No. 18-620

Jamahl Harim Simmons v. Pennsylvania

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2018-11-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: 14th-amendment civil-rights collateral-attack constitutional-challenge due-process foreign-state jurisdiction personal-jurisdiction sovereign-immunities sovereign-immunities-act subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
DueProcess Securities Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2019-01-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the state trial court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented for Review The State Trial Court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction for the reasons below. , 1. This Court, and all public offices, is defined under FRCP Rule 4G) as a FOREIGN STATE; and as defined under TITLE 28 — JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE. The Sovereign i Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 is a United States law, codified at Title 28 §§§ 1330, 1332, 1391, 1441(a) and 1602-1611, and is being jurisdictionally challenged, and “full . disclosure” of the “true” jurisdiction of the State Trial Court has been asked but has stayed “silent”? ii ; ; 2. Any failure to disclose the true jurisdiction is a . : : ; violation of 15 Statutes at Large. For this was : / . passed to remove the people of the United ' E | States of ‘America from the federal citizenship , under the 14th amendment. Chapter 249 (Section I), enacted July 27, 1868? ; 8. It is the Prosecutor’s responsibility to p rove a ; | court has subject matter. jurisdiction, and , : where a Prosecutor arbitrarily claims the court has jurisdiction, he is violating the defendant’s right to due process of the law. It is, in fact, the ; prosecutor's . responsibility to prove, on the ; : record that jurisdiction exists, and jurisdiction " : . ean be challenged at any time, even years later, ; ; . ; and even collaterally, as in a_ private administrative process, as was done herein. It is the petitioner's right to challenge ; . jurisdiction, and it is the ; duty to prove it exist. The respondent herein -Was given the opportunity (multiple times) to prove the facts of jurisdiction on the administrative record, but was acquiesced by ; ; tacit__procuration to the fact thatthe } constitutional and due process violations | alleged by the petitioner did, in fact occur, and did, in fact, deprive the court of the subject ; matter jurisdiction, which is now the record . before the court? ; 4. That it is not the prosecutor’s duty and ; obligation to provide ALL of the facts that iv : establish the court’s jurisdiction, and place __ them upon the record even in a collateral attack against jurisdiction? v

Docket Entries

2019-01-14
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.
2018-11-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 14, 2018)
2018-10-19
Application (18A415) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until November 13, 2018.
2018-10-10
Application (18A415) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 14, 2018 to November 13, 2018, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Jamahl Harim Simmons
Jamahl Harim Simmons — Petitioner
Jamahl Harim Simmons — Petitioner