“STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA”

CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

FOR ALLEGENY COUNTY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
“Plaintiff”, File Number
V
“Defendant(s)”
_______________________________________/
Jackass Attorney NOTICE, not a motion
Attorney for alleged “Plaintiff” Addressed to: STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
JACK ASS ATTORNEY

JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE
WITH AFFIDAVIT

Lord :Le`Var-Quint Edward :Harris.©™ by limited appearance to this matter in this court

of record with clean hands, without prejudice and with all rights reserved including UCC 1-308

in dealing with this court, in pro per, sui juris (NOT PRO SE), have not seen any evidence that

proves they have a liability for the all capital lettered names above ab initio, challenge the

Persona standi in judico and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Case of 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1L Ed.
57; 3 Dall. 54) defines governments; “governments are corporations”. In as much every
government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government
can interface only with other artificial persons.

The response from the Party/Petitioner/Plaintiff asserting proper jurisdiction

throughout this case must be made on a point by point basis for all the moving

Party/Petitioner/Plaintiff actions, filings and motions are true and correct in relation to the
proper State laws, codes, rules, regulations, statutes used to conduct this case that proper

jurisdiction was always maintained from the record including the incomplete summons.

Weishuhn v Catholic Diocese of Lansing, 279 Mich App 150,155; 756 NW2d 483 (2008)

& (2010) case site, Oakland County v Human Services, Mich App (2010), show that the issue of

subject matter was brought in on a Motion for summary disposition, just like alleged

“Defendants” did in this case. The United States Supreme Court has stated (sites omitted) the

challenge of subject matter may be raised at any time, it never stated by what form. In Cork v

Applebee’s of Michigan, Inc., 239 Mich App 311, 608 NW2d 62 (2000), Le`Var-Quint Edward;

Harris© unrebutted Counter-Affidavits, unrebutted Affidavits, and unrebutted letters including

the Declaration of Intent to the Richland Township showed proof contained in their pleadings

that they rebut the Plaintiff’s “prima facie claims”, and are grounds for entitlement to their

summary judgment, contrary to a jackass attorney unverified statements that the Plaintiff’s

“prima facie” facts still prove jurisdiction. The Court would lack jurisdiction being that there is

evidence to support the improperly contrived subject matter by proper legislative process; and

the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution removed all “judicial power” in law,

equity, treaties, contract law and the right of the State to bring suit against the People, therefore

the “Defendants” now challenge jurisdiction for the record.

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven. Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533, note
3.

Mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.
Owens v. The City of Independence. [Cite omitted]

H.R. 1491 (1933) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, that brought this 14th Amendment
subject up... if we are actually considered (assumed and presumed by the gov.) to be 14th
Amendment citizens and the implications for us... obligated to leave us alone and not apply the
gov's Administrative Law to us ?
 Standing must also be proven to show jurisdiction. In order to bring a case in court,

litigants must have "standing" to sue. In order to have standing, Supreme Court doctrine requires

that parties have an "injury in fact." This injury must be specific and concrete - rather the

speculative and abstract. Standing requires the violation of a legal right that causes damage. “A

plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct

and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)

and:

“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable
injury. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501.” Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013, 1017
(1998).

“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable
injury.” Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 108 P.3d 917.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The test has 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, and (b) “actual or
imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” 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 of some third party not before the court.” Third, it
must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be
“redressed by a favorable decision.”

The Lee/Cleveland Cliffs majority also held that a litigant must meet the Lujan
standing requirements regardless of whether the Legislature expressly created a
cause of action or conferred standing on the litigant because, although the
Legislature has the power to create causes of actions, it does not have the power to
expand the judicial authority granted to the courts by the Michigan Constitution.
See Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc,
479 Mich 280, 302-303; 737 NW2d 447 (2007). The Court also held that a
litigant must meet Lujan’s requirements in order to bring a declaratory action.
Associated Builders & Contractors v Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Servs Dir, 472
Mich 117, 124-127; 693 NW2d 374 (2005).

Explain and show how the action is of the kind authorized by statute. Martin v Chandid,
128 F2d 73 1; Pacific Mills v Kekefick, 99 F2d 18 8.
 "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. [Emphasis added]

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 it’s self, i.e. jackass

attorney’s name here-attorney at law. 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.

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 Party 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.

Affidavit
I, Lord :Le`Var-Quint Edward :Harris.©™ declare this is true, correct, and complete.
1.) SUBJECT-MATTER jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and make a determination
in a court action.
2.) "Without subject-matter jurisdiction all orders and judgments issued by a judge are void
under law".
3.) Without subject-matter jurisdiction all orders and judgments issued by a judge are of no legal
force and effect.
4.) Every act of the court beyond the subject-matter jurisdiction is void.
5.) Where a courts' power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of
limited jurisdiction.
6.) Courts exercising jurisdiction by statute must proceed within the structure of the statute.
7.) Statutes are written with only limited jurisdiction.
8.) Statutes can only be applied to the subjects, (citizens, etc.), which they apply to.
9.) Statutes do not necessarily apply to a sovereign.
10.) Special statutory jurisdiction is limited to the language of the act countering it.
11.) As regard 10.) above, the court has no power from any other source.
12.) The authority of the court to make an order must be found in the statute.
13.) A judge not have subject-matter jurisdiction, then the law states that the judge has violated
the law.
14.) A judge not have subject-matter jurisdiction, then the law states that the judge is a trespasser
of the law.
15.) A trespasser is one who has committed unlawful interference with ones person, property, or
rights.
16.) The law presumes nothing in favor of the jurisdiction of a court exercising special statutory
powers, such as those given by statute under which a court acts.
17.) The judge has a duty to continually inspect the record of the case, and if subject-matter
Jurisdiction does not appear from the record of the case, then the judge has the duty to dismiss
the case as lacking Subject-matter jurisdiction.
18.) A judge act in any case in which the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the
judge is acting unlawfully.
19.) A judge should not act in any case in which judge is acting without any judicial authority.
20.) Judge's allegation that he/she has subject-matter jurisdiction is only an allegation.
21.) If a judge has no subject-matter jurisdiction, those who advise judge, or execute his process
are trespassers.
22.) The judge who acts without subject-matter jurisdiction is a common criminal.
23.) Is anyone who acts in conjunction with a judge who acts without subject-matter jurisdiction
is a common criminal.

Any response to this affidavit must be done on a point by point basis in writing or accept a
default for their actions, and default will be a full dismissal of any and all related charges as well
as specific charge in the above cause. Time for response shall be seven (7) days from service
date.
I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my knowledge.

Respectfully submitted, Signed with explicit reservation of all Rights, and I waive none of my Rights at any
time or for any reason,

…………………………………………………………………
Lord :Le`Var-Quint Edward; Harris©™
Sui Juris
In Propria Persona (NOT PRO SE)
Authorized Beneficiary for LEVAR Q HARRIS©™
 
Signed by the voluntary act of my own hand, the _____________________ day

of__________________, two-thousand and sixteen A.D.

________________________________________
Lord :Le`Var-Quint Edward :Harris.©™

Subscribed and identified as Lord :Le`Var-Quint Edward :Harris.©™ before me this__________

day of _______________________ 2021
Notary Public, State of Pennsylvania; Republic

County of ______________________________

My commission expires:____________________
_____________________________________