COMMON WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

FULTON COUNT COURT OF COMMON PLEASE

___________________________________________ ) FINAL DEMAND FOR PROOF OF JURISDICTION

COMMON WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
) MOTION TO DISMISS A VOID JUDGEMENT
Plaintif ) FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION, FRAUD ON THE
) COURT, DECEPTION AND COLLUSION AND
vs. ) LACK OF JURISDICTION
)
) DEMAND FOR PROOF OF JURISDICTION
RICHARD KEARNEY ) DEMAND FOR PROOF OF CLAIM
Corporate Entity ) DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Defendant ) WITH DAMAGES AWARDED TO ME
)
vs. ) CASE NO.032 of 2011
) CASE NO.211 of 2011
Richard Kearney ) CASE NO.223 of 2011
The non-corporate entity who CASE NO.226 of 2011
is not the surety for the
corporate entity but the beneficiary for the trust

1. COMMON WEALTH of PENNSYLVANIA )

AND THE FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY )SS.:
)

2. REBUTTAL OF VERIFIED COMPLAINT

AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
PROOF OF ALL CLAIMS

YOU HAVE 10 DAYS TO RESPOND OR GO INTO DEFAULT

To all concerned:

Now comes, Richard Kearney, the Natural Man – The Beneficiary of the Trust – The Complainant
Pursuant to Article VI, clause 2 of the organic Constitution of these United States of America as set forth in
the Supremacy Clause.

Affiant Richard Kearney by Special and Limited Appearance in this court of record with clean hands and
without prejudice and with all rights reserved including UCC 1-308 in dealing with this court, in Pro Per
and Sui Juris declares under penalty of perjury that he has not seen any evidence of Jurisdiction to
Prosecute a claim against him.

The Plaintiff – THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA – Located at 238 Main Capitol

Building, Harrisburg, Pa 17120 – Established in 1787 – Is a privately held Corporate Fiction as evidenced
by its Wall Street Dun & Bradstreet DUNS Number (Data Universal Numbering System # 03-500-4558)
and has no parity with a live and living breathing man.

The Court - ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS – located at 601

Commonwealth Ave, Suite 1500, Harrisburg, PA – and its subsidiaries located in the various counties
throughout the State, is a privately held Corporation as evidenced by its Wall Street Dun & Bradstreet
DUNS Numbers # 36-070-6188, # 79-808-1824, and # 84-162-7974) and has no parity with a live and
living breathing man.

a. If your Claims against me are Torts I demand that you produce the Injured Parties to prove you had
Subject Matter Jurisdiction over this matter.

b. If your Claims against me are Commercial Crimes I demand that you produce the Contracts in
dispute to prove that you had Personal Jurisdiction.

If you fail to produce your evidence of Subject Matter and Personal Jurisdiction within 10 days from
receipt of this motion you will be in dishonor and default and I demand an immediate dismissal of all
claims against me.
 CASE LAW

"In cases where the court is conferred power to adjudicate by virtue of a statute, the court's
jurisdiction is strictly limited by the statute." In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party
denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party
claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the
case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction

All orders or judgments issued by a judge in a court of limited jurisdiction must contain the findings
of the court showing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, not allegations that the court has
jurisdiction.

The MCL 450.681 Sec.1 and P.A. 354 in 1917 is in plain English about how illegal it is for a
corporation representing another corporation, or anyone outside of itself, i.e.

The Court would lack Personam Jurisdiction if there is not a nexus between parties; and all
attorneys come under the Judicial branch and are judicial officers under the Supreme Court
which means they can only represent the Court and not the People, the State or bring forth
evidence, therefore “Defendants” challenge personam jurisdiction for the record.

This means that Travis Kendall, as a Prosecutor, and Angela Krom, the presiding Judge are
officers of the Court and their duty and loyalty is to the Court and not to the People – They were
forever FORBIDDEN from representing the People and the State and both had NO LAWFUL
AUTHORITY to present evidence against me. 

