1 Your name

2 Your address
[City, ST ZIP Code]
3

5
[Court name]

7 [Plaintiff's name] , Case No.: [Number]

8
Plaintiff,
9
NOTICE OF DEMAND
10
vs.

11 [Defendant's Name] ,
12
Defendant
13

14

15

16

17

18
DEMAND TO DISMISS CORAM NON JUDICE WRIT OF

19 ERROR CORAM NOBIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION ARISING

20
FROM ADJUDICATOR BEING A NON-JUDICIAL COURT EMPLOYEE
21

22 AND PETITIONER LACKING STANDING ARISING FROM FAILURE

23

24

25

26

-1
 1 TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT CAUSED BY THE
2
UNDERSIGNED [YOUR NAME]
3

7 OBJECTION, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE

8
UNDERSIGNED VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCEEDINGS
9
FOR ALLEGED NON-PAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT OR CLAIM THAT
10

11 THE UNDERSIGNED IS IN ARREARS FOR CHILD SUPPORT.

12

13 IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO PRESENT PROOF THAT

14
THE PETITIONER HAS STANDING IN COURT BY CITING THE EVIDENCE
15

16 AND DATE EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED SHOWING THE PETITIONER

17
SUFFERED AN “INJURY IN FACT” THAT WAS CAUSED BY THE
18

19
RESPONDENT.

20

21 WITHOUT PROOF OF STANDING THE COURT IS NOT

22
LIKELY TO REDRESS AND REMEDY THE PETITION AND IS WITHOUT
23

24

25

26

-2
 1 DISCRETION AND MUST DISMISS PETITION IMMEDIATELY. LUJAN,
2
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504
3

4 U.S. 555 (1992)

5

6 THE UNDERSIGNED IS STANDING UPON RIGHTS

7
GUARANTEED IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND IS
8

9 APPEARING UNDER THE THREAT OF INCARCERATION, DEFAULT

10
JUDGMENT, AND SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LICENSE IF THE
11
UNDERSIGNED DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.
12

13

14
DEMAND TO DISMISS ON THE BASIS THE PRESIDING

15 OFFICER IS A NON-JUDICIAL PERSON CORAM NON JUDICE AND

16
COURT LACKS JURISDICTION BY WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS "before a
17

18 person not a judge" — meaning, in effect, that the proceeding in question was not a
19
judicial proceeding because lawful judicial authority was not present, and could
20

21
therefore not yield a judgment” Burnham v. Superior Court 495 U.S. 604 (1990)

22 WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO MAKE

23

24

25

26

-3
 1 DETERMINATIONS IN MATTERS OF LAW AND EQUITY AND WITHOUT
2
AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION TO PRESIDE OVER A TRIAL BY JURY
3

4 AS IS REQUIRED FOR A CONTROVERSY OF MORE THAN $20 AS IS

5
GUARANTEED BY THE 7TH AMENDMENT.
6

7
A NON-JUDICIAL PERSON LACKS JURISDICTION TO
8

9 PRESIDE OVER A TRIAL BY JURY AND ISSUE MONEY JUDGMENTS FOR

10
PRESUMED DEBTS THAT WILL BE ORDERED COLLECTED BY A TITLE
11
IV-D DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY VIA INCOME WITHHOLDING
12

13 ORDER.
14

15 IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT COURTS

16
AND OFFICERS OF THE COURT ARE TO REMAIN IMPARTIAL AND
17

18 PROTECT AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN THE

19
BILL OF RIGHTS.
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-4
 1 IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE
2
ADJUDICATOR IS FORBIDDEN FROM PRACTICING LAW FROM THE
3

4 BENCH.
5

6 IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE

7
LAWYER FOR THE CLAIMANT CANNOT ESTABLISH JURISDICTION
8

9 FOR THE CLAIMANT BECAUSE THE LAWYER IS A THIRD PARTY AND

10
CANNOT TESTIFY, THEREFORE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE
11
CLAIMANT TO ESTABLISH JURISDICTION BY INTRODUCING
12

13 EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS MADE IN PETITION.

14

15 WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT CAUSED BY

16
THE UNDERSIGNED TO SUPPORT CLAIMS MADE IN PETITION THIS
17

18 COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND MUST REMAIN IMPARTIAL

19
AND DISMISS THIS MATTER IMMEDIATELY FOR LACK OF
20

21
JURISDICTION.

22

23

24

25

26

-5
 1 28 USC SECTION 2072(b) “Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge
2
or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of
3

4 no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.”

5

8
28 USC SECTION 2072(b) STATES THAT THIS COURT
9
CANNOT CREATE OR ENFORCE RULES WHICH MAY OR SHALL
10

11 ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, OR MODIFY ANY SUBSTATIVE RIGHTS.

12

13 THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO

14
PRESCRIBE GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE.
15

16
IN U.S. SUPREME COURT MATTER LUJAN, SECRETARY OF
17

18 THE INTERIOR v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992) THE
19
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE
20

21 PETITIONER/CLAIMANT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOWING AN

22
ACTUAL INJURY IN FACT CAUSED BY THE RESPONDENT, WHEREBY
23

24

25

26

-6
 1 THERE S THE LIKLIHOOD THE COURT CAN PROPERLY REDRESS AND
2
REMEDY THE MATTER BASED UPON THE FACTS BEFORE THE COURT.
3

7 THE PETITIONER MUST INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF AN

8
INJURY IN FACT CAUSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED [YOUR NAME]
9
PROVING CLAIM THAT RESPONDENT OWES DEBT FOR CHILD
10

11 SUPPORT GIVING COURT JURISDICTION TO ACT IN ANY

12
MEANINGFUL WAY
13

14
BEFORE THIS COURT ACTS, IT MUST PRESENT PROOF OF
15

16 JURISDICTION ARISING FROM PETITIONER INTRODUCING EVIDENCE

17
OF AN INJURY IN FACT CAUSED BY NON-PAYMENT OF SUPPORT AND
18

19
DEBT FOR SUPPORT.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-7
 1 WITHOUT PROOF OF EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY
2
CLAIMANT OF AN INJURY IN FACT CAUSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED
3

4 THE COURT CANNOT PROCEED AND MUST DISMISS MATTER.

5

6 FURTHER, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

7
HAS HELD ANY JUDGMENT ISSUED BY A NON-JUDICIAL PERSON IS
8

9 VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. FURTHER THE SUPREME COURT IN

10
LUJAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et
11
al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992) HAS HELD A PETITION TO THE COURT MUST
12

13 SHOW EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT CAUSED BY THE

14
RESPONDENT WHEREBY THERE IS THE LIKLIHOOD THE COURT CAN
15

16 PROPERLY REDRESS AND REMEDY THE MATTER BASED UPON THE

17
FACTS BEFORE THE COURT.
18

19
“The proposition that the judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction is
20

21
void traces back to the English Year Books, see Bowser v. Collins, Y. B. Mich. 22

22 Edw. IV, f. 30, pl. 11, 145 Eng. Rep. 97 (Ex. Ch. 1482), and was made settled law
23

24

25

26

-8
 1 by Lord Coke in Case of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke Rep. 68b, 77a, 77 Eng. Rep.
2
1027, 1041 (K. B. 1612). Traditionally that proposition was embodied in the
3

4 phrase coram non judice, "before a person not a judge" — meaning, in effect, that
5
the proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful judicial
6

7
authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a judgment. American

8 courts invalidated, or denied recognition to, judgments that violated this common-
9
law principle long before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. See, e. g.,
10

11 Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 40 (1814); Picquet v. Swan, 19 F. Cas. 609 (No.

12
11,134) (CC Mass. 1828); Dunn v. Dunn, 4 Paige 425 (N. Y. Ch. 1834); Evans v.
13
Instine, 7 Ohio 273 (1835); Steel v. Smith, 7 Watts & Serg. 447 (Pa. 1844);
14

15 Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 336, 350 (1850). In Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S.

16
714, 732 (1878), we announced that the judgment of a court lacking personal
17

18 jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as

19
well.”- Burnham v. Superior Court 495 U.S. 604 (1990)
20

21
“Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible
22

23 constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff

24

25

26

-9
 1 must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally protected interest
2
which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S.
3

4 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);[1]
5
and (b) "actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' " Whitmore, supra,
6

7
at 155(quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there

8 must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—
9
the injury has to be "fairly. . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant,
10

11 and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before
12
the court." Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare 561*561 Rights Organization, 426 U. S.
13
26, 41-42 (1976). Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative,"
14

15 that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43.” LUJAN,
16
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504
17

18 U.S. 555 (1992)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 10
 1 A MONEY JUDGMENT ISSUED BY A NON-JUDICIAL PERSON
2
IS WITHOUT THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS A MONEY JUDGMENT
3

4 ISSUED BY A COURT OF PROPER JURISDICTION.

5

6 UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

7
AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW REQUIRES A VENUE OF PROPER
8

9 JURISDICTION BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL JUDICIAL ADJUDICATOR WITH

10
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ARISING FROM EVIDENCE IN
11
SUPPORT OF CLAIM INTRODUCED BY CLAIMANT.
12

13

14
THE 14TH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST STATE

15 STATUTES THAT DEPRIVE THE 7TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRIAL BY

16
JURY.
17

18

19
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE UNDER 14TH AMENDMENT

20 REQUIRES AN IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATOR WITHOUT A PECUNIARY

21
INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME
22

23

24

25

26

- 11
 1 A NON-JUDICIAL PERSON PRESIDING OVER A TITLE IV-D
2
SUPPORT MATTER IS NOT AN IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATOR BECAUSE
3

4 THE SALARY OF THE NON-JUDICIAL PERSON IS PAID FROM TITLE IV-

5
D FEDERAL INCENTIVE FUNDS. “But it certainly violates the Fourteenth
6

7
Amendment, and deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law, to

8 subject his liberty or property to the judgment of a court the judge of which has a
9
direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against
10

11 him in his case.”- TUMEY v OHIO 273 U.S. 510 (1927) Supreme Court of United
12
States.
13

14
THEREFORE, THE NON-JUDICIAL PERSON CANNOT BE AN
15

16 IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATOR AS GUARANTEED BY THE 14TH

17
AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE NON-JUDICIAL PERSON BENEFITS EVERY
18
TIME A SUPPORT ORDER IS RENDERED AND PAID THROUGH A TITLE
19

20 IV-D COLLECTION AGENCY AND DEPOSITED INTO STATE OR LOCAL

21
TREASURY WHERE SALARY IS PAID FROM.
22

23

24

25

26

- 12
 1 A NON-JUDICIAL PERSON CORAM NON JUDICE IS
2
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO PRESIDE OVER A TRIAL BY JURY FOR
3

4 ANY CONTROVERSY MORE THAN $20 AS GUARANTEED BY THE 7TH

5
AMENDMENT, THEREFORE THIS MATTER MUST BE DISMISSED WITH
6

7
PREJUDICE.

9 DEMAND CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF

10
INTRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER WITH DATE OF
11
INTRODUCTION INTO THE COURT AND EXHIBIT NUMBER OR
12

13 LETTER ABBREVIATION
14

15

16

17
THE COURT’S JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THIS DEMAND TO
18

19
VACATE MUST BE CLARIFIED BY EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION

20 INTRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING SUFFERING FROM AN

21
INJURY IN FACT.
22

23

24

25

26

- 13
 1 WITHOUT PROOF OF EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE
2
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER, A DISMISSAL OF THIS DEMAND IS VOID FOR
3

4 BEING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

5

6 A DISMISSAL MUST SHOW THE CITATION OF THE

7
EVIDENCE WITH DATE AND EXHIBIT NUMBER OR LETTER
8

9 ABREVIATION INTRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 14
 1 _____________________________
2

3
[YOUR NAME]
4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].

17

18

19 Your Nmae
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 15