Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris
Arizona state Citizen
c/o General Delivery
Amado, Arizona state
zip code exempt



In Propria Persona
By Special Appearance





                      IN THE JUSTICE COURT

                     FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA


STATE OF ARIZONA,            )       Case No. 96-CR-19-MI
                             )
     Plaintiff in Admiralty  )       NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
                             )
     v.                      )       PROOF OF JURISDICTION
                             )
Janet Mary, Wallen,          )
                             )
     Defendant at Law        )
_____________________________)


COMES NOW  the Accused,  Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris, a Citizen

of Arizona  state,  appearing  not  generally  but  specially  In

Propria Persona, to present this Her formal Notice and Demand for

written proof of jurisdiction over Her Proper Person and over the

subject matter in the above entitled case.

     Such written  proof must  be filed  in  the  official  Court

record for  this case, and it must also be properly served on the

Accused at  the lawful  mailing location shown at the upper left-

hand corner  of this Notice and Demand for Proof of Jurisdiction,

in order  to be  valid and  acceptable.   The Accused  explicitly

reserves her  fundamental Right  to rebut any and all allegations

stated in the required written proof of jurisdiction.


          Notice and Demand for Proof of Jurisdiction:
                           page 1 of 2


     "The law  requires proof  of jurisdiction  to appear  on the

record  of  the  administrative  agency  and  all  administrative

proceedings."  Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.  "Therefore, it is

necessary that  the record  present  the  fact  establishing  the

jurisdiction of  the tribunal."   Lowe  v. Alexander,  15 C  296,

People v. Board of Delegates of S.F. Fire Dept., 14 C 479.

     Where  jurisdiction   is  denied  and  squarely  challenged,

jurisdiction cannot  be assumed  to exist "sub silentio" but must

be proven.  Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 533, n. 5;  Monell v.

N.Y., 436  U.S. 633.   Mere  "good faith" assertions of power and

authority (jurisdiction)  have been  abolished.  Owen v. Indiana,

445 U.S.  622;   Butz v.  Economou, 438  U.S. 478;   Bivens  v. 6

Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388.

     "It is  an elementary  rule of  pleading, that a plea to the

jurisdiction is  the first in the order of pleading, and that any

plea which  refers to  the court  any other  question, is a tacit

admission that the court has a right to judge the cause, and is a

waiver to all exceptions to the jurisdiction."  Birty v. Logan, 6

Bush Ky. 8.

     Until  such   time  as  written  proof  of  jurisdiction  is

demonstrated and  filed in  the Court  record of  this case,  the

Accused shall  be entitled  to the  conclusive  presumption  that

lawful jurisdiction is lacking In Personam and In Rem.


Dated:  March 15, 1996


Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Janet Mary Wallen

Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris
Arizona state Citizen

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


          Notice and Demand for Proof of Jurisdiction:
                           page 2 of 2


                             #  #  #
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Arizona v. Wallen