New
Hampshire Woman Takes on Oklahoma- and a Moot
Court
Court
Written
by: Michael Volpe and Tanya Hathaway
It’s
All About Jurisdiction
A
judgment from a court that did not have
subject-matter
jurisdiction is forever a nullity.[1][2]
Wikipedia
With
a corrupt judge refusing to remove himself from the case, he had no
problem ignoring the evidence that the court had no jurisdiction.
A
court must have some sort of a stake in a case before it can hear it;
that’s called Subject-matter jurisdiction.
PROVING
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Some
of a few of the many exhibits Hathaway presented for supporting
arguments for lack of Subject-matter jurisdiction include: 1)
Their marital home was in New Hampshire. Hathaway never lived in
Oklahoma, and XXX (referring to Hathaway’s estranged husband)
wasn’t living in Tulsa County. XXX
swore their marital home
as his legal residence when he applied for a P.O. box, 2) XXX
obtained a New Hampshire’s driver’s license on June 27th 2014-
just weeks before filing- where he swore that he lived in New
Hampshire, 3) Their marriage certificate listed New Hampshire as
their legal address 4) Confirmation from the US Postal Service (USPS)
that XXX permanently changed his home address from Tulsa to New
Hampshire 5) dozens of resumes which XXX sent to potential employers
where his return address was New Hampshire 6) While Hathaway
examined XXX for her motion to vacate the suit due to lack of
jurisdiction, he admitted that he did not have a residence or stay
anywhere in Tulsa County during the time period required to claim
Subject-matter jurisdiction. Clearly, he relied on his insiders
to take care of things.
Miller, during an argument with XXX’s attorney, even threw Hathaway a bone, saying, “I don’t understand why a driver’s licenses would not be admissible to go to evidence of where a person’s residence is in a hearing on Subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Judge Miller noted that Subject-matter jurisdiction came
down to, “was the petitioner a resident of Oklahoma for six months prior to
filing the petition?”
When XXX testified, he insisted that he was domiciled- or
had a residence in-Oklahoma at the time he filed his petition in June 2014, but
when asked to provide his address, he responded, “I did not have a formal
address in Tulsa.”
He even repeated this assertion when Miller asked him the
same question minutes later.
JUDICIAL
ESTOPPEL
Just
as XXX knew he could rely on Hughes and Hastings, lawyers on XXX’s
behalf, Hughes knew they could rely on Miller to make it all work.
All they needed was something with the veneer of legitimacy: thinking
Hathaway didn’t know better. Judicial Estoppel is a legal
technicality which “prevents a party from asserting a position in
one legal proceeding that directly contradicts a position taken by
that same party in an earlier proceeding.”
According
to the Cornell Law Review.
Hughes
and her team argued because Hathaway had come to Oklahoma to
challenge the lawsuit, this implicitly gave the state jurisdiction,
except, as in this case,
without Subject-matter
jurisdiction, Judicial Estoppel is moot. They all know it.
Hathaway
knew there was no Subject-matter jurisdiction, but couldn't prove it
until discovered additional evidence that was rock solid. Knowing she
could prove it, she motioned to vacate the suit in a county that by
law cannot hear or rule over the matter.
Put
another way, you aren’t allowed to go to New Hampshire’s
Department of Motor Vehicle and swear you live there and turn around
and tell a court in Oklahoma weeks later you live in that state, if
all your evidence is a storage receipt.
By
all rights, it was a slam dunk. No evidence was presented to overcome
the lack of Subject-matter jurisdiction as the defense relied solely
on Judicial Estoppel.
That’s
fraud, and neither estoppel nor anything else can be achieved by
fraud, unless your friends with facing the Orwellian Miller appointed
by the upstanding Presiding Judge Linda Morrissey who ignored
requests to review the gross negligence claimed in this matter
in her court.
Miller
denied Hathaway citing Subject-matter jurisdiction as the key to
vacating the suit. Yet, The Hughes Team didn't use that defense! If
they had, it was still a slam dunk.
Still,
knowing Subject-matter jurisdiction overrides Judicial Estoppel (the
defenses claim), Hathaway filed an emergency motion for
reconsideration, arguing that Judicial Estoppel does not apply
because subject matter was not established. This caused Miller
to augment his rulings the next day in court.
“I
apparently, I left the impression and I want to correct it, that the
only basis for my ruling yesterday was on the basis of Judicial
Estoppel. It’s my intention to indicate that after hearing those
many hours of testimony, the facts support that this court has
Subject-matter jurisdiction,” the Orwellian Judge Miller stated at
this hearing, “He was a resident based on the factual record
presented.”
Factual
Record information from Cornell University Law School Includes:
“In
General. In an action
tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court
must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law
separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record
after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a
memorandum of decision filed by the court.”
The
“factual record” evidence consisted of a Tulsa storage unit
receipt.
...
If you can't believe this happened take listen to the audio below.
For more reference.
No comments:
Post a Comment