Any explanations to the above-mentioned matters MUST be done on a point by point basis with
verified facts that are referenced in law, Legislative acts, Federal and/or State constitutions. The
response from the Party/Petitioner/Plaintiff asserting proper jurisdiction must be sworn to under the
penalties of perjury of the United States of America that response is true and correct, certified by
notarization, and must be able to be understood by any reasonable man/woman should understand.
Pleadings of this Richard Kearney SHALL NOT BE dismissed for lack of form or failure of
process. All the pleadings are as any reasonable man/woman would understand, and in support of
that claim I submit the following: “And be it further enacted. That no summons, writ, declaration,
return, process, judgment, or other proceedings in civil cases in any of the courts or the United
States, shall be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed, for any defect or want of form, but the said
courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter
in law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections, defects or want of form in such
writ, declaration, or other pleading, returns, process, judgment, or course of proceeding
whatsoever, except those only in cases of demurrer, which the party demurring shall specially sit
down and express together with his demurrer as the cause thereof. And the said courts respectively
shall and may, by virtue of this act, from time to time, amend all and every such imperfections,
defects and wants of form, other than those only which the party demurring shall express as
aforesaid, and may at any time, permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of
pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion, and by their
rules prescribe. (a)” Judiciary Act of September 24th, 1789, Section 342, FIRST CONGRESS,
Sess. 1, ch. 20,1789.

a. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a
nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is a
nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied
252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

b. “A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding
valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”.
OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

c. “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

d. “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.”
Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.

e. “The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
f. “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be
assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

g. “Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on
appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA
1985)

h. “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v.

Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

i. “The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

j. “A universal principle as old as the law is that the proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are
a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v.
Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

k. “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction
to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

l. “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to
act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P
27.

m. “A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case
before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question
in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US
549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

n. “A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however
close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of
depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d
934, 937.

o. “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is
deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

PROVE JURISDICTION OR DISMISS ALL CLAIMS

 AFFIDAVIT OF VALIDATION
YOU HAVE 10 DAYS TO RESPOND

I HEREBY ALSO DEMAND TO RECEIVE THE FOLLOWING PROOF OF CLAIMS ANSWERED.

Please respond in an Affidavit of Validation or VERIFICATION OF CLAIM form under your

full and complete commercial, corporate and personal liability and proof that you have the proofs of your
claims.

1. Proof of Claim: That the Complaint filed against me was not a Commercial Crime.

2. Proof Claim: That you had Subject Matter Jurisdiction

3. Proof of Claim: That a Commercial Crime does not require Jurisdiction and a
Contract.

3. Proof of Claim: That Jurisdiction and Contract were both proven on the RECORD.

4. Proof of Claim: That Travis Kendall, as Prosecutor , and Angela R. Krom, the
Presiding Judge had subject matter jurisdictional authority in an Article 1 Court.

5. Proof of Claim: That Travis Kendall, as Prosecutor , and Angela R. Krom, the
Presiding Judge had subject matter jurisdictional authority in an Article 3 Court.

6. Proof of Claim: That Travis Kendall, as Prosecutor, and Angela R. Krom, the Presiding
Judge had subject matter jurisdictional authority in an Article 4 Court.

7. Proof of Claim: That Angela R. Krom, the Presiding Judge was not a governmental
administrator presiding in an Article 5 Court.

8. Proof of Claim: That Angela R. Krom, as Presiding Judge, was not supposed to
maintain and protect my Constitutional liberties/rights as per her oaths of office.
9. Proof of Claim: That Angela R. Krom, as the Presiding Judge had the authority of her
own volition to deprive me of “Due Process of Law”.

10.Proof of Claim: That Travis Kendall, as Prosecutor, and Angela R. Krom, the Presiding
Judge under their Oath of Offices, under the US Constitution, and under Common
Law, had the Constitutional Authority to preside over, adjudicate, and make a ruling
on a claim made against me.

