Courts of Competent Jurisdiction

[ashman165]

Is it just me, or does the irony of this comment not stick out like a potato in a donut shop?

Oh please. The cop donut gag died years ago. Moreover, this is the Pacific Northwest; we're refined; we eat biscotis here.


That's quite the logical and relevant leap. If that's how you really feel, I recommend going back to sleep and pulling the covers tightly over your head.

It's no less relevant or logical than your assertion that because you say something is the case it is the case. Since you're not a judge having competent jurisdiction over this particular case, your views are only opinions on the matter, much like everyone else's here.

Hrm. Let's see: police officers don't practice police officering, but lawyers actually do practice lawyering. *snickers*

If he put the covers over his head and slept in again, there's no telling what would happen!

Carl! Please don't do it!

[Mercutio100]

It's no less relevant or logical than your assertion that because you say something is the case it is the case. Since you're not a judge having competent jurisdiction over this particular case, your views are only opinions on the matter, much like everyone else's here.

My barber has an opinion about heart surgery, but I think I'll stick with the surgeon's opinion.

"competent jurisdiction"? what is that? One either has jurisdiction or doesn't. Pass a bar exam, get a few trials involving child abuse issues under your belt, eat a few more biscottis, and we'll talk some more... but you have to promise to stay on subject and perhaps read some relevant case law first (especially when you ask for such)

[Mercutio100]

Nah, darn it, woke up late again. But, it's my day off.

In the end, the OP can choose to act as a CI or not. If they consider it, I suggest they speak to an attorney first.


- Carl

In the beginning, the question remains: can an officer legally barter not reporting a parent to CPS for suspected abuse/neglect in exchange for CI (or donut buying) services?

In the end, the answer remains: No. <---- that's a period

[ashman165]

My barber has an opinion about heart surgery, but I think I'll stick with the surgeon's opinion.

"competent jurisdiction"? what is that? One either has jurisdiction or doesn't. Pass a bar exam, get a few trials involving child abuse issues under your belt, eat a few more biscottis, and we'll talk some more... but you have to promise to stay on subject and perhaps read some relevant case law first (especially when you ask for such)

You ask what competent jurisdiction is and you claim to be a lawyer?

Yes, I see. Well, since you've added a period to your argument, your view must be supreme. And infallible.

[Mercutio100]

You ask what competent jurisdiction is and you claim to be a lawyer?

Yes, I see. Well, since you've added a period to your argument, your view must be supreme. And infallible.

Wow, I guess you got me there. You ARE a sharp one. Yes, "Competent Jurisdiction" is a legal expression, albeit redundant since a court either has jurisdiction to hear a matter or it doesn't. In conventional practice, if one is objecting to the ability of a court to hear a matter, one would simply assert that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear such and specify the type of jurisdiction that is required (e.g. subject matter jx, personal jx, etc.), not that it lacks "competent jurisdiction."

Supreme AND infallible? Wow, I wouldn't say that myself, but thank you!I didn't realize a punctuation mark had such significance.

By the way, did you read that case yet? Or pass that bar exam? Finish that biscotti at least?

I am strangely reminded of that "cool" kid in the back of the classroom who was quick to pick up on the A student's one or two mispellings or grammatical errors while ignoring his homework and wondering why he keeps getting C's on exams.

[aaron]

I disagree that "Competent jurisdiction" is redundant. Its use in a statute, for example, ensures that a party against whom the enforcement of an order is sought may raise the defense that the court issuing the order lacked jurisdiction, and similarly makes clear that somebody seeking legal relief must seek recourse through the proper court.

Consider for example:

Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights under State law, any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed, and the Indian child’s tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that such action violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.

or

Unless ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction the bank or trust company operating such common trust fund or funds shall not be required to render a courtaccounting with regard to such fund or funds; but it may, by application to the superior court, secure approval of such an accounting on such conditions as the court may establish. This section shall not affect the duties of the trustees of the participating trusts under the common trust fund to render accounts of their several trusts.

