roger that, here is a rewrite: Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be presumed, and any action taken without it is void. Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443–44 (Tex. 1993); Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990). When jurisdiction is challenged, the burden shifts to the party asserting it — here, the State — to plead facts affirmatively demonstrating that jurisdiction exists. State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007); Tex. Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 446. When jurisdiction is challenged, the Court has an independent duty to verify that jurisdiction has been properly vested before proceeding. State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). you can insist all you want in the municipal court but they don't follow the law. You may have...
So, if you make a declaration, the court is not going to check a pro-se's filings for errors? .... I have a hard time believing that. I would sooner believe that this ruling will protect bar members while allowing those same bar members to challenge a pro-se's filings without any evidence. We all know the courts will protect believe fellow bar members over pro-se litigants in courtroom proceedings..... I stand on my claim that it is a stupid ruling that will do nothing to protect us from bad filings from bar members. I realize I sound cynical, but it is not unwarranted. No, your appellate court case never made it past the gatekeeper to become a formal case. Your petition was denied because it did not meet the threshold that the Appellate Court applies of “extraordinary relief”. There were 2 thresholds that needed to be met: 1) technical - timeliness, and all the right documents filed 2) appropriateness in the Appellate Court which according to the statutes is “extraordinary re...