PENNOYER RULE AN ADJUDICATED FACT

PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714 (1877)

CRITERION FOR DUE PROCESS

"Its essential purpose or nature is to establish, by the judgment of the court, a

demand or claim against the defendant, and subject his property lying within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court to the payment of that demand. But the
plaintiff is met at the commencement of his proceedings by the fact that the
defendant is not within the territorial jurisdiction, and cannot be served with
any process by which he can be brought personally within the power of the
court.”
PENNOYER RULE AN ADJUDICATED FACT PENNOYER V.
NEFF, 95 U.S. 714 (1877) CRITERION FOR DUE PROCESS

• The force and effect of judgments rendered against non-residents without

personal service of process upon them, or their voluntary appearance, have been
the subject of frequent consideration in the courts of the United States and of the
several States, as attempts have been made to enforce such judgments in States
other than those in which they were rendered, under the provision of the
Constitution requiring that "full faith and credit shall be given in each State to
the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State;" and the
act of Congress providing for the mode of authenticating such acts, records, and
proceedings, and declaring that, when thus authenticated, "they shall have such
faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they
have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are or shall be
taken."
 PENNOYER RULE IS THE CRITERION UTILIZED BY
COURTS TO PROVE DUE PROCESS
• THIS IMPORTANT LANDMARK CASE IS IMPORTANT TO BE CITED IN COURT
THAT UNDER PENNOYER RULE ANY JUDGMENT ISSUED WITHOUT
PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS VOID!
• FAKE JUDGES, COMMISSIONERS, SUPPORT MAGISTRATES, FRIENDS OF
COURT ARE NON-JUDICIAL AND WITHOUT PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND
THEREFORE 100% OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS ISSUED BY A NON-JUDICIAL
PERSON IS VOID AND WITHOUT FORCE AND EFFECT UNDER THE
CRITERION SET FORTH BY PENNOYER V. NEFF PENNOYER RULE A SUPREME
COURT DECISION
•
 VOID JUDGMENT ISSUED IN ONE STATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANOTHER STATE

• The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state
court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant. Kulko
v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 91 (1978). A judgment rendered in
violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full
faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732-733 (1878).
• Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit,
Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313-314 (1950), and be
subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945). In the present case, it is not contended that
notice was inadequate; the only question is whether these particular petitioners
were subject to the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts.
 VOID JUDGMENT ISSUED IN ONE STATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANOTHER STATE

• As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as
there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum
State. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 316. The concept of
minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but
distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens
of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that
the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits
imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
 DEFINITION OF ADJUDICATED FACT(S) DEFINED
BY FEDERAL RULE 201
• Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
• (a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.

• (b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject
to reasonable dispute because it:

• (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

• (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned.

• (c) Taking Notice. The court:

• (1) may take judicial notice on its own; or

• (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with
the necessary information.

• (d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.
 IT IS AN ADJUDICATED FACT, HOWLETT V. ROSE THAT FEDERAL
RULES AND LAWS APPLY IN STATE COURTS

• Howlett v. Rose, 496 US 356 - Supreme Court 1990

• …”that just as the State could be joined in an action for the violation of
established state common-law or statutory duties, it was also subject to
suit for violations of its nondiscretionary duty not to violate the
Constitution. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 649-650
(1980).”
• “ Federal law is enforceable in state courts not because Congress has
determined that federal courts would otherwise be burdened or that
state courts might provide a more convenient forum — although both
might well be true — but because the Constitution and laws passed
pursuant to it are as much laws in the States as laws passed by the state
legislature. The Supremacy Clause makes those laws "the supreme Law
of the Land,””
 HOWLETT V. ROSE
• "The laws of the United States are laws in the several States,
and just as much binding on the citizens and courts thereof as
the State laws are. . . . The two together form one system of
jurisprudence, which constitutes the law of the land for the
State; and the courts of the two jurisdictions are not foreign to
each other, nor to be treated by each other as such, but as
courts of the same country, having jurisdiction partly different
and partly concurrent." Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, 136-
137 (1876); see Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis,
241 U. S. 211, 222 (1916)” –HOWLETT V. ROSE
 WHEN A LAWYER OR JUDGE ATTEMPTS TO TRICK YOU
WHEN YOU UTILIZE FEDERAL LAWS OR RULES STATES
“FEDERAL LAWS DO NOT APPLY IN STATE COURTS”

