.App. 05/13/2003)
While the lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived
nor the existence of subject matter jurisdiction conferred by
the consent or conduct of the parties,
lack of personal jurisdiction may be waived and such
jurisdiction conferred by the conduct of the parties. Id. When a
jurisdictional question does not involve a
factual dispute, the determination of a jurisdictional issue is a
matter of law which requires an appellate court to reach a
conclusion independent from the trial
courts decision; however, when a determination rests on
factual findings, a trial courts decision on an issue will be
upheld unless the factual findings concerning
jurisdiction are clearly incorrect. Higgins v. Rausch Herefords, 9
Neb. App. 212, 609 N.W.2d 712 (2000).

Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the court. A

jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute
is determined by an appellate court as

a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a

conclusion independent of the lower courts decision. Hoschor
v. Hoschor, 254 Neb. 743, 580 N.W.2d
516 (1998).

SMJ and Waiver, Estoppel, Consent of Conduct of the Parties

Cummins Management, L.P. v. Gilroy, 266 Neb. 635, 667
N.W.2d 538 (Neb. 08/15/2003)
When a lower court lacks the authority to exercise its subject
matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue, or
question, an appellate court also lacks
the power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or
question presented to the lower court. Wasikowski v. Nebraska
Quality Jobs Bd., 264 Neb. 403, 648 N.W.
2d 756 (2002). Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction
upon a judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent, nor
may subject matter jurisdiction be
created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or conduct of the parties.
Creighton St. Joseph Hosp. v. Tax Eq. & Rev. Comm., 260 Neb.
905, 620 N.W.2d 90 (2000).

A judgment entered by a court which lacks subject matter

jurisdiction is void. It is the longstanding rule in Nebraska that
such a void judgment may be raised at
any time in any proceeding. Bradley v. Hopkins, 246 Neb. 646,
522 N.W.2d 394 (1994); VonSeggern v. Willman, 244 Neb. 565,
508 N.W.2d 261 (1993).

The party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that

all prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Hatridge v. Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th
Cir. 1969).

SMJ and Burden Of Proof Lauder v. Bekins Van Lines Co., No.
4:05-CV-1132 CAS (E.D.Mo. 12/07/2005)

SMJ and Removal CPG Finance I, L.L.C. v. Shopro, Inc., No. 063015-CV-S-RED (W.D.Mo. 03/21/2006)
[13] In a case removed to Federal Court, the Court has the
duty to determine its jurisdiction, and to raise the issue of
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, if

necessary. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des

Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982); Yeldell v. Tutt,
913 F.2d 533, 537 (8th Cir.1990); see
also 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (If at any time before final judgment it
appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
the case shall be remanded.) The
party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that all
prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Hatridge v. Aetna Cas.
& Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th Cir.
1969). Removal statutes are strictly construed, and any doubts
about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of state
court jurisdiction and remand. Transit
Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 119 F.3d
619, 625 (8th Cir.1997).
>>
Eliments of Jurisdiction as in STANDING:

Standing is legally defined as The position of a person in

reference to his capacity to act in a particular instance - 19 Am
J2d Corp 559. Ballentines Law
Dictionary, page 1209.

In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is

entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of
particular issues. Warth v. Seldin, 422
U.S. 490, 498 (1975).

If a plaintiff lacks standing, then courts, all courts, are

legally/constitutionally incapable of proceeding because:
courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US
426, 430.

The requirement of standing, however, has a core component

derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege
personal injury fairly traceable to the
defendants allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be
redressed by the requested relief. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S.
737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

This (standing) of course references Article III 2 of the United

States constitution which requires a plaintiff to present a
case before a court may proceed: The
judicial power shall extend to all cases:

The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on

federal judicial power in our system of government. The Art. III
doctrine that requires a litigant to
have standing to invoke the power of a federal court is
perhaps the most important of these doctrines. Allen page
750.

More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally

(government) recognized right. The Declaration of
Independence proves this: That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men - And from the
Arizona constitution: governments are established to
protect and maintain individual rights. Article II
2 (emphasis mine).

The Supreme Court has held consistent with this principal of

standing: the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is
limited to determining rights of
persons or of property, which are actually controverted. Tyler
v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405

Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements:

1)

violation of a legal right, and

2)

2) personal injury.