[Mercutio100]

I disagree that "Competent jurisdiction" is redundant. Its use in a statute, for example, ensures that a party against whom the enforcement of an order is sought may raise the defense that the court issuing the order lacked jurisdiction, and similarly makes clear that somebody seeking legal relief must seek recourse through the proper court.

Consider for exampler

From a practical and conventional standpoint, it is redundant. Whenever I present a motion in court to dismiss a matter or change venue based on lack of jurisdiction, I do not need to state that the court lacks "competent" jurisdiction. I may specifically assert that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, but I don't need to state that it lacks "competent" jurisdiction.

In fact, in your own statement, you express "an order is sought may raise the defense that the court issuing the order lacked jurisdiction" I don't see you stating "...the order lacked "competent" jurisdiction." It goes without saying, hence my point about redundancy. You may disagree that it's not redundant, but a court is not going to require such an expression in any motion or pleading.

Have you ever presented a motion relating to dismissing a case or changing venue based on the court not having jurisdiction?

[Mercutio100]

Perhaps I can simplify this a bit more.

Tell me the difference between:

"The court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter"

and

"The court lacks competent jurisdiction to hear this matter"

[ashman165]

[QUOTE=Mercutio100;257104]

You ARE a sharp one.

Yes, I am.

Yes, "Competent Jurisdiction" is a legal expression, albeit redundant since a court either has jurisdiction to hear a matter or it doesn't. In conventional practice, if one is objecting to the ability of a court to hear a matter, one would simply assert that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear such and specify the type of jurisdiction that is required (e.g. subject matter jx, personal jx, etc.), not that it lacks "competent jurisdiction."

You got me. I'll refrain from being technically correct in the future. The reason competent jurisdiction is used is because writing out a complete list of all types of jurisdiction a court may have is, well, tediously unnecessary.

Supreme AND infallible? Wow, I wouldn't say that myself, but thank you!I didn't realize a punctuation mark had such significance.

You made a big deal of pointing out that there was a period; the implication was clear.

I am strangely reminded of that "cool" kid in the back of the classroom who was quick to pick up on the A student's one or two mispellings or grammatical errors while ignoring his homework and wondering why he keeps getting C's on exams.

You mean the one "cool" kid in the back who knows that misspelling is spelled m-i-s-s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g, not m-i-s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g as you seem to think it is? Incidentally, I have once in my life made less than an A on anything. I infact made a C on an art test in grade school. After the rather prolonged spanking I received, never again did make such a low grade.

[Mercutio100]

[QUOTE=ashman165;257303]

You got me. I'll refrain from being technically correct in the future. The reason competent jurisdiction is used is because writing out a complete list of all types of jurisdiction a court may have is, well, tediously unnecessary.

Judge: Mr. Ashman, I see that your motion states that you are wishing to have this matter dismissed based on lack of "competent" jurisdiction?

Ashman, Esq: Yes, your excellency.

Judge: Well, what sort of jurisdiction is this court lacking?

Ashman, Esq: Competent jurisdiction.

Judge: What do you mean by competent jurisdiction?

Ashman, Esq: Well, it would be tediously unnecessary for me to write out a complete list of all the types of jurisdiction that this court has.

Judge: I'm not asking you to list all types of jurisdiction that this court has. If you're worried about unnecessary tasks, you actually don't even have to say that this court lacks competent jurisdiction. You can simply allege that the court lacks jurisdiction. "Competent jurisdiction" is redundant and tells me absolutely nothing as to the type of jurisdiction that this court supposedly lacks.

Ashman, Esq.: But it sounds cool, your excellency. Plus, my motion is otherwise brilliant and contains absolutely no typographical or grammatical errors.

Judge: Bailiff, please remove Mr. Ashman from my court room. I don't believe he's licensed to practice.

Ashman, Esq.: But your High Holiness! I watch reruns of the Practice and I'm a senior contributor to Expertlaw.com! I strenuously object!