Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755, U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California, United States of America
In my own right, without the assistance of counsel.
No telephone service maintained.
[Date]

COUNTY OF NEVADA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
201 Church Street, Suite 10
Nevada City, CA 95959

RE: Notice of Appearance in relation to Citation/Notice To Appear # ______________

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

(an administrative agency)

doing business as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF NEVADA

(a fictitious business)

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;	|	Case number [?]
DOE(S) 1-100	|	Notice of Special Appearance;
	|	Statement of Facts;
versus	|	Reservation of Rights;
	|	Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
THOMAS M. THORNHILL, III	|	Proof of Service by Mail.
(a juristic person)	|
	|	at: 201 Church Street
	|	Nevada City, California
	|	Date: [ ]
	|	Time: [ ]
__________________________________________________	/

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSON(S) and his/her/its attorney(s) that I Specially Appear in my own right and for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the forum over myself because of the failure of the potential opposing party to make personal Service upon me concerning this potential proceeding.

3.a. It is an undisputed Fact that, to date, the potential opposing party has failed/neglected to Serve upon me, either in person or by mail, a valid Summons and verified Complaint.

3.b. Should said potential opposing party continue to fail/neglect to Serve upon me a valid Summons and verified Complaint prior to the scheduled time set out above, I will agree with said potential opposing party that said potential opposing party has no valid Complaint, will accept said opposing party's default, and will accept estoppel of said potential opposing party's Claim/Complaint.

3.c. At that time, I will go about my private affairs because said potential opposing party will have defaulted upon its obligation to establish in the Record that: (1) there is any valid Complaint and (2) said forum has acquired any valid subject matter or personal jurisdiction over me.

4.a. I am a natural born, adult, white Man, one of the People of the United States of America and one of the People of California. I physically live in Nevada county, California, one of the member states of the constitutional republic, the United States of America.

4.b. I am not a trained or licensed Attorney. Of necessity, I am acting at all times within my fundamental right to defend my life, liberty, property, safety, happiness, and privacy as set out in THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (2003), Art. 1, Sec. 1 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./.const/.article_1 [as of September 18, 2003]):

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

4.e. I do not own a business which is registered into either THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or THE COUNTY OF NEVADA.

4.f. I am not registered to vote in either THE COUNTY OF NEVADA or THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

4.g. I reasonably infer that I am not knowingly a RESIDENT of either THE COUNTY OF NEVADA or of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

5.b. I do NOT waive my right to timely personal Service of a valid Summons and verified Complaint on me prior to the scheduled court date.

5.c. I do NOT waive my right to timely personal Notice of all subsequent proceedings of which notice is required to be given.

5.d. I do not wive my right to fully responsive and timely Discovery from the potential opposing party.

5.e. I do NOT waive my right to a complete and accurate recordation of the potential proceeding by a competent court reporter.

5.f. I do NOT waive my right to a Probable Cause hearing to determine the legitimacy of my citation/detention/arrest, before an impartial, unbiased, and competent magistrate, prior to Arraignment.

5.g. I do NOT waive my right to an Arraignment before an impartial, unbiased, and competent magistrate.

5.h. I do NOT waive my right to an adjudication before an impartial, unbiased, and competent jury of my peers.

5.i. I do NOT waive my right to the assistance of competent counsel and I do NOT consent to "representation" by any attorney.

5.j. I do NOT waive time to answer, demur, or otherwise plead or move, should a potential Summons and verified Complaint actually be served and filed.

5.k. I do NOT consent that this potential matter be heard as an uncontested matter.

5.l. I do NOT consent that this potential matter should be submitted to a referee.

5.m. I do NOT waive my rights to (1) written findings of fact and conclusions of law by the forum, (2) a motion for a new trial, and (3) an appeal.

