Hello Hezekiah,
I've addressed this in another section. See below:
I've noticed this "apparent confusion" before. I don't know if the current discussion is applicable to what I'm about to say, but you need to consider this point.
The person bringing forth the claim, also brings forth the applicable law that's being used in the case. Therefore, if your opponent I bringing forth Negotiable Instruments under the UCC, then you can't argue Legislative Law. You can't mix Laws.
In the same sense that you can't go into a Bankruptcy Law case and argue Constitutional Law. They won't hear you.
Never assume the Law that's being used against you. You have the Right to have the courts clarify this before you proceed. So if the judge/administrator ask "Do you understand the charges against you?" You better say that you do not!
If you feel that the venue or subject matter jurisdiction is wrong, then you need to bring forth a counter-claim BEFORE the original claim is adjudicated. Once Adjudication begins, you have basically acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the court, and they will proceed against you.
But also remember, Subject Matter Jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime.
Both parties need to clarify their status, have standing, and there must be a controversy before the courts can adjudicate. Most people NEVER clarify their status and standing for the record. Therefore, the courts will presume it for you.
This is why I always use an Affidavit. Within this document, I declare both my status and standing for the record.
And as you should all know by now. An Affidavit MUST be rebutted point by point, or the other side admits to its claim.
Please don't ask me to define status and standing. Get a good Law Dictionary or examine the Corpus Juris Secundum for the definitions. This can be found at your local Federal Depository Libraries on the GPO website.
Good Luck
