Friday, July 24, 2020

A CHAT CONCERNING THE SAME ISSUES BETWEEN VERY INFORMED PEOPLE ABOUT STANDING AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom. 
                                                                                                           Jon Stewart

AXJ- You are on the right track...but read some Roman Law...in dubio pro reo...contractus legem...Because we always look at Subject Matter Jurisdiction first and then Standing.

Danny Hammond- Jurisdiction can not exist without a Plaintiff with Standing. Until the moment that Standing is reviewed and validated Subject Matter can not be attacked because it does not exist until Standing exists. I don't understand how you claim you are challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction before you attack Standing. The only function a judge really has to perform at the very beginning of a case is to make sure he has a genuine dispute between two or more parties with proven adverse interests in an issue. If the judge finds that the Plaintiff has no standing, then Subject Matter Jurisdiction cannot exist and can not and need not be addressed. So, I would be interested in your description of challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction before Standing.

Danny Hammond- Can we use pig Latin? I am better versed in it.

The Term "Void" Is Often Used In Contrast To "Voidable" And "Unenforceable". The Main Difference Is That An Action That Is Voidable Remains Valid Until It Is Avoided.

by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 court press. Can Anyone truly believe that it is the Borrowers that come up with these bizarre scenarios?  My si...