Talk:Subject-matter jurisdiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
If a man bought one cameras from china and bought one for Amy on the platform,the station staff now says he is in contravention of the notice (no one shall distribute any materials or objects on this platform. Any advice?
- Doesn't really fall under subject-matter jurisdiction - not even sure what country this station is in! BD2412 T 12:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced commentary
Here is the unsourced commentary that has been removed from the article:
-
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction is whether or not a court has true and actual authority to hear the issues on a specific case. Subject matter jurisdiction can easily be confused with venue, which is the actual or typical types of cases that a court may generally hear. Venue is more of a practical "mere" procedural issue of which type of case goes before which type of court. On the other hand, subject matter jurisdiction is highly technical, but never can never properly be said to be a mere technicality. If subject matter jurisdiction is questioned, the issue cannot lawfully be ignored by the court. If the issue is ignored by the court, that court thereby violates criminal law by acting without authority, (potentially serious and potentially a federal felony). In a specific case, there could be no higher or more important question than whether the court had or has subject matter jurisdiction. In common language, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is whether or not the issue before-the-court can be and is legally and lawfully any of the court's business (or not). Subject matter jurisdiction must be present for any decision by the court to be valid. There are numereous ways a court can fail to have subject matter jurisdiction, and in most cases in the modern world, especially in many civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction was never actually estabished by the court. In those cases, whether civil or criminal, if subject matter jurisdiction was never, or is not now present on the written record, that decision is thereby null and void. Most attorneys and judges do not fully comprehend the issue of subject matter jurisdicition [sic] ; partly because it's not taught properly in law school, and most therefore believe that a judge has power just because he or she sits in front of a court. Nothing could be further from the truth, and by-the-way if that was true it would violate all tenants [sic] of common sense. Subject matter jurisdiction must be established by showing lawful authority on the record for the action, there must be at least one competent witness, (not merely an attorney for the plaintiff) there must be no fraud in the action itself, and the judge must be non-partial and fair to both sides of any question. These are just a few examples of ways that subject matter jurisdiction could be lost resulting in a void judgment. The knowledge of subject matter jurisdiction has been somewhat intentionally obfuscated and therefore lost at the present time to the point that lawfully correct (and fair) hearings are almost entirely absent in the modern legal environment. Unfortunately, what has become the truth is as was claimed by former Chinese leader Mao ZeDong that "authority flows out of the barrel of a gun." That's how modern courts and our legal system have been funtioning, for the most part, for quite some time. However, there's a movement to greater awareness and autonomy and consciousness growing in the world that will soon bring more justice and fairness to our court systems.
-
- [ . . . ]
-
- To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (subjectam) and either personal (personam) or territorial (locum) jurisdiction.
-
- Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction, and adequate notice are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.
-
- Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.
-
- To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (subjectam) and either personal (personam) or territorial (locum) jurisdiction.
-
- Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction, and adequate notice are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.
Some of this material is partly correct. Much of it is wildly false. None of it is sourced. All of it appears to be the commentary of the anonymous user who inserted it. In particular, I have bolded some of the language that is either blatant POV or is patently false. Famspear (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Just to clarify why some of the material is so objectionable, consider the following.
-
-
-
- Ignoring the issue of subject matter jurisdiction would be a legal error by the judge. It would not, however, be a "criminal" offense, at least not in the United States or in any place in the United States of which I am aware.
-
-
-
- The mere absence of subject matter jurisdiction does not make the decision itself null and void. In general, the applicable court, or a higher court, might have to first render a ruling that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking in order for the decision to be considered null and void.
-
-
-
- Statements like: Most attorneys and judges do not fully comprehend the issue of subject matter jurisdicition [sic]; partly because it's not taught properly in law school, and most therefore believe that a judge has power just because he or she sits in front of a court, are of course unsourced personal opinions, unsourced personal points of view. Unsourced personal points of view of Wikipedia editors are not allowed in Wikipedia articles.
-
-
-
- Generally, there is no legal requirement that there be a "witness" in order to have subject matter jurisdiction. A witness may be required in a case to establish a factual issue in a case -- but not to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction in a case is (or at least should be) determined long before you get to the point of identifying who the "witnesses" in the case will be.
-
