Talk:De bene esse

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Deletion of reference

Since this page seems to be staying for the time being, I deleted the reference to Wallen, Sui Juris, as per Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. I've given a longer explanation for this deletion in the discussion regarding this page's deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/De_bene_esse. Still don't get it or disagree? Contact me via my talk page. Phlyght (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article a bit: I removed the Sovereign Citizen nonsense (which asserted a contractual obligation to enter an appearance in a legal proceeding, jurisdiction by consent, and a requirement that the government produce a victim's signed complaint before proceeding with a prosecution). I added instead an explanation about the historical use and obsolescence of the procedure while acknowledging that it seems to have some currency in Sovereign Citizen circles. I cited the Wallen reference as an example; hopefully that's permissible?

As to the Sovereign Citizen claims: A special appearance of the kind discussed in Farmers Trust absolutely did not prevent the court from having jurisdiction over the defendant; it merely allowed him to argue that the court lacked jurisdiction while preserving his right, should he lose that argument, to walk away from the case and contest the original court's jurisdiction again in his home state when the plaintiff tried to execute the default judgment. (By comparison, a defendant who participates fully in a proceeding is said to have consented to the court's jurisdiction and won't be allowed to argue later that the court lacked jurisdiction.)

Rebbing (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]