11.Proof of Claim: That Travis Kendall, as Prosecutor, and Angela R. Krom, the Presiding
Judge had the authority under the Constitution as per your Oaths of Office, to
COMPLETELY deny and dismiss “ALL” my affidavits, evidences, documents, papers,
jurisdictional and constitutional demands and challenges and all others forms or
claims, as per their personal judicial determinations adjudicated and signed by Paul
Kenny.

12.Proof of Claim: That Jurisdiction has a Statute of Limitations and cannot be raised on
APPEAL or at any time thereafter.

13.Proof of Claim: Proof of existence of all “Personal Jurisdiction” and “Subject Matter
Jurisdiction” claims against me.

14.Proof of Claim: That that Subject Matter Jurisdiction was proven on the record.

15.Proof of Claim: That the claim brought against me was tried, heard, and adjudicated
in a Common Law Jurisdiction and not a Commercial Jurisdiction.

16.Proof of Claim: That the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF

PENNSYLVANIA COURTS) is not a fictitious private corporation registered with Dun
and Bradstreet under the Wall Street Duns number # 36-070-6188.

17.Proof of Claim: That by completely stripping, eliminating, and suppressing ALL of my

claims, proofs, documents and demands and leaving me naked BEFORE THE COURT,
without any evidence in support of my case is NOT a violation of my Due Process of
Law and my Constitutional Rights and Liberties.

18.Proof of Claim: That the law allows judges to be handed a document by any corrupt
Prosecutor, and WITHOUT EVEN READING IT deny and dismiss all of MY motions, all
 affidavits, all papers, all documents, all jurisdictional and constitutional demands,
and ALL OTHER GROUNDS, as per the documents you signed.

19.Proof of Claim: That plaintiffs do not have to prove their claims as the moving party in
their verified complaint. And Proof of Claim that a breached contract never has to be
entered into evidence.

20.Proof of Claim: That defendant has to prove the claims of the plaintiffs’ as per your
judicial determinations.

21.Proof of Claim: That the natural person is responsible for any claims made against the
corporate Entity.

22.Proof of Claim: That I, Richard Kearney, as defendant in error, and a natural man have
to answer by law any verified complaint from a Fictitious Plaintiff who is the moving
party.

23.Proof of Claim: That a fictitious entity or corporation can sue a living breathing
natural man in any court.

24.Proof of claim: That you and the court, corporation, dept etc. has given me full and
complete disclosure over any and all contracts or over anything and everything
claimed by you and, your office.

25.Proof of Claim: That you have complete authority over this Natural non-corporate
living man.

26.Proof of Claim: That you have complete authority over this living man upon the land.

27.Proof of Claim: That you are not a registered member of the Bar Association.

28.Proof of Claim: That Angela R. Krom, the Presiding Judge is above the Supreme
Court’s rulings and that you, the Prosecutor, are above the law of this land.

29.Proof of Claim: That the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of this Land and/ or in
this or any court and that you do not have to adhere to your oath of office to uphold
said oath and constitution.
30.Proof of Claim: That an Article 5 Court is a Criminal court of record, which was passed
by congress.

31.Proof of Claim: That under the Common Law and the U.C.C. §1-308 & U.C.C. §1-
103.6, I did not have the right to reserve my rights and to demand a dismissal of
these fraudulent charges.

32.Proof of Claim: That based upon your actions against my constitutional rights and
liberties that you are not in violation of your oath of office.

33.Proof of Claim: That based upon your actions, that any observer could see that a fair
and impartial trial was not possible in your court.

REMEMBER – YOU HAVE 10 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS MOTION TO RESPOND
OR YOU WILL BE IN DISHONOR AND DEFAULT
 Affidavit pursuant to 29 United States Code, Title 1746
See Dickerson vs. Wainwright, 626 F.2d Title 1184, held affidavit sworn true and correct under
penalty of perjury has full force of law and does not have to be verified by Notary Public to have
same effect.

Under penalty of perjury I declare that the foregoing facts within this document/verified complaint/affidavit
are true, correct and complete.

Without Prejudice

_____________________
Richard Kearney:
With All Rights Reserved

_____________________________
Richard Kearney

Sworn to Before Me
On this ______th Day of ________

___________________________
Notary Public