Writ of Mandamus To Compel Child Support Court To Provide Evidence of Personal Jurisdiction

1 Your name
2 Your address
[City, ST ZIP Code]
3
5
[Court name]
7 [Plaintiff's name] , Case No.: [Number]

8
Plaintiff,
9
10
vs.
NOTICE OF PETITION
11 [Defendant's Name] , WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE
12 EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION ALL WRITS
Defendant SECTION 28 USC SECTION 1651
13
14
15 NOTICE OF PETITION
16 WRIT OF MANDAMUS
17
TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL
18
19 JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF ALL WRITS SECTION 28 USC
20 SECTION 1651
21
22
23 Comes now, the Plaintiff [type in your name, not in capital letters and
24 remove brackets] is a living man with blood flowing through his body and a citizen
25
26
NOTICE OF PETITION
-1
1 of the state1 presenting a record of facts showing the defendant failed to prove
2
standing and therefore the Plaintiff has a right to challenge court’s claim of
3
4 personal jurisdiction.
5 It is an adjudicated fact Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 -

6
Supreme Court 19922 that the defendant (plaintiff in the lower court) must have
7
8 suffered and injury in fact, but the plaintiff did not introduce any evidence showing
9 the undersigned plaintiff (defendant in the lower court) has caused the defendant
10
an injury in fact, and therefore the lower court failed to obtain personal jurisdiction
11
12
and therefore all order are void for violating due process.3
13 WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL A LOWER COURT TO

14 1
“In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of
people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free
15
citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited
by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” Texas v. White, 74 US 700 - Supreme
16 Court 1869
2
“Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of
17 standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally
protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508
18 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);[1] and (b) "actual or imminent, not
`conjectural' or `hypothetical,' " Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)).
19 Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be
"fairly. . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action
20 of some third party not before the court." Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42
(1976). Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a
21 favorable decision."” Id., at 38, 43. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 - Supreme Court 1992
3
22 "Where a party is within a territory, he may justly be subjected to its process, and bound
personally by the judgment pronounced on such process against him. Where he is not within such territory, and is
23 not personally subject to its laws, if, on account of his supposed or actual property being within the territory,
process by the local laws may, by attachment, go to compel his appearance, and for his default to appear judgment
24 may be pronounced against him, such a judgment must, upon general principles, be deemed only to bind him to the
extent of such property, and cannot have the effect of a conclusive judgment in personam, for the plain reason, that,
except so far as the property is concerned, it is a judgment coram non judice."Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714 -
25
Supreme Court 1878
26
NOTICE OF PETITION
-2
1 PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
2
4 1. Under no circumstances is the undersigned petition seeking any injunction
5 or declaratory judgments.
6
2. The undersigned Plaintiff does not need to state a claim to order a court to
7
8 show evidence that it has jurisdiction to prosecute the undersigned.
9 3. The lower court held child support proceedings and failed to cite evidence
10
proving the undersigned plaintiff (defendant in lower court) caused the
11
12
plaintiff in the lower court an injury in fact and therefore the plaintiff lacks
13 standing and the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

14
4. The lower court cannot claim it has jurisdiction by a written statement “ The
15
16
Court finds it has jurisdiction in this matter” without first demonstrating it
17 has jurisdiction by clarifying the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, and

18
the lower court failed to prove personal jurisdiction.
19
20
5. It is an adjudicated fact Lujan, Secretary of the Interior v. Defenders of
21 Wildlife et al. 504 U.S. 555(1992) held that the Plaintiff has the burden of
22
proof of introducing evidence showing an injury in fact for the Plaintiff to
23
24
have standing in court and the court to have jurisdiction to prosecute.
25 6. Jurisdiction is non-discretionary and must be proven by evidence the

26
NOTICE OF PETITION
-3
1 Plaintiff had standing resulting from some type of an actual injury in fact,
2
beyond the court claiming it has jurisdiction without actually showing the
3
4 evidence giving the court jurisdiction.
5 7. The Supreme Court of the United States has held in matter Lujan, Secretary
6
of the Interior v. Defenders of Wildlife et al. 504 U.S. 555(1992) that there is
7
8 an irreducible constitutional minimum standard required by every court to
9 ensure that the claimant show actual evidence of a injury in fact caused by
10
the respondent, and without these requirements the court is not likely to
11
12
succeed in redress and remedy.
13 8. Therefore, it is the intention of the undersigned plaintiff to achieve relief by

14
writ of mandamus to compel the lower court to show evidence of personal
15
16
jurisdiction, or its orders are all void for violating of due process.
17
18
IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO BE WATCHFUL OF
19
20
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND ANY STEALTHY
21 ENCROACHMENTS THEREON4 AND THEREBY REQUIRED TO ISSUE

22
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS ORDERING THE DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE
23
24
EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
4
It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any
25
stealthy encroachments thereon” Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927)
26
NOTICE OF PETITION
-4
1
2
1. The petitioner is not a legal professional and does not speak legalese.
3
4 2. This court cannot hold the petitioner to the standard of a legal professional.
5 3. The petitioner is a victim of loss of a legal right to property and this loss is
6
causing irreparable damages.
7
8 4. An administrative withholding of income issued by a state agency is a
9 violation of the separation of powers5 and thereby the defendant cannot rely
10
upon an administrative withholding of income to justify its cause to restrain
11
12
the petitioner’s account.
13 5. This court has been presented with facts proving the petitioner has met the
14
constitutional minimum of standing6 for writ of mandamus to compel the
15
16
defendant to release the account of the petitioner.
5
Separation of powers
17 Separation of powers is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of
government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and
18 balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches. Each branch
has separate powers, and generally each branch is not allowed to exercise the powers of the other branches. The
19 Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial
Branch exercises judicial review.
20
6
“Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of
21 standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally
protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508
22 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);[1] and (b) "actual or imminent, not
`conjectural' or `hypothetical,' " Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)).
23 Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be
"fairly. . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action
24 of some third party not before the court." Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42
(1976). Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a
favorable decision."” Id., at 38, 43. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 - Supreme Court 1992
25
26
NOTICE OF PETITION
-5
1 6. This court has been presented with facts proving this court has personal
2
jurisdiction over the defendant.
3
8 Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].

9
10
11 Your Name
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
NOTICE OF PETITION
-6

Writ of Mandamus To Compel Child Support Court To Provide Evidence of Personal Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writ of Mandamus To Compel Child Support Court To Provide Evidence of Personal Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writ of Mandamus To Compel Child Support Court To Provide Evidence of Personal Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Your name

7 [Plaintiff's name] , Case No.: [Number]

19 JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF ALL WRITS SECTION 28 USC

5 It is an adjudicated fact Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 -

13 WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL A LOWER COURT TO

4 1. Under no circumstances is the undersigned petition seeking any injunction

8 show evidence that it has jurisdiction to prosecute the undersigned.

13 standing and the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

17 has jurisdiction by clarifying the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, and

25 6. Jurisdiction is non-discretionary and must be proven by evidence the

4 evidence giving the court jurisdiction.

8 an irreducible constitutional minimum standard required by every court to

13 8. Therefore, it is the intention of the undersigned plaintiff to achieve relief by

21 ENCROACHMENTS THEREON4 AND THEREBY REQUIRED TO ISSUE

8 4. An administrative withholding of income issued by a state agency is a

8 Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].

You might also like