6.a. West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. (2002), § 1014 (emphasis added) reads:

A defendant appears in an action when the defendant answers, demurs, files a notice of motion to strike, files a motion to transfer pursuant to Section 396b, moves for reclassification pursuant to Section 403.040, gives the plaintiff written notice of appearance, or when an attorney gives notice of appearance for the defendant. After appearance, a defendant or defendant's attorney is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings of which notice is required to be given. Where a defendant has not appeared, service of notice or papers need not be made upon the defendant.

"Appearance" is defined by Bouvier to be "a coming into court as a party to a suit, whether as plaintiff or defendant; the formal proceeding by which a defendant submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court"; while the word "defend" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows: "To contest and endeavor to defeat a claim or demand against one in a court of justice."
Boehmer v. Big Rock Irr. Dist. (1897), 117 Cal. 19, 28; 48 Pac. 908.

The words "answer" and "appear" are not synonymous. To construe the word "answer" as used in section 581a as including every "appearance" would amount to judicial legislation, which is beyond the authority of the court. Section 437 Code of Civil Procedure provides that "The answer of the defendant shall contain: 1. A general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant. 2. A statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim." ... Section 1014 of the same code provides that "A defendant appears in an action when he answers, demurs, or gives the plaintiff written notice of his appearance, or when an attorney gives notice of an appearnce for him." This section makes it plain that, although an answer is an appearance, an appearance is not necessarily an answer.
(emphasis added) Schultz v. Schultz (1945), 70 Cal.App.2d 293, 298-299; 161 P.2d 36.

No Court or officer can acquire jurisdiction by the mere assertion of it, or by falsely alleging the facts on which jurisdiction depends [cites omitted]...
Mulligan v. Smith (1881), 59 Cal. 206, 236.

[1] Jurisdiction of the person is obtained by the legal service of a valid process issued out of a court of competent jurisdiction in a case or proceeding properly pending, or by a party voluntarily appearing, or by his seeking, taking or agreeing to some act or step in the proceeding or action to his benefit, or to the detriment of the other party, other than by one contesting the jurisdiction over his person only. (Sec. 1014, Code Civ. Proc; Chaplin v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 367 [253 Pac. 954]; Grinbaum v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 528 [221 Pac. 635].)...
In the case of Olcese v. Justice's Court, 156 Cal. 82 [103 Pac. 317, 318], Mr. Justice Henshaw has clearly stated the law as follows: "Pleas based upon lack of jurisdiction of the person are in their nature pleas in abatement and find no especial favor in the law. They amount to no more that the declaration of the defendant that he has had actual notice, is actually in court in a proper action, but, for informality in the service of process, is not legally before the court. It is a purely dilatory plea, and when a defendant is seeking to avail himself of it, he must, for very obvious reasons, stand upon his naked legal right and seek nothing further from the court than the enforcement of that right. He will not be heard to ask of the court anything further than an adjudication upon his plea, and if he does ask anything further, then, by the logic of the fact, he must necessarily have waived the irregularity of his summons before the court. Here is one reason for the well-settled rule that if a defendant wishes to insist upon the objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person, he must specially appear for that purpose only, and must keep out for all purposes except to make that objection. ... So it is well-settled that if a defendant, under such circumstances, raises any other question, or asks for any relief which can only be granted under the hypothesis that the court has jurisdiction of his person, his appearance is general, though termed special, and he thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court as completely as if he had been regularly served with summons."
(emphasis added) Gulick v. Justice's Court (1929), 101 Cal.App. 619, 622-624; 281 Pac. 1031.

[2] A court cannot, by presuming to act, invest itself with jurisdiction. Therefore it is proper to inquire into the record, but solely to determine that question.
Mannix v. Superior Court (1933) 133 Cal.App. 740, 743; 24 P.2d 507.

No court or tribunal can acquire jurisdiction by the mere assertion of it or where the facts on which jurisdiction depends are falsely alleged. Jurisdiction in any proceeding is conferred by the constitution or by statute, and any mode thereby prescribed for the acquisition of jurisdiction must be strictly complied with. As noted previously, jurisdiction in a particular case may involve three different aspects--jurisdiction over the cause or subject matter, jurisdiction over the parties, and jurisdiction over the thing, or res, if any.