IF YOU ARE IN A COURT OR OTHER TYPE OF PROCEEDING YOU IMMEDIATELY

CALL OUT “OBJECTION, IT IS AN ADJUDICATED FACT BY THE SUPREME
COURT IN MATTER HOWLETT V. ROSE THAT FEDERAL LAWS APPLY IN STATE
COURTS!”
• IF IT IS WRITTEN, THEN YOU FILE AN OBJECTION AND CITE HOWLETT V.
ROSE.
• YOU MUST BE READY FOR THESE TRICKSTERS AND WORD MAGICIANS
BECAUSE THEIR JOB IS TO HELP THE STATE KEEP THE MONEY THEY HAVE
STOLEN OR HELP THEM KEEP STEALING FROM YOU!
 Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin,
495 US 604 - Supreme Court 1990
• The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment denies California courts jurisdiction over a
nonresident, who was personally served with process while temporarily in
that State, in a suit unrelated to his activities in the State.
 Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin,
495 US 604 - Supreme Court 1990
• “ The proposition that the judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction is void
traces back to the English Year Books,
• Traditionally that proposition was embodied in the phrase coram non
judice, "before a person not a judge" — meaning, in effect, that the
proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful
judicial authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a
judgment. American courts invalidated, or denied recognition to,
judgments that violated this common-law principle long before the
Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
• we announced that the judgment of a court lacking personal jurisdiction
violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well.”
 Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin,
495 US 604 - Supreme Court 1990
• To determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction is consistent
with due process, we have long relied on the principles traditionally
followed by American courts in marking out the territorial limits of each
State's authority. That criterion was first announced in Pennoyer v. Neff,
supra, in which we stated that due process "mean[s] a course of legal
proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been
established in our systems of jurisprudence for the protection and
enforcement of private rights," id., at 733, including the "well-
established principles of public law respecting the jurisdiction of an
independent State over persons and property,"
 PENNOYER RULE CRITERION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS A
JUDGMENT IS VOID

• PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ARE VOID-Burnham v.

Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 US 604 - Supreme Court 1990
• NON-JUDICIAL PERSONS ARE COMMISSIONERS, SUPPORT MAGISTRATES,
MAGISTRATES, FRIEND OF THE COURT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
AND ANY OTHER TITLES THAT ARE NOT JUDGE OR JUSTICE
• 100% OF JUDGMENTS BY THESE NON-JUDICIAL PERSONS, CORAM NON-
JUDICE ARE VOID!
• BEFORE A PROCEEDING BEGINS IN FRONT OF THESE NON-JUDICIAL
PERSONS YOU MUST FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION, STATE LOUDLY IN COURT
“OBJECTION, JUDGMENTS BY NON-JUDICIAL PERSONS ARE VOID AND
WITHOUT FORCE”
PENNOYER RULE CRITERION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS A
JUDGMENT IS VOID
• PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT A TRIAL BY JURY ARE IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS
• PROCEEDINGS IN COURT NOT OF RECORD ARE NISI PRIUS COURTS AND
MUST BE OBJECTED TO PREFERRABLY BY PAPER AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
• PREJUDGMENT WAGE GARNISHMENTS [INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDERS
ISSUED BY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY OR TITLE IV-D CONTRACTOR ARE VOID
FOR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS
REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE ISSUED WITHOUT SWORN JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT
 PENNOYER RULE FOR VICTIMS OF CHILD SUPPORT
SCAM APPLIES

• SIMPLY, NO DUE PROCESS NO JUDGMENT

• JUDGMENTS ISSUED BY NON-JUDICIAL PERSONS ARE VOID
BECAUSE NON-JUDICIAL PERSONS LACK PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE ALL JUDGMENTS ARE VOID
• JUDGMENTS FOR CHILD SUPPORT ISSUED BY JUDGES ARE
VOID BECAUSE WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS LISTED
IN EARLIER SLIDES, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR CHILD
SUPPORT ARE VOID!
• STUDY, STUDY AND IN CASE YOU’VE FORGOTTEN, STUDY!