First, the allegations are not in the indictment and thats fatal.
Second, its not legally sufficient to just make allegations,
those allegations must be based on facts;
those facts must establish where, when, why and how the legal
right was allegedly acquired. And if facts are alleged (evidence),
then they must be based on the
testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge, Rule 602
Federal Rules of Evidence.

we have explained that prudential standing encompasses the

general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal
rights Elk Grove Unified School
District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process

requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the
complainant has a real interest in the
ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or
is about to suffer an injury. People v. Superior Court, 126
Cal.Rptr.2d 793.

>>

SMJ and Court May Not Proceed

A court may not proceed at all in a case unless it has
jurisdiction. Crawford v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760,
764 (8th Cir. 2001).

[49] This court has not previously discussed the standard of

review for a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
filed under rule 12(b)(2). Because the
new civil rules for notice pleading are modeled after the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we look to the federal
decisions for guidance. Kellogg v. Nebraska Dept.
of Corr. Servs., ante p. 40, 690 N.W.2d 574 (2005).

jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government is defined by

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, quoted
as follows:

The Congress shall have the Power . . . To exercise exclusive

Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (NOT
EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by Cession of
particular
States and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
Government of the United States [District of Columbia] and to
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent

of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other
needful Buildings; And-To make all Laws which shall be
necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, .
.
. [Ephasis added]

And Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of
the United States, or of any particular State.

S.S number not required - Taco Bell Case states that no SS

number is required to work.

((K))

((L))

natural liberty v. civil liberty

personal liberty v. civil liberty

Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty,

is one of the
fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its
inclusion as a
guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived
from, or dependent
on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a
vote and may not
depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most
sacred and valuable
Rights, as sacred as the Right to private propertyand is
regarded as

inalienable. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to

go where and
when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others
may make it
necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the
Citizen to
travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, by
horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere
privilege which may be
permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which
he has under his
Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this
Constitutional
guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel
at his inclination
along the public highways or in public places, and while
conducting himself in

an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor

disturbing anothers
Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his
safe conduct.
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

Au contraire. The legal term license is defined as

governmental
permission to perform a particular act (like getting married)
(emphasis
added).
by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or
withheld in the
discretion of such official-is an unconstitutional censorship or
prior
restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. -Staub v.
Baxley, 355
U.S. 313, 322.
>


Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239. ..The
practice of law (medicine etc.) is not within the States grace to
regulate. The practice of law
(medicine etc.) is an occupation of common right as per Sims v.
Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925). No State in the Union of the
United States of America licenses
lawyers, only the State Bar, which issues a private corporation
type of Union Card/certificate for payment of dues/fees. (See
also ExParte v. Garland, 4 Wall 333,
370 (1866), which authorizes only the practice of law in the
courts as an officer of the court and a member of the judicial
branch of government, to represent wards
of the court such as infants and persons of unsound mind and
as a public defender in criminal cases.) Cannot license an
occupation of common right Redfield v.
Fisher, 292 P. 813, 817-819
Occupations of common right ARE not taxable. The practice of
medicine and law are occupations of common right. An income
tax is neither a property tax, nor a
tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax.
Gross income tax unconstitutional. (See also Schware v.
Board of Examiners, 353 US 238, 239.

That an attorney cannot represent any private citizen nor any

business as the State cannot license the practice of law. That
an attorney can only be allowed to
practice law in the courts to represent wards of the court
such as infants and persons of unsound mind as per Corpus
Juris Secundum, Vol. 7, Sect. 4.)

The definition of an excise tax is found in the supreme

Court case of Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 US 107: ..Excises are
taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses
to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges;
the requirement to pay such taxes
involves the exercise of privilege and if business is not done in
the manner described, no tax is payable, and it is this privilege
which is the subject of the tax and
not the mere buying, selling, or handling of goods; See 53
ALR3d 1163 for the validity and construction of statutes or rules
conditioning right to practice law upon
residence or citizenship. (Occupations of natural/common right
are NOT a subject of an excise/income tax..84 C.J.S. art. 122)

The definition of an excise tax is found in the supreme Court

case of Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 US 107: ..Excises are taxes laid
upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses
to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges;
the requirement to pay such taxes
involves the exercise of privilege and if business is not done in
the manner described, no tax is payable, and it is this privilege
which is the subject of the tax and
not the mere buying, selling, or handling of goods; See 53
ALR3d 1163 for the validity and construction of statutes or rules
conditioning right to practice law upon
residence or citizenship. (Occupations of natural/common right
are NOT a subject of an excise/income tax..84 C.J.S. art. 122)
>
accord, -United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, (1947).
Particularly is the true where the statute imposes a burden or
limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or
advantage.
-United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840). Wilson v.
Omaha

Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979).