William Duff filed a motion to dismiss three cases (#2243354-4, #2243355-1, and #2243356-9) brought against him by the City of Kansas City, Missouri. He asserts his sovereign immunity and argues that the court, being a non-common law court, does not have jurisdiction over him without his consent. Duff previously filed an answer on June 22, 2007 refusing consent, which the plaintiff failed to rebut. Therefore, Duff demands that the court dismiss the plaintiff's actions as it has no capacity to proceed without his consent.
William Duff filed a motion to dismiss three cases (#2243354-4, #2243355-1, and #2243356-9) brought against him by the City of Kansas City, Missouri. He asserts his sovereign immunity and argues that the court, being a non-common law court, does not have jurisdiction over him without his consent. Duff previously filed an answer on June 22, 2007 refusing consent, which the plaintiff failed to rebut. Therefore, Duff demands that the court dismiss the plaintiff's actions as it has no capacity to proceed without his consent.
William Duff filed a motion to dismiss three cases (#2243354-4, #2243355-1, and #2243356-9) brought against him by the City of Kansas City, Missouri. He asserts his sovereign immunity and argues that the court, being a non-common law court, does not have jurisdiction over him without his consent. Duff previously filed an answer on June 22, 2007 refusing consent, which the plaintiff failed to rebut. Therefore, Duff demands that the court dismiss the plaintiff's actions as it has no capacity to proceed without his consent.
William Duff filed a motion to dismiss three cases (#2243354-4, #2243355-1, and #2243356-9) brought against him by the City of Kansas City, Missouri. He asserts his sovereign immunity and argues that the court, being a non-common law court, does not have jurisdiction over him without his consent. Duff previously filed an answer on June 22, 2007 refusing consent, which the plaintiff failed to rebut. Therefore, Duff demands that the court dismiss the plaintiff's actions as it has no capacity to proceed without his consent.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf
You are on page 1/ 2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY MUNICIPAL DIVISION -
COURT ROOM A
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI )
Plaintiff ) Vs ) case # 224335,4-4 and 2243355-1 and ) 2243356-9 William Duff ) Defendant ) SEP 0 4 2007 Motion to Dismiss Comes now. William Duff in special appearance sui juris, asserting his sovereigr immunity from all restraint respecting the actions complained of in this action does declare as follows, to wit:
William Duff does not consent to this venue or subject matter incident thereto; This court, being a nici prius court and not a court proceeding according to the common law, has no capacity to acquire in personam jurisdiction without first acquiring defendants consent, (see Ramsay vs. Allegre 12 wall 611 , 47 US 344 deciding upon Admiralty or Chancery capacity to acquire jurisdiction of the person), and; William Duff does not consent and has maintained position seamlessly. No evidence or issue appearing on the record of this court exists to the contrary, even in the face of plaintiffs claims, defendant's refusal to consent is represented in DEFENDANT ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO., CASE #'s 2243354-4 and 2243355-1 and 2243356-9 filed in this action June 22, 2007 and not rebutted to date, to which plaintiff has failed to rebut. WHEREFORE, William Duff, demands this court dismiss Plaintiffs actions as a matter of law and as plaintiff has failed to prosecute, and in that this court has no capacity to proceed upon the instant matters without defendant's consent.
Norte & Co. v. Defiance Industries, Inc., and R. L. Huffines, JR., Victor Muscat, L F. Serrick, Alfred O'Gara and Edward Krock, 319 F.2d 336, 2d Cir. (1963)
