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 a chance in an appeals court as long as you preserve the error
And that’s why Dr Graves mentions stipulations in his Jurisdictionary course. To avoid expenses including wasted time. Something that not all lawyers recommend since they make money by not mentioning a different tactic other than a legal battle.
RULE OF LAW RADIO is live and looking for calls and questions!! 9:30pm EST/8:30 CST
I'm not the producer, but I am interested. ChatGPT legal saved me today!!!! I filed a lawsuit, asked for a ex parte emergency TRO hearing, which was denied, but I got a "with opposing Council emergency Injunction hearing for Tuesday" - THAT WILL DO!!!!
the judge in this case happend to be a lawyer. after the first hearing, I bar grieved her twice and sent in two judicial complaints: one for official oppression and one for tampering with government document (she falsely entered me as making a general appearance). her demeanor was very different in the second hearing.
Or would an Affidavit be better?
Affidavit Regarding Proof of Acceptance of Check
Ed Financial Services
Attn: Steven Beasley / CFO
120 N Seven Oaks Dr
Knoxville, TN 37922
AFFIDAVIT
I, [Your Full Name], being of lawful age and duly sworn, depose and state as follows:
1. Identity and Capacity: I am a resident of [City, State], and I am competent to make this affidavit. The statements herein are based on my personal knowledge and belief.
2. Issuance of Check: Student loan discernment checks not received by [Payees Name] and I am requesting proof of delivery for are as follows.
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT DATE
xxxxxx xxxx xxx
xxxxxx xxxx xxx
xxxxxx xxxx xxx
3. Purpose of Check: All checks previously received by me and issued to [Payee’s Name or Entity] have been processed through my bank and applied directly toward the repayment of my student loan with U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
4. Delivery Issues: There have been occasional issues with the delivery of checks to [Payee’s Name or Entity] in the past, and I am unable to provide proof of delivery for the check referenced in paragraph 2.
5. Request for Proof of Acceptance: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 336.3-410, which adopts the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 3, acceptance of a check is evidenced by the payee’s possession, endorsement, or negotiation of the instrument (e.g., depositing or cashing the check). To date, I have not received confirmation or proof that the check described in paragraph 2 was received or accepted by [Payee’s Name or Loan Servicer], nor have I received confirmation that it was applied to my student loan balance
6. Legal Effect of Non-Delivery or Non-Acceptance: Under Minnesota Statutes Section 336.3-310(b), which adopts UCC Article 3, if a check is tendered as payment for an obligation, such as a student loan debt, and no proof of delivery or acceptance can be provided, the obligation to repay that portion of the debt may be suspended or discharged, as the tender of payment was made in good faith. I assert that, absent proof of delivery or acceptance of the check described in paragraph 2, the corresponding student loan obligation may not be enforceable. Furthermore, Minnesota Statutes Section 336.3-102(c) provides that regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provisions of UCC Article 3, ensuring alignment with federal standards for negotiable instruments.
7. Request for Documentation: I respectfully request that [Payee’s Name or Entity] provide proof of acceptance of the check, including but not limited to:
o A copy of the endorsed check showing the payee’s signature or stamp.
o A bank statement or deposit receipt confirming negotiation of the check.
o Any other documentation verifying that the check was accepted or presented for payment.
Affidavit Regarding Proof of Acceptance of Check
Ed Financial Services
Attn: Steven Beasley / CFO
120 N Seven Oaks Dr
Knoxville, TN 37922
AFFIDAVIT
I, [Your Full Name], being of lawful age and duly sworn, depose and state as follows:
1. Identity and Capacity: I am a resident of [City, State], and I am competent to make this affidavit. The statements herein are based on my personal knowledge and belief.
2. Issuance of Check: Student loan discernment checks not received by [Payees Name] and I am requesting proof of delivery for are as follows.
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT DATE
xxxxxx xxxx xxx
xxxxxx xxxx xxx
xxxxxx xxxx xxx
3. Purpose of Check: All checks previously received by me and issued to [Payee’s Name or Entity] have been processed through my bank and applied directly toward the repayment of my student loan with U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
4. Delivery Issues: There have been occasional issues with the delivery of checks to [Payee’s Name or Entity] in the past, and I am unable to provide proof of delivery for the check referenced in paragraph 2.
5. Request for Proof of Acceptance: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 336.3-410, which adopts the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 3, acceptance of a check is evidenced by the payee’s possession, endorsement, or negotiation of the instrument (e.g., depositing or cashing the check). To date, I have not received confirmation or proof that the check described in paragraph 2 was received or accepted by [Payee’s Name or Loan Servicer], nor have I received confirmation that it was applied to my student loan balance
6. Legal Effect of Non-Delivery or Non-Acceptance: Under Minnesota Statutes Section 336.3-310(b), which adopts UCC Article 3, if a check is tendered as payment for an obligation, such as a student loan debt, and no proof of delivery or acceptance can be provided, the obligation to repay that portion of the debt may be suspended or discharged, as the tender of payment was made in good faith. I assert that, absent proof of delivery or acceptance of the check described in paragraph 2, the corresponding student loan obligation may not be enforceable. Furthermore, Minnesota Statutes Section 336.3-102(c) provides that regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provisions of UCC Article 3, ensuring alignment with federal standards for negotiable instruments.
7. Request for Documentation: I respectfully request that [Payee’s Name or Entity] provide proof of acceptance of the check, including but not limited to:
o A copy of the endorsed check showing the payee’s signature or stamp.
o A bank statement or deposit receipt confirming negotiation of the check.
o Any other documentation verifying that the check was accepted or presented for payment.
Comments
Post a Comment