Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Notice to the Court 6 30 2010

Notice to the Court 6 30 2010

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45|Likes:
Published by winona mae marzocco

More info:

Published by: winona mae marzocco on Dec 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/23/2011

pdf

text

original

 
State
of
New
York
l
County
of
Suffok
v
Purported Cause#
NN-16863-0
DEPARTMENT
OF
FAMILY
AND
CHILDREN'S SERVCES,Purported Plaintiff,
v.
Winona Palmiotti,Mother,.
NOTICE
TO THE
COURT
p
i"
-
r
Notice to thecourt underthe
authority
of theConstitutionand the
United
States Supreme Court
and
Demand this court
to follow theSupreme
Law of the Land:
k-.
-,
<"1
"
"
'-,.'
Adiudicative
facts
to
which there
is no
dispute:
^
-
COMES
NOW Winona Palmiotti without submitting to the
jurisdiction
ofthis court
to
hereby
put
this court
on
judicial
notice
to
cease
and
desist
anyfurther
unlawful assault againstme and mychild Winona
Piscitelli
WinonaPalmiotti, without submittingto theurisdictionofthis court, hereby challengesthejurisdiction
of
this court pursuant
to the
folowing facts
and
law.
You are
hereby
put
on
judicial
notice that
the
U.S.
Supreme Court
has
clearly established that
once
jurisdiction
has
been challenged,
it is
presumed that
the
court lacks
jurisdiction
unless or
until
the evidentiary sufficiency is provided and submitted to
the
record.
The
presumption
is
that
a
court lacks jurisdiction
on a
particular issue
until
it hasbeen demonstrated that jurisdiction overthesubject matter exists.The
facts
showing
the
existence
of
jurisdiction
must
be
affirmatively
in the
record.
If
 
jurisdiction
is challenged, the burden is on the party
claiming
jurisdiction todemonstrate that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The
limits
upon
jurisdiction must be neither disregarded nor evaded. The requirement tosubmit admissible evidence upon the record proving urisdiction once jurisdiction
is
challenged
is
mandatory.
The
Supreme Court
of the
United States
as
well
aslower
courts have consistently reaffirmed the requirement that once urisdiction ischallenged those who claim jurisdiction must submit the evidence to prove thevalidity
of the
claim.
See
Twining
v. New
Jersey,
211
U.S.
78, 29
S.Ct.
14, 24
(1908),
Old
Wayne Mutual Life Association
v.
McDonough,
204
U.S.
8, 27 S. Ct.
236
(1907),
Scott
v.
McNeal,
154
U.S.
34, 14,
S.Ct.
1108
(1894),
Pennoyer
v.
Neff,
95
U.S. 714,
733
(1877),
Hagen
v.
Lavine,
415
U.S. 528,
at
533,
39
L.ed.
577,
94
S.Ct/
1372 (N.Y. March
28,
1974),
United States
v.
Roger,
23 F. 658
(W.D.
Ark. (1885),
State
of
Maine
v.
Thiboutot,
448
U.S.
1, 100 S. Ct.
2502(1980),
McNutt
v.
General Motors Acceptane
Corp.
of
Indiana,
Inc.
,
298
U.S.
178,
80L.Ed.
1135,
56S.Ct.780(9136), (jurisdictionmayneverbepresumed),
Special Indemnity Fund
v.
Pruitt,
205
F.2d. 306,
201
Okl. 308, (jurisdiction must
be
affirmatively shown),
United States
c.
Chairito,
69 F.
Supp.
317 (D. Or.
1946)
(jurisdiction cannot
be
presumed),
Standard
v.
Olesen,
98
L.Ed.
1151,
74
S.Ct.
768
(1954),
Garcia
v
.Da//, 586
S.W.
2d.
524,
at
528, (Tex. C.A. 1980) (lack
of
jurisdiction requires dismissal),
Burks
v.
Laskar,
441
U.S.
471
(1979)
and
Title
5U.S.C.
S3
556 &
558(b).Generally there is no requirement for one subjected to a "vod" judgment to doanything more than call the
trial
court's attention to the mistake with a request
 
14. In a
filed Affidavit Winona
has
attempted
to
correct
the
record
by
presentingfactualevidence Exhibit 1 clerk stamped affidavit
filed
6/23/10
This court hasfailed to dispute Winona's claims.
15. In Re: May V
Anderson
(1953)345 US528, 533,73 S. Ct.
840,
843 97 L. Ed.
1221,1226;
this case invoved a mother stripped of her rights without the right to
utter
asingle wordin herdefense. This casewasreversed upon appeal.
16.
This instant case is similarly situated . I'm being stripped of my status as amother without
the
right
to
utter
a
single word
in my
defense. These
are
other
cases
that have held that the right of a parent to raise his children has long beenrecognized as a fundamental constitutional
right,
"far more precious than property
rights."
Stanley
v.
Illinos,
405
U.S. 645,
651
(1972), quoting
May v.
Anderson, 345,
U.S.528,533
(1953); Skinner
v.
Oklahoma,
316
U.S. 535, 541, (1942);Meyer
vNebraska, 262
U.S. 390,
399
(1923), See, e.q. Castigno
v
Whoean,
239
Conn.
336
(1996);
In re
Alexander
V., 223
Conn.
557 (1992).
17.
I was
forbidden
the
opportunity
to
prove that
the
court
did not
havejurisdiction.
I
challenge
the
provisional order that
I did not
agree
to
which
was
procured
under fraud, deceit and in the absence of all
jurisdiction.
That the UnitedStates Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any udge who actswithout
jurisdiction
is
engaged
in an act of
treason. U.S.
v.
Will,
449
U.S. 200, 216,
101, S. Ct,
471,
66
L.Ed.
2d
392,
406
(1980): Cohens
v.
Virginia,
19
U.S.
(6
Wheat) 264, 404,
5
L.Ed
257
(1821).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->