NO A-10-000983<\/p>\n
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF NEBRASKA<\/p>\n
STATE OF NEBRASKA, Plaintiff, Appellee<\/p>\n
v.<\/p>\n
Paul John Hansen, Defendant, Appellant<\/p>\n
As a common law notice to the captioned case Court as to its lack of territorial jurisdiction.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Evidenced by the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, declaring that these thirteen united colonies are, and of right be free and independent states.\u00c2\u00a0 One of those states eventually grafted in to the said free states is a Land called Nebraska, as my Land is located which is the subject of this case.<\/p>\n Nebraska is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153[L]and\u00e2\u20ac\u009d inhabited by \u00e2\u20ac\u0153free inhabitants\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, as this Appellant is, as the term \u00e2\u20ac\u0153free inhabitant\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is found in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, dated November 15, 1777, to which no evidence exist as it being replaced, repealed or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153superseded\u00e2\u20ac\u009d by any Constitution, which is contrary to what the Appellee claims in their 1-26-2011 Response Brief, on line 4 of page 27.<\/p>\n The Appellee\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Attorney Mr. Getty is unfortunately ignorant of the organic laws of the Nebraska Land which is added to the perpetual Union.\u00c2\u00a0 Getty appears to misunderstand that the United States, as to territorial jurisdiction, is not all the Land within the interior borders of Nebraska, but is in fact only the Land that is owned by the United States of America, the confederacy, within the same said borders, Land identified in the State of Nebraska Revised Statutes as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153in this state<\/span>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/strong> or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153within the state<\/span>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/strong><\/p>\n Getty has been faultily informed, and perpetually ignores, the fact that there are only two types of Land within the said Nebraska Land exterior borders, that is [L]and owned by the United States of America which is called the United States and the other is [L]and NOT<\/span><\/strong> owned by the United States of America and therefore is not<\/span><\/strong> Land called the United State.<\/p>\n Getty also lacks understanding that there is only two form of law operating in the said Nebraska interior borders, one being United States written Laws, operating on US Land, and the other is the unwritten English common law, operating on non-US Land.<\/p>\n It is a fact that the Douglas County Court is a statutory court, clearly a limited jurisdictional court, as is true with all United States Courts.\u00c2\u00a0 The United States is land, assets, and property, owned by the United States of America.\u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0All governments upon the Land called Nebraska are a creation of what is now called the United States of America, the confederacy, pursuant to the first Organic Laws of the United States of America titled the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, and the Articles of Confederation November 15, 1777.<\/p>\n The US Constitution of September 17, 1787, and the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, made a territorial government permanent, historically referenced as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the more perfect Union\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, thus creating a separate government (Legislative Congress of the United States) to govern the same (owned) limited territory, land, assets, property, and subjects, on this same said Land.\u00c2\u00a0 All Government deriving it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s authority from this 1787 Constitution have specific limited jurisdiction to [o]nly Land that constitutes it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s holdings, and to go beyond it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s personal holdings (Land) is unconstitutional, forbidden, by the very source of their authority, mainly the free inhabitants.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153US Code, Sections 81 – 131 \u00c2\u00a0show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d so each \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Section\u00e2\u20ac\u009d from 81 to 131 shows the territorial composition of every class of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153District,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00c2\u00a0 two of these listed are [88 District of Columbia] and [107 Nebraska].\u00c2\u00a0 It follows that each of the 48 States will contain territory equal (consistent with) to Section [88 District of Columbia], which consists of territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.\u00c2\u00a0 This code is here because all written law must contain specific direct statements of its exact territorial limitations.<\/p>\n The State of Nebraska is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land that consists of the [L]ands that are called the S<\/span><\/strong>tate of Nebraska, which is a distinctly different Land than that of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Nebraska\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153s<\/span><\/strong>tate of Nebraska\u00e2\u20ac\u009d which is Land not<\/strong> owned by the United States of America.