The body of law that addresses the requirement for courts to prove their jurisdiction once it is challenged is primarily found within jurisdictional law**, which is a subset of **civil procedure. This principle is especially relevant in the context of **federal courts** in the United States, where the authority to hear a case (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the authority over the parties involved (personal jurisdiction) must be established. Key Principles and Relevant Laws: 1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP): - Rule 12(b)(1) - Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: - This rule allows a defendant to challenge the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Once such a motion is filed, the court is obligated to assess and prove its jurisdiction. If the court cannot establish its jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed. - Rule 12(b)(2) - Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: - Similar to subject-matter jurisdiction, a defendant can challenge the court's authority over their person. The court must then establish whether it has personal jurisdiction based on legal standards. 2. Case Law: - Burden of Proof:** When jurisdiction is challenged, courts have consistently held that the burden of proving jurisdiction falls on the party asserting it. For example, in cases where federal jurisdiction is invoked, the plaintiff must show that the court has jurisdiction under the relevant federal statute or constitutional provision. - Key Cases: - Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010): The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the "nerve center" test for determining corporate citizenship for jurisdictional purposes, illustrating how jurisdictional challenges are resolved. - Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998): The Supreme Court ruled that a court must establish its jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a case, reaffirming the requirement that jurisdiction must be proven if challenged. 3. Constitutional Basis: - Article III of the U.S. Constitution:** Establishes the judicial power of federal courts and outlines the types of cases they can hear, including issues related to federal jurisdiction. - Due Process Clause (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments): Requires that courts exercise jurisdiction only in a manner consistent with fair treatment of the parties, which includes proving jurisdiction when it is disputed. 4. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332: - These statutes outline the basic jurisdiction of federal courts, including federal question jurisdiction (§ 1331) and diversity jurisdiction (§ 1332). When jurisdiction is challenged under these statutes, courts must demonstrate that the requirements are met to retain the case. Summary: When a court's jurisdiction is challenged, the body of law governing civil procedure, particularly under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dictates that the court must establish its jurisdiction before proceeding with a case. This includes both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. The burden of proof typically rests on the party asserting jurisdiction, and courts rely on statutory and constitutional guidelines to determine whether they have the authority to hear the case.
Burden of Proof: When jurisdiction is challenged, courts have consistently held that the burden of proving jurisdiction falls on the party asserting it. For example, in cases where federal jurisdiction is invoked, the plaintiff must show that the court has jurisdiction under the relevant federal statute or constitutional provision. Key Cases: - Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010): The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the "nerve center" test for determining corporate citizenship for jurisdictional purposes, illustrating how jurisdictional challenges are resolved. - Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998): The Supreme Court ruled that a court must establish its jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a case, reaffirming the requirement that jurisdiction must be proven if challenged.
Jurisdiction, in broad but simple terms, is determined by the WHO, WHAT and WHERE of an incident. These factors ALONE determine which legal authority has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is NOT something one must specifically grant to an authority, nor can it be withheld. Within the borders of this country, one can not be outside of one jurisdiction without being under another.
@PrivatelyHanging stole it? How about sharing it. UA-cam didn't have the 'clip' feature back then. I actually re-clipped this same video when that feature came out. And clips are only one minute. And this channel is not monetized. How am I stealing it?
JUDGES POLICE SHERIFF TAKE AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION NOT THE US CONSTITUTION
You are welcomed!!!!!! Your post helped me more than you know.😊
Thank you 😊
The body of law that addresses the requirement for courts to prove their jurisdiction once it is challenged is primarily found within jurisdictional law**, which is a subset of **civil procedure. This principle is especially relevant in the context of **federal courts** in the United States, where the authority to hear a case (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the authority over the parties involved (personal jurisdiction) must be established.
Key Principles and Relevant Laws:
1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP):
- Rule 12(b)(1) - Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction:
- This rule allows a defendant to challenge the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Once such a motion is filed, the court is obligated to assess and prove its jurisdiction. If the court cannot establish its jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed.
- Rule 12(b)(2) - Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction:
- Similar to subject-matter jurisdiction, a defendant can challenge the court's authority over their person. The court must then establish whether it has personal jurisdiction based on legal standards.
2. Case Law:
- Burden of Proof:** When jurisdiction is challenged, courts have consistently held that the burden of proving jurisdiction falls on the party asserting it. For example, in cases where federal jurisdiction is invoked, the plaintiff must show that the court has jurisdiction under the relevant federal statute or constitutional provision.
- Key Cases:
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010): The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the "nerve center" test for determining corporate citizenship for jurisdictional purposes, illustrating how jurisdictional challenges are resolved.
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998): The Supreme Court ruled that a court must establish its jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a case, reaffirming the requirement that jurisdiction must be proven if challenged.
3. Constitutional Basis:
- Article III of the U.S. Constitution:** Establishes the judicial power of federal courts and outlines the types of cases they can hear, including issues related to federal jurisdiction.
- Due Process Clause (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments): Requires that courts exercise jurisdiction only in a manner consistent with fair treatment of the parties, which includes proving jurisdiction when it is disputed.
4. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332:
- These statutes outline the basic jurisdiction of federal courts, including federal question jurisdiction (§ 1331) and diversity jurisdiction (§ 1332). When jurisdiction is challenged under these statutes, courts must demonstrate that the requirements are met to retain the case.
Summary: When a court's jurisdiction is challenged, the body of law governing civil procedure, particularly under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dictates that the court must establish its jurisdiction before proceeding with a case. This includes both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. The burden of proof typically rests on the party asserting jurisdiction, and courts rely on statutory and constitutional guidelines to determine whether they have the authority to hear the case.
Burden of Proof: When jurisdiction is challenged, courts have consistently held that the burden of proving jurisdiction falls on the party asserting it. For example, in cases where federal jurisdiction is invoked, the plaintiff must show that the court has jurisdiction under the relevant federal statute or constitutional provision.
Key Cases:
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010): The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the "nerve center" test for determining corporate citizenship for jurisdictional purposes, illustrating how jurisdictional challenges are resolved.
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998): The Supreme Court ruled that a court must establish its jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a case, reaffirming the requirement that jurisdiction must be proven if challenged.
Jurisdiction, in broad but simple terms, is determined by the WHO, WHAT and WHERE of an incident. These factors ALONE determine which legal authority has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is NOT something one must specifically grant to an authority, nor can it be withheld. Within the borders of this country, one can not be outside of one jurisdiction without being under another.
Thank you for sharing your research and work!!!!!
@PrivatelyHanging stole it? How about sharing it. UA-cam didn't have the 'clip' feature back then. I actually re-clipped this same video when that feature came out. And clips are only one minute. And this channel is not monetized. How am I stealing it?
Thanks! Of ALL the insane clips I've ever posted to expose the truth, you're the first one to say thanks! Much appreciated! 🙏
I don't recall accusing you of stealing anything.......