Court Opinion

ID: 9572569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:42:50.361249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:31.223903
License: Public Domain

*550EICH, C.J.
(dissenting). Graf makes two arguments on this appeal: (1) the trial court "committed reversible error by failing to respond to appellant's jurisdictional challenges"; and (2) the court "did not have the power and authority to hear a case concerning a church's property."
The first argument may be summarized in Grafs own words as follows: "By failing to respond to the challenge to its authority to hear and decide the case,1 the court — in essence — 'demurred to the law' and accepted [sic] to properly pleaded jurisdictional challenge."
Grafs second argument, supported by references to the Bible, is that the court lacked authority to hear a case concerning a church's property because the property "belongs to Jesus Christ"; and since "Jesus Christ is God," and God is "sovereign over all governments, God has sovereign immunity . . . and is not subject to suit."
Summarized, Grafs position is that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because her church is exempt from taxation. The burden of showing that property is exempt from taxation is on the party seeking the exemption. Sisters of St. Mary v. City of Madison, 89 Wis. 2d 372, 379, 278 N.W.2d 814, 817 (1979).
In my view, Graf has not met that burden. The majority, by searching out and analyzing some fifteen cases and various other authorities — none of them cited or discussed anywhere in Grafs briefs to the court — does *551it for her. I would not. I would give her pro se status every consideration, but I would affirm the judgment.2

I agree that we can and should make "reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training." Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983). It is one thing, however, to make "reasonable allowances" for a party's pro se status, and quite another to build the case for him or her, brick by brick.

 Grafs "challenge to the court's jurisdiction," in its entirety, is as follows: " (1) That neither the county, nor the treasurer have jurisdiction to tax a church; (2) That the church could not be forced to pay a tax since that would intrude upon the Sovereignty of God; and (3) That the trial court had no jurisdiction over this case."