1n rv.

TL^ -:-^^tition rLlc rrilPUJ

of
V.

such
(1 a^r UALIL

if he does not speci Ff nnlltt the tender. Warner 22L Cal App2d 797. 11. The offeror should be permitted to remedy any defect that is in the tender. The offerree is therefore not allowed to remain silent at the time of the tender & later surprise the offerror with hidden objeccions. Thompson v. Carr, 250 Cal.
App.2d
797
.

conditions is waived by the offerree point out the alleged defects in

L2| A tender need not be kept good when it appears that it will not be accepted. Hossom v. City of Long Beach 189 F.2d
787, 83 CA 384 (1948).

13. By failure to object to a tender as a mode of offer, the n.art- rr t- n r^zhnm the tender is made waives the grounds f or obj ections which he had an opportunity to state at the time & could then have been obvious... Smith v. Central & Pacific Imp. Corp. L87 p. 456, 45 Cal. 384 (f9f9). L4. "Our rights to make offer of Voluntary Contract; Your rights to contract or refuse said contract." Hale v. Hinkel, 20L U.S. 43 at 89 (1906). "The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Di-'r^+^ a \/ILIrCl,l.. ^ 'itLzen. He J-b tjIILJ-LIgLI r\!5llLD 4D earrv vrr rr!o Pe:f:;UlId-I IIC is entitled to e@!!) on his ^^-^^-''l LU business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his Neighbor to divulge his hrrcinocc nr to open his door to an invesLigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of hic 1ifa.t* nr3p.g1'ty." His Rights are such as existed by the r-'

laws of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organLzation nf t-l'ro Qrot-a & can only be taken from him by due process of 1^.., ^-r raw, ano -i* accordance with the constitution." "He owes nothing ln to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.
vuseut

15. "Jurisdiction must be determined entirely form the pleading, & if jurisdiction is not established by the pleadings, the court is not to proceed further." McKinnev v. city of Eldorado, Ark.
284 (L992).

L6, officers of the court have no rmmunity, when violating a constitutional Right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the Law. Maine v. Thibodeau, 100 S.C.R. 2502.

provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Main v. Thiboutot, 100 (Thibode au? ) S. CT . 2542 (t980 ) 2, Where there is absence of proof of jurisidction, oLl administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity, & confer no rights, offer no protection, & afford no justification, & may be rejected upon direct collateral attack. Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. L57, 7 L.ED 381, Griffith v. FrazLer, 8 Cr 9, 3 L.ED. 47L. 3. Once jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Hagens v. Lavine, 4L5 U.S. 533 note 3. 4. No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction. Starrdard v. Olsen, 74 S.CT. 168, Title 5 U.S.C. S 588(B). 5. Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. , 495 F.2d 906 at 910 .

l.

Law

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 569 at 564, Because the coilImon law is not a source of jurisdiction in the circuiL courts, nor in any other Federal court. Circuit courts have no cofi)monlaw 3urisdiction of offenses of arry grade or description; & it is equally clear that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supr:eme Court does not extend to any case or any question, in a case not within the turisdiction of Lhe subordinate Federal courts. State v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 13 How. 563; U.S. v. Hudson, t &1., 7 Cranch,32.

6.

1. The proponent of the Rule has the burden of proof. TitLe 5 U. S. C. Sec. 556 (d) 8. Offer tendered and refused is obligation satisfied. U.S. v. Lee, f06 U.S. L96, (1,882) 9. A tender is an offer with intent to extinguish the obligation when properly made. It has the effect of putting the other party in default if he refuses to accept. Weisenberg v. Hischburn, 275 P 997,79 Cal 532. LoverLo v. Steers, 234 CAl. App.2d 534,
.

298 Pzd 587.

-1