Jurisdiction of the person may be acquired in several ways, the most common being service of process. Thus, by statutory provision, the court in which an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the time summons is served on him as provided by statute, continuing throughout subsequent proceedings in the action. Numerous cases have reinterated the principle that jurisdiction of the person is acquired on due service of the summons and a copy of the complaint, or from the time publication of summons is complete, or on a voluntary general appearance. The purpose of personal service of notice or summons is to apprise a defendant of the commencement of an action against him and of its nature, so that within a specified time he may act with reference thereto. ... However, jurisdiction in a civil case cannot be obtained over one who is forcefully brought within the territorial limits of the court.

8.b. That potential interpretation, construction, or presumption is unreasonable. My reasonable understanding and knowing intent of my Promise to Appear is merely to be physically present at the place and time set out above to be informed of what, if anything, a potential opposing party might want with me.

8.c. It is my reasonable intention that this Notice of Special Appearance constitutes my full, complete, and total performance of my Promise to Appear and completely discharges any and all obligation(s) which the court may presume against me.

9.a. There is a possibility that the forum may interpret, construe, or presume my Promise to Appear as a recognizance, so I researched 'recognizance'.

9.b.1. BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY Baldwin's Students Ed. (1946), pp. 1031-1032, reads (in part):

RECOGNIZANCE. An obligation of record, entered into before a court or officer duly authorized for that purpose, with a condition to do some act required by law which is therein specified. 2 Bla. Com. 341. See 49 Fed. Rep. 776; ...
The object of a recognizance is to secure the presence of the defendant to perform or suffer judgment of the court. ...
Who may take. In civil cases recognizances are generally taken by the court; ... or by some judge of the court in chambers, though other magistrates may be authorized therefor by statute, and are in many of the states; ...
In criminal cases the judges of the various courts of criminal jurisdiction and justices of the peace may take recognizances; ... the sheriff in some cases; ... but in case of capital crimes the power is restricted usually to the court of supreme jurisdiction....
In cases where a magistrate has the power to take recognizances it is his duty to do so, exercising a judicial discretion, however; ... In form it is a short memorandum on the record, made by the court, judge, or magistrate having authority, which need not be signed by the party to be found; The formal mode of noting a discharge is by entering an exoneration; 5 Binn. 332; 1 Johns. Cas. 829; It is indespensible to a legal default that the principal in the recognizance should have been regularly called, and, upon such call, failed to appear; 24 Ill. App. 72 ...

RECOGNIZANCE. An obligation of record, entered into before some court of record, or magistrate duly authorized, with condition to do some particular act; as to appear at the assizes, or criminal court, to keep the peace, to pay a debt, or the like. It resembles a bond, but differs from it in being an acknowledgment of a former debt upon record. 2 Bl.Comm. 341; ...
In criminal cases, a "bail bond" is a contract under seal, executed by the accused, and from its nature requires sureties or bail, to whose custody he is committed, while a "recognizance" is an obligation of record, entered into before some court or magistrate authorized to take it, on condition to do some particular act, and a prisoner is often allowed to obligate himself to answer to the charge. State v. Bradsher, 189 N.C. 401, 127 S.E. 349, 351, 38 A.L.R. 1102.

recognizance. ... 1. A bond or obligation, made in court, by which a person promises to perform some act or observe some condition, such as to appear or observe some condition, such as to appear when called, to pay a debt, or to keep the peace. Most commonly, a recognizance takes the form of a bail bond that guarantees an unjailed criminal defendant's return for a court date [the defendant was released on his own recognizance]. See RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE.
...
personal recognizance. The release of a defendant in a criminal case in which the court takes the defendant's word that he or she will appear for a scheduled matter or when told to appear. This type of release dispenses with the necessity of the person's posting money or having a surety sign a bond with the court. ...

I Certify within the laws of California, that the foregoing is true, correct, and complete.

Signed: _______________________________________________

At: ___________________________________________________

Dated: ___________________________