<\/p>\n Abe Lincoln once said, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153You can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00c2\u00a0 Well I am one of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all of the people\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 The Nebraska revised statutes have many very interesting statute(s) under \u00e2\u20ac\u0153definitions\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, giving evidence to specificly identify Land that is subject to the exclusive lurisdiction of the United States of America government, listing only a few as follows:<\/p>\n Nebraska Revised Statute 42-702 Definitions\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 (21) State<\/span><\/strong> means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.<\/p>\n Nebraska Revised Statute 30-2209 Definitions\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 (44) State<\/span><\/strong> includes any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession subject to the legislative authority of the United States.<\/p>\n Nebraska Revised Statute 60-666, State, defined\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0 (DMV<\/strong><\/em>) \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 State<\/span><\/strong> shall mean a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a province of Canada.<\/p>\n Nebraska Revised Statute 77-2701.17.\u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0In this state<\/span><\/strong> or within the state<\/span><\/strong> means within<\/span><\/strong> the exterior limits of the State of Nebraska and includes<\/strong> all the territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.\u00c2\u00a0 (Revenue<\/strong> Statutes, Sales and Property Taxes.) (Includes <\/strong>means specifically.)<\/p>\n The above statutes are fact evidence that lands, that various statutes apply to, is specific in location and ownership.\u00c2\u00a0 The Appellee has\/had the burden to prove\/provide with fact evidence, upon the record, when he was timely challenged, that this Appellants Land is in fact land subject to the statutes in the original Complaint of this case.\u00c2\u00a0 Appellant refused to even attempt to supply such facts, on the face of the record, for such attempt would be the demise of the States case.<\/p>\n <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n All written laws, such as municipal codes, state statutes, etc., of government within the exterior borders of the Land called Nebraska, are Laws for the United States, and said legislative laws are only legislated for the same United States Land as owned and governed by the United States of America by virtue of being the proprietor (owner) of that same Land.<\/p>\n I, the Appellant, having properly challenged the Appellee many times in the proceeding of this case to produce evidence that the said Land is land that is within the jurisdiction of the City of Omaha Municipal Code, the City of Omaha, which has irrefutable, limited, specific jurisdiction only upon Land that is owned or ceded to the United States of America.\u00c2\u00a0 That unfulfilled burden yet resides with the Appellee, so says the same Courts utilized by the Appellee.<\/p>\n Paulsen v. Paulsen, 658 N.W.2d 49, Neb.App.,2003 In re Interest of Kelly D., 3 Neb. App. 251, 526 N.W.2d 439 (1994). When a lower court lacks power<\/span><\/strong>, that is, subject matter jurisdiction, to adjudicate merits of acclaim, issue, or question, an appellate court also lacks power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented to the lower court.<\/p>\n SMJ Can Not Be Waived [U] Quality Pork International v. Rupari Food Services, Inc., No. A-01-1203 (Neb.App. 05\/13\/2003) Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law<\/span><\/strong> for the court. A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the lower court’s decision. Hoschor v. Hoschor, 254 Neb. 743, 580 N.W.2d A judgment entered by a court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void.<\/span><\/strong> It is the longstanding rule in Nebraska that such a void judgment may be raised at any time in any proceeding. Bradley v. Hopkins, 246 Neb. 646, 522 N.W.2d 394 (1994); VonSeggern v. Willman, 244 Neb. 565, 508 N.W.2d 261 (1993).<\/p>\n The party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proof<\/span><\/strong> that all prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Hatridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th<\/sup> Cir. 1969).<\/p>\n STATE of Missouri ex rel. Eddie TOLLIVER, Relator-Respondent,\u00c2\u00a0 v.\u00c2\u00a0 BOARD OF PUBLIC SERVICE OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, et al., Respondents-Appellants.\u00c2\u00a0 No. 33600 (1970)\u00c2\u00a0 “An inferior tribunal’s actions are confined to the specific authority given it, and in a direct challenge to its action all facts necessary to give it jurisdiction must appear on the face of its record.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Concluding:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Therefore overturn each and every charge for the lack of jurisdiction as found on the face of the record.\u00c2\u00a0 This court lacks all authority except to overturn all judgments associated with this case.<\/p>\n With no evidence of Territorial jurisdiction which is subject matter jurisdiction, the Appellee had no cause to disturbed me in anyway, therefore being that all charges are predicated on territorial jurisdiction and such evidence is lacking all charges must be like wise lacking warrant \/ justification \/ jurisdiction.<\/p>\n As a free inhabitant\u00c2\u00a0 _______________________ 1-29-2011<\/p>\n Paul John Hansen<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" NO A-10-000983 IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF NEBRASKA STATE OF NEBRASKA, Plaintiff, Appellee v. Paul John Hansen, Defendant, Appellant As a common law notice to the captioned case Court as to its lack of territorial jurisdiction. Evidenced … Continue reading
\nA plaintiff must plead and prove the jurisdictional facts<\/span><\/strong>, the facts which show that the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action.<\/p>\n
\nWhile the lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be<\/span><\/strong> waived nor the existence of subject matter jurisdiction conferred by the consent or conduct of the parties,<\/p>\n
\n516 (1998).<\/p>\n