Would it make any difference to you and your opinions if I did? By all means claim it doesn't apply, keep moaning about all your suits being laughed out of court, and blame it all on a big conspiracy. I won't try and stop you.
You made the allegation that it did apply not me. I expect you to back it up instead of slinking off into the darkness...While you are at it please explain the difference between a procedural error and jurisdictional one and how that (and fraud) apply to the instant situation
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=2000app%5Cct112415&invol=1
We conclude that the issue presented here, as in Glidden v. Zdanok, supra, concerns both a nonfrivolous constitutional question and a strong policy regarding the proper administration of judicial business. Although the appointment of the county court judge here, not in accordance with statutory, constitutional, or chief justice directive provisions, may be regarded by some as a technical defect, at bottom, it concerns the fundamental interest of litigants in ensuring that "qualified county court judges" will be called upon to serve as acting district court judges "when necessary and when funds are available." See Chief Justice Directive 95-01. This consideration leads us to adhere to our prior decision and conclude that the proper appointment of a county court judge to act as a district court judge presents a jurisdictional question. Therefore, the de facto judge doctrine does not apply, and the judgment cannot stand.