|
|
|
Rising Foreclosures & Evictions
|
|
|
2023 Study:
The Shocking Rise of Eviction- and Foreclosure-Related Moves
Key Findings
- Over 200,000 Americans had to move due to eviction or foreclosure in 2022
- The number of eviction/foreclosure-related moves rose 56% from 2021 to 2022
- California (+411%), Florida (+187%) and Massachusetts (+105%) saw the highest increase in moves following evictions and foreclosures
- Single parents (43%) and single mothers (79%) were more likely to move due to eviction or foreclosure than their married or childless counterparts
- Black (+23%) and Hispanic (+14%) people were more likely to be among those forced to move after losing their home compared to white Americans
- One in six (16%) of renters report being “very likely” to get evicted in the next two months in 2023
|
| |
Hi Friend !
Below are the first 3 pages of a 13 page research document highlighting your right to challenge jurisdiction of any court involved in depriving you of your home (or any other matter) up to 15 years after the fact. We all know by now how all mortgages and bank created credit are fraudulent. If you don't understand that yet, see the videos on this NATF page:
==============================
TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
“Plaintiff”, File Number 111-1111-06
V Case Number 00000000
JOHN ALLEN DOE
“Defendant(s)”
_______________________________________/
BARRY JOHN DOE NOTICE, not a motion
Attorney for alleged “Plaintiff” Addressed to: BARRY JOHN DOE,
Austin, Texas 78711
TEXAS BAR 0306...
JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE WITH AFFIDAVIT
John Allen Doe by limited appearance to this matter in this court of record with clean hands, without prejudice and with all rights reserved in dealing with this court, in pro per, sui juris (NOT PRO SE), have not seen any evidence that proves how this court got its jurisdiction.
John Allen Doe, has the right to challenge the jurisdiction of any court that attempts to force compliance with its deceptive practices, procedures, rules, and word-smithing at any time, and this right has been upheld by numerous decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States. Once jurisdiction has been challenged, it is the mandatory obligation of the opposing party to prove the basis of the court having jurisdiction to proceed in the matter before it, and until that has been put on the Record of the court, the court can proceed no further.
Further, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time even as much as 15 (fifteen) years after a judgment has been entered. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are mandatory requirement to be complied with by all courts, state and federal and leave those courts no discretion as to whether or not to comply. The following Supreme Court cases set out the mandatory requirements that must be complied with.
"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." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
"Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
"Generally, a plaintiff's allegations of jurisdiction are sufficient, but when they are questioned, as in this case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
"Judgment rendered by court which did not have jurisdiction to hear cause is void ab initio."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. "It is elementary that the first question which must be determined by the trial court in every case is that of jurisdiction.” Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal.685; Dillon v. Dillon, 45 Cal. App. 191,187P. 27.
The response from the Party/Petitioner/Plaintiff asserting proper jurisdiction throughout this case must be made on a point by point basis for all the moving Party/Petitioner/Plaintiff actions, filings and motions are true and correct in relation to the proper State laws, codes, rules, regulations, statutes used to conduct this case that proper jurisdiction was always maintained from the record including the incomplete summons.
“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close the apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is as much an “excess of jurisdiction" as where there exists an inceptive lack of power.” Wuest v. Wuest, 53 Cal. App. 2d 339,127P.2d 934.
“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; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S. Ct. 1409.
"Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea.” 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351." Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.
"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.
“Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” KNAPP MEDICAL CENTER, et al. v. Eric D. HARGAN, 875 F.3d 1125, (2017).
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.” McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. Emphasis added. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee V Levy, 4 US 308.
In a very recent decision, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated in James v. City of Boise Idaho, 136 S. Ct. 685 (2016):
"It is this Court's responsibility to say what a [federal] statute means, and once the Court has spoken, it is the duty of other courts to respect that understanding of the governing rule of law.” Nitro–Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Howard, 568 U.S. ––––, ––––, 133 S.Ct. 500, 503, 184 L.Ed.2d 328 (2012) (per curiam ) (quoting Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.,511 U.S. 298, 312, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
And for good reason. As Justice Story explained 200 years ago, if state courts were permitted to disregard this Court's rulings on federal law, “the laws, the treaties, and the constitution of the United States would be different in different states, and might, perhaps, never have precisely the same construction, obligation, or efficacy, in any two states. The public mischiefs that would attend such a state of things would be truly deplorable.” Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 348, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816)."
...(continued for 13 pages)...
====================
If you would like to attain this kind of knowledge and put it to use in your life, I can only recommend that you join the Lighthouse Law Club. To Learn more, click the image below; |
|
|
|
|
2016 © PCF World Mission LLC
